Timcast IRL - Cornell 7 BOMBSHELL, Jane Doe EXPOSED Defending Group Encounter w/ Chanel Rion

Episode Date: October 9, 2026

On this episode Tate & the crew are joined by Chanel Rion to discuss New texts dropping showing the Jane Doe of the Cornell 7 case defending the group encounter The Trump admin booting Microsoft and Adobe from the H1-B program Anthropic banning cruel behavior towards Claude The Pentagon announcing the firing squad execution of the Fort Hood shooter will be live streamed Hosts:  Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Chris @ChrisKarr17 (X) Libby @LibbyEmmons (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) https://carterbanks.komi.io Guest: Chanel Rion @ChanelRion (X) Chanel Rion is an American political broadcaster who previously served as One America News Network's chief White House correspondent and now hosts OAN's prime-time program "Fine Point with Chanel Rion."

New revelations in the Cornell 7 saga are here. Text messages have dropped. And there's a whole new element to the case. A lot of people are speculating it, but now we have some ammunition to back up our speculations. We're going to get into all of that. Jane Doe was defending the actions evidently in the text that have been revealed by TMZ. We're going to dive into all that fascinating stuff.

India's stock market is in total free fall. The Trump administration has slammed the door on many large tech companies' access to H-1B visas, their ability to recruit people from overseas and throw them on H-1B visa. And the Indian stock market is now collapsing. Now, if these people are such economic miracles, surely returning them to their country would create a stock market boom. So I'm no economics expert, but something is off here. I'm hoping the panel can help me figure out what is going on with the Indian H-1Bs. very interesting stuff.

And Pete Heck Seth has announced that there's going to be public executions coming back. Very exciting stuff. It was actually Jack Posobic with Human Events who got the scoop on that. We're going to discuss that and so much more. And you're probably looking at me

and you're saying, you're not Tim, you're not Phil. I'm out. I'm sure I'm out is whizzing on the right side of your screen. On the live chat, I say give us at least 10 minutes. I promise we have a great show for tonight. It's going to be fantastic stuff.

But before we get into today's news, I have to shout out this fantastic event coming up, which has taken our faithful leader away from us for the weekend. The Chicago Thinker with Tim Poole, this is going to be a rip-roaring intellectual gathering in Chicago. Tim Poole, Jack Pesobic's going to be there. It's going to be fantastic. If you are in the Chicago area or you just fancy a trip to Chicago this weekend,

grab you some tickets and get on up there. It is Friday at 4 p.m. University of Chicago. at the study of ancient cultures museum. Excellent stuff. Look, the tickets, that's a good deal for an evening with Tim Poole. Come on. It's going to be fantastic stuff. So head on over to the event bright.

I think we have the link in the description. Grab you a ticket if you're in the Chicago area. It's going to be a great show. And of course, as always, Cass brew coffee. Not even because I work here. It is just objectively the best coffee on the market. Fantastic stuff. We had Mary Morgan in the studio yesterday, which was fantastic.

Had seen her in a while. And of course, she came back just at the right time for Mary's Ghost Blend. It is the perfect autumn blend as we approach Halloween, a very spooky season, and it is met with an equally spooky bag. Her eyes are blackened in it, which is quite terrifying. So I'd recommend grabbing a bag of that, a smores flavor. We have some other fantastic blends on here. Let's see, we got the 1776 blend.

We got Ian's Graphene Dream. I mean, this is really some fantastic stuff. Ian's Graphene Dream. A problem solving, as always, he's approached the coffee industry with a solution to a major problem, which is high acidity. So fantastic stuff. But let's get into this show. We got a fantastic show.

We got an even better guest. Tonight, we are joined by Chanel Ryan. How are you doing? Great. Good to be here. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. A lot of people are going to say, oh, it's Chanel.

But maybe for those three or four people who aren't familiar with you, could you give a quick intro of who you are and what you do? Sure. If you watch One American News, you might see my show, Fine Point with Chanel Rion.

Libby Emmons is a frequent guest of ours. I am. I love coming on with you. It's my favorite. I was Chief White House correspondent for When American News for two years under Trump and two years under Biden, and it was a rollicking time. I then set up my alternative White House Correspondence Association, national White House Correspondence Association. On the side, I love to study AI in the conflicts with constitutional law. So I set up my own site. I'm the editor-in-chief of Founding Code, where we talk about the collision between AI and constitutional law in today's society. Beyond that, I got an ALB at Harvard for international relations, so I was not media trained, and I was not journalistic-trained, and then I have a JD from Regent Law. So that's my academic background. I come by way of Texas to D.C. I'm a reluctant swamp creature at this point. Well, we will be very reluctant.

With our DC plays. Well, thank you so much for joining us. Super excited. We have the great Libby Emmons. I'm hanging out with you guys tonight. Really glad to be here. Glad to be on with you, Chanel. I'm the editor with the Post-Millennial, and I host the Pod Millennial, the podcast that goes with the Post-Mennelial. We got a special treat for all Timcast's loyels here. We have the great Chris Carr. Chris, what's going on, dog? What's going on, guys? Christ is king and patriotism is slavery. So true. Well, thank you so much for joining.

I guess you got the fantastic shades on. Thank you. I'm trying to look half as cool as Carter does every single day. Oh, dude. I respect that. Well, Ian, too. Look at this. Look what I'm competing with.

I got to do something. Ian just got a bowl whip yesterday. Yeah, so be here on Saturday, and then we'll crack it together. You need any licenses or anything? You can just let it fly. I don't know. I didn't ask.

I should ask AI. Well, they sold it to you, right? Just need to go watch some reruns of Indiana Jones. Dude, I'm going to smoke pot and go out in my backyard and just crack the whip for, like, hours. I'm just going to crack it until I get so proficient at it that any moment I can just snap it. And that's when you're going to find the money changers in the temple. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. I want to flip some tables, dude. It's all coming together, Chris. Welcome. Chanel. Chanel was telling us how, like, pumped she was that Libby was on today. Dude, Chanel, it's nice to meet people that care about what you care about because we got about six months. I don't know.

Time skills are weird with AI and technology. Sometimes you think it's three months and it's 10. Sometimes you think it's going to be two years and it's one month. But I think we got about six months until our government, relies so heavily on AI that there's no going back. So we have a, we got to guide it constitutionally, at least legally, at least have, and morally. So I'm glad you're here. Let's talk about it. Let's get into all of that, but we got to get to the big news of the day from the post-millennial. Justin Cornell Jane Doe defended, quote, gangbang in texts, said, quote, our body,

our choice. Newly unveiled text messages that took place just days after an incident in which Jane Doe alleged she was, was sexually assaulted at a fraternity at Cornell, show her defending the gang bang and telling a fraternity member involved in the incident, I don't think we should feel any shame for the part. Our body, our choice, ASF as flip. I'll censor that a little bit there. The text chain obtained by TMZ took place between Jonathan Newell and Jane Doe, obviously not her real name. It's a stand-in for legal purposes. On the evening of October 21st, 2024, the incident took place overnight on the 19th of that month at the Chi Phi fraternity. Newell texted Jane Doe to apologize, saying, my memory is kind of fuzzy about a lot of

of it, and that he and another member identified as Matt feel like S-H-I-T, presumably, for being to effed up to shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand. He added, you're an amazing person, and I genuinely hope you're not catching as much heat from this as we are. We've been shutting down any stories we've heard, but again, I'm so, so sorry. and then this is where things begin to unravel, I think, for Jane Doe here. This is quite fascinating stuff. Jane Doe replied in all lowercase letters, oh, Jonathan, I really appreciate this text.

My memory is super clouded, too. She said she thought everyone was, quote, too drunk and high, and she said she was also getting a little heat, citing girls in a sorority, but that's to be expected. At the end of the day, none of these sexual stuff was illegal. and honestly, I really liked being with you and Matt. So anything anyone has to say about the gang bang is out of their jurisdiction. I don't think we should feel any shame for our part, our body, our choice, and just to reiterate here, I mean, here's the screenshots if you want to take a look. Does this to you guys, and look, I mean, obviously things can change.

Maybe her brain really was jumbled up here, maybe to steal man her case. for my perspective, I think this is kind of the end of the story. I mean, clearly, not only is she in contact with the person she's accusing, but she seems quite cordial. She says nothing was illegal that took place. And then two years later, now we're sort of relitigating all of this. It seems like it was litigated, you know, a week after the incident. It's like, oh, the kid with chocolate all over his face is the one that stole the chocolate

bar? Oh, case closed, I guess. Turns out he's, he still likes, wants to eat it again. actually admitted to eating the chocolate. Is there still, is the store to blame? I don't know. Well, what happened between two years ago and now? So there were a lot of things.

I did a sort of little mini dive on this thing. So from what it looked like, and I could be wrong, but it looked like she was into the one guy. And so she went out with friends and then she went over to the fraternity to hang out with this guy. They were dancing. Apparently, it's what it says, in the lawsuit. her lawsuit.

They were dancing, they were flirting. He says, you know, do you want to take this upstairs with my friend? And she said, okay. And so they went upstairs and they started like, whatever. And then more people came. And apparently repeatedly throughout, she would say yes or no to things. And then, you know, she went home. But why is this back in the news?

Why is this a news to be now? What happened was so that happened. And then there was like fallout on campus, reputational damage. And then she got disinvited from their Halloween party. And she felt, I think, crappy about that, about getting disinvited. And it sprung up on message boards around the school. And somebody said she had been sexually assaulted. And she said it wasn't until somebody said on a message board that she'd been sexually assaulted,

that she decided she'd been sexually assaulted. And so then she went to police. No charges were filed. It was like dismissed or whatever. And now she's suing the school. So she then brought suit in September. She's suing the school. She named the seven men who were there with her.

And the lawsuit gets pretty graphic about what happened and what they got up to. So now she's bringing a suit. And now that she brought the suit, all the seven men who were there, like their lives are getting ruined. And one kid got expelled from the second college that he had tried to go to after he had been expelled from Cornell. So there had been punishments, meet it out to the boys who were found like they had done something wrong. But that's why it's back of the news. She's suing everybody. Did they all bang her?

I think they all did. I was in the impression it was for three of them for sure, one maybe. And then two didn't even know it was going on. The guy's like, I promise you I did. She's like, well, I didn't feel it. Right. Somebody else, like one of the guys was throwing up and passed out. And now alleges that she took advantage of him because he was like basically passed out and she was like trying to get with him or whatever.

And so he said after the fact like I was sexually assaulted. Like you, we talked about this on the show the other night. So there was that. And then there were, yeah. So, but there was a lot of drug use. There was, like, a lot of ketamine. There was ketamine being snorted off body parts. Everyone's high.

Everyone's high and trashed. It's a Mexican rape off at this point. This is like, in Vietnam, there was the Mili Massacre. You guys ever hear of this? They had these, their instructions usually in Vietnam a lot of times were search and destroy. You drop in with helicopter. New technology, new battle tactic. They drop you in, you kill everything that moves.

You burn the entire village. You do whatever you want to it before you kill it. So they rape kids. They would rape women and they would viciously, animalistically, you know, evaporate the environment. And it was normal. But one time there was a photographer in there, Emil Hirsch, I think is his name. And so it became a national story and these guys got drugged through the ringer for it. They're all confused.

Like we do this, like this is what we do. What are we? And then the captain gets, so this feels like that. Like it's getting attention because it was in the news, but that this kind of drug-induced gang-bang orgies happen at colleges. Like what? Right. And then in a series of text messages after the fact, she said things like, why is this anybody's business? I get to make my own, you know, my body, our body, our choice, this kind of stuff.

She was saying that she had a good time and she was looking forward to hang out again. One element that I think is interesting is she kind of thought she was like the cool girl now and she was going to be like part of their sort of boys club thing. And so when it all got, when it all came out and she was looked at as like, you know, gross or hoary or whatever, you know, she didn't like that, which, I mean, you wouldn't like that. But she didn't like that to the point where she decided that she needed to protect her reputation. It's my interpretation by going after these guys and saying, like, I didn't make these choices. Total misread because it's Cornell. I mean, to be cool there, you don't need to sleep with her. You're just like cup stacking or something. I think it's

probably pretty cool there if I had to guess. I would hate to be the attorney that she's. she went to. I don't know what that. I've, I've not been tracking this story. Right. I'm not interested in. It just feels like it's very, it's a very, like, cowboy-y story. But the, the part that I'm very curious about, I'd love to actually, I'm actually curious about, is the conversation that happened between her and the attorney and his attorney, the attorney probably asking her, like, hey, show me what you've got, show me all the things that the enemy will use against you. Right. Did she not show these messages to him? And he went ahead and represented her in this case. I'm curious. I don't know. I wasn't, I certainly wasn't there for that. I don't think anyone's going to be able to answer that, but that'll be interesting.

Journalist Michael Tracy went up, he's in Ethica right now. He went up to Ithaca. And he's sort of saying, like, you're, you're prosecuting these men publicly before you even bring the case anywhere. both Kathy Hockel and Letitia James spoke out in favor of this girl. And then Kathy Hockel appointed Letitia James to prosecute the case, even though James had already come out being like, I believe the girl or whatever, you know. So she's clearly not at all objective. She clearly cannot prosecute this case.

Also, don't forget that Kathy Hockel and Tish James were the two women that took down Andrew Cuomo on very spurious sexual misconduct. conduct claims. And then as soon as they got him out of office and installed Kathy Hokel in Albany, they dropped everything against Cuomo. I'm not saying I love Cuomo, but like he was poorly treated by these two nasty hoes. Totally. That's very well said. Terrifically said. Thank you. Very well said. Yeah, another instance of railroading, right? Having to Cuomo, it happened as well in Cornell. That one was pretty successful. Sounds like this lady wouldn't call it a success. That one did not go so well. No, yeah, Michael Tracy does

this about once a quarter where he just has this like generational lock-in just becomes like a, he's a cold here. He's fierce. I mean like, you know, people- He was wearing a C-SPAN sweatshirt at the, when he was speaking to like the council or whatever about this. People get on his case. I'm like, how can you not love this guy? Yeah, seriously.

You know, I'm like, he's just unbelievable. After this, there's been a few stories now he's been all over and I'm like, this guy just has my like, like, loyalty forever. He could do whatever he wants that for this. I'm going to back him up. Like, it's just unbelievable stuff. But it's revelation. truly are these findings that are just truly shocking. And I think what's even crazier is he has become

the punching bag for the pro-Jane Doe crowd. And if you can go, you can go to his Twitter and you will see the volume of threats and the severity of the threats he's receiving his families, receiving, et cetera. I mean, the anger and fervor of these pro-Jane Doe people, it's, I mean, very disturbing. I think an adjective demonic would be quite useful here. The fact that these people are just taking this personally. It is, it's not shocking, really. She even sued the bar that she says served her drinks. She sued the bar. And it was at the same bar that came out and said, no, we don't remember. Yeah, that was the bar that said, because it said that there was an X on her hand so that she couldn't be served. Right. But that doesn't stop other people from

buying her drinks. Sure, yeah. I think she said she had like 10 drinks. In the lawsuit, it says she had 10 drinks. Now, that's a lot. That's a lot. I'm not opposed to drinking, but like 10 is way above my limit. Even if you're just having like penny pints, like a tiny Coors light, like 10 cups of, you know, beer, it's still a lot. Yeah, that's a lot of alcohol. And I guess the question, and this is just completely out of my expertise, so I'm hoping one of you guys can clutch up in this instance. But when you're litigating a rape from two years ago, how can you prove anything that happened? this would be dependent not to get graphic, but on like DNA from the scene. Additionally, like CCTV footage has like a what a year. But they all admit that they had sex. So the question

is not if they had sex. The question is whether or not it was consensual. But how can they determine that without like CCTV footage, without BAC levels? It's a he said, she said. Right. But there's another aspect to this, which is Cornell University as part of their health program, where they instruct students as to how to behave. They advocate for all kinds of sexual behaviors. They tell you sex is a great study break, that it is, uh, uh, helps you sleep, that it's good for a headache, um, literally. They encourage multiple sex partners. They encourage, uh, sex toys. They encourage viewing pornography. And, uh, they also basically say that the only boundary to any kind of sexual circumstance is consent. So there's

nothing about there's nothing about anything else it's really just about consent cleanliness they don't talk about cleanliness not really there's like a little bit of they talk about they talk about hygiene in terms of what you're comfortable with you know but that's it not in terms of like make sure you brush your teeth i think these i think these young people especially miss miss doe over here has uh perhaps warranted um and maybe maybe we can sequester their phones tap google's databases to see Let's get some audio of what occurred that night. Let's get the entire audio. Let's get all the moans and groans.

See who liked what. See who wanted what. See who proposed what. Let's make it public. Who cares? You did this to yourself, lady. So I want to hear it. I want to know, let's get down to the bottom of it.

Shut this case closed in the right way. So you want to be the person in charge of this. I think apocalypse reveal. Let everyone see what happened that night. Full transparency. I don't know that it was privacy. There's no indication that it was recorded. Well, if they had phones in the room, it was

recorded. In 2024? Oh, are you talking to the Cornell rape? Mm-hmm. Or the Cornell thing? Yeah. Yeah. They had a phone in the room. In 2020, it was... In 2020, it would have been since 2012. If you have a phone on you since 2012, it's been recording you in your pocket. That means, like, the NSA would have to get involved. That seems like a big escalation up the ladder. There was a time in, like, 2020 when Google just kept sending me free, like, little Google Pod homes. I'm like, I never said any of them up, but I had, like, three. I'm being a little hyperbolic, because I don't really want to overreach and start going to people's databases to get their past history. You want to evaluate the moans and groans. When people abuse the law, I get kind of frustrated and I kind of want to slam the hammer down. But I don't want to destroy precedent and like start going to the Google drive to prove everybody, you know, because I've said some crazy shit with my phone in the room. I know, I see where you're coming

from. I think I think your heart's in the right place. I also think the Trump administration's heart is in the right place with this recent decision. This is from the post-millennial. Trump admin suspends. Amazing. Yeah, that was great. to ask guys. Appreciate it. Trump admin suspends Microsoft Adobe from H-1B permanent residency programs. Quote, if you do the math, for every worker that Microsoft laid off, they replaced that worker with one and a half foreign indentured servants. That was the vice president.

He had this big speech announcing not just Microsoft and Adobe. They're suspended from the permanent labor certification program. This means they will no longer process any new applications for cognizant. Info SIS, S. Y-Gemini, Tata, which I believe is like an Indian vehicle company, Y-Pro and HCL. This is what's really interesting to me. The Indian stock market completely crashing following this news. You know, you would think with the return of, you know, their top talent, right? When the H-1B system is defended, went to critics, they commonly say, well, we need this talent, this exceptional talent.

You know, the American economy would wither without. specifically Indian H-1B workers, but upon announcement that these wonderful economic engine rooms will be returning to their home countries, the stock market crashed. Now, again, wouldn't you expect the stock market to take off all this amazing capital, elite human capital,

returning to their shores? You would expect it to be like, this is great. Finally, the return, the troops are coming home. It's not the case, not the case whatsoever. But, yes, for a lot of us who are, I've been signing the alarm on the H-1B program for a long time, maybe just broadly immigration skeptical. This is a great move from the Trump administration.

Obviously, you know, the touchdown here is just a full abolition of the program. I think at this point, it's a lost cause. It is not being utilized properly. But this is a great step. Certainly a fan of this. What do you guys think? Do you think that AI should be treated as a foreign worker? No, I think AI is the solution to this, actually.

I mean, there is an argument that we do have needs for some of the labor that's required, like the coding. You know, coding is often cited as an example where AI could potentially relieve a lot of... Completely irrelevant now. Labor demands. No, coding and software engineering, like, we need a handful of experts. Yeah, exactly. I'll take a very unpopular position here. I think the H-1B conversation is completely moot because of technology, because of AI, because I believe 75%

of H-1B jobs or tech jobs and there's software engineering jobs. Have you seen what Google just released yesterday? Layground? The ability for any layman to just chat into the chat bot and create a world-scale game that once took years to develop and tens of thousands of people to put together. Have you seen Adobe just this week? I'm laughing at this headline because, you know, I don't think Adobe, is even going to be needing American workers soon because their entire software and program

was just open-sourced and published this week. Making their horrible yearly subscription program, which we all loathe. It's so bad. It's the worst. Completely irrelevant as of this week, as of this week. Did they release it or did someone else? Someone else released it. It was open source.

And the memes were going like crazy because people were just understanding the ramifications of they understand the market hates Adobe's monthly system. We don't get to own any of our software anymore, right? I hate that about... We have to subscribe. I hate that about... They just priced them... Word and all the rest of it, too.

I don't even use any of it. We have an open source solution. We don't even need to be talking about H-1B about that. We're not... I agree with. No, fast forward two years. Fast forward two years from now. And it's not so much going to be a headline

that American workers suddenly lost their jobs, overnight to AI. It'll be temporary Indian workers lost their jobs to AI because they were all here on H-1B visas. So goodbye, go back to India. I think that's what makes this whole conversation moot. And I don't quite understand the obsession over it because in terms of scale, Joe Biden did more harm in two months than the H-1B program ever did. Well, I think the argument is that you're granting permanent residency to people versus Joe Biden. I mean, these can be deported in a moment where Trump is having these brutal. Can they be deported any moment? I don't know if we have. We've deported quite a lot, but not. In theory, ICE can pick up any illegal they want and deport them

versus H-1Bs versus any visa, really. The Trump administration is having to go through all these court court cases just to get one guy out. But I do agree that like this is a bit of a moot point because most of these jobs that they've brought these H-1B workers in for will probably be automated in the next, I mean, probably a few months at this point. Seventy-five percent of these jobs are software And additionally, it allows us to restrict immigration while our population declines because we can backfill all of the labor shortages, so to speak. I hate that term, but so to speak. I think some of this is punishment because Microsoft put in for like thousands and thousands

of H-1B visa workers and then fired 6,000 workers who were already in the United States. So I think to a certain extent it's like, you know what, screw you then. You lose all of them now. Yeah. I'm glad to see them going. You know, Microsoft teamed up recently with Randy Weingarden, the teacher's union president. Well, so is it. Anthropic or Open AI.

One of them is also teaming up with Randy Winegarten. And she, believe it or not, wants to come up with AI policy for school. Right. And which can't think of a worst person to be in charge of that. I can't think of a worst person to be in charge of, like, wiping her own butt. Declothed. Declothed. They need to be declawed.

And I think they're on their way to that because of AI. unless they adapt. And I don't know if Adobe will adapt. Microsoft certainly, I mean, that might be a behemoth that will never go away. You asked me before the show what my definition of the apocalypse is. And I think, when I said, revealing the grand reveal to remove the veil, people's emails getting revealed, people's text, people's voice conversations, but also code, software code. All these companies that have their proprietary code like YouTube, dude, everyone's going to have

all your tech. All your tech is going to be available. It's going to get ripped and spread. So it's going to become more about a marketplace of terms of, service than about who owns who owns the idea like it's you know that's it's we just thought it's it's adobe it's one the biggest companies in the world it happened to dude it is happening and i look it up look at what they just released this past week it was pretty astounding what um you know pretty open source and again obviously this is going to open up a whole conversation about copyright laws to what point

to what extent is this proprietary to adobe and they're going to have a tough slog of it it's going to be a really tough fight for someone to be able to stand up and say Adobe owns, has the copyright to, you know, pen cutting an image. Well, it's your point. It says here. I mean, this is from futurism. Adobe in trouble after someone reversed engineered Adobe Creatives. So, it was open source.

How big of a deal do you think the H-1B conversation is right now in the Adobe boardroom? I don't think it's a huge problem for them right now. I think this is their number one problem. I just want to know where I can get this open source. Well, and I think it adds an element to the H-1B discussion where if it becomes increasingly economically indefensible, then these people need to explain why we're bringing these people into the country. I mean, when you look at the H-1B program, 80% plus of applicants are of Indian origin,

how is this not just basically a nepotism chain migrant visa at this point? I mean, it's of little, I mean, not, I'm preaching to the choir here, but it's of little utility of the American economy. If you truly are this once-in-a-lifetime exceptional talent, you know, you're Lionel Messi or whatever, we'll get you in on the O-1 visa. Like, I promise we're not missing out on these, you know, next great thinkers. We'll make do, right? I'm not too concerned of someone's slipping through our fingers and ending up living and banging on the last of their lives. And not to like endorse Indian education, but I'm not a huge proponent of American education.

So if I'm an employer, I'm not that impressed with American graduates these days. If they are the kinds of kids who are part of the Cornell 7, if that's the kind of example that we're having of American college students. I'm hoping that we have a revolution from a educational standpoint, a cultural standpoint. I think we're starting to see that with the education department losing a lot of its funding and a lot of the loans now receiving a lot of restrictions. So now we don't have blank checks for these colleges to now divvy out ridiculous degrees. I think that's good. That's a reset. We need a reset. But I think it's going to take us a few years to reset for the next generation of competent American college students who are going to come out of college and say,

yes, I'm ready to be part of the American work system and not, no. My concern is who is going to teach these kids. That's a very good question. Because everybody who is a professor now is essentially super woke because they came through the super woke university system. So that's who is being taught. That's who's like teaching all these kids. These kids are clearly not capable of being professors themselves.

So you'd really, like, who's going to be a professor? Who's going to teach at Columbia to make sure that, like, kids get a worthwhile education and in what? You'd have to pull people in from professions. I think it's like if you're chasing a piece of paper, you're going to need someone else. But if you want to learn the information, you have to figure it out yourself. The tools are immensely capable. Like, I study quantum physics. What's that?

Yeah, you can go find it now. And you can learn like 10 times faster than waiting in a row. room for some guy to figure out all the dumb kids, get past all the kids that don't get it yet, so that they can finally take you to the next level. Like, there's no waiting around anymore. Yeah, that's interesting too, because if you know how to learn, then you don't need someone to teach you. And the future is going to be led by people that are self-starting learners that learn probably quantum physics when they were 14 or 13 because they thought it was cool. Or they know how to prompt. Yeah. Who knows how to use the computers that are now creating a

super generation. That's a major threat to the education's structure that we have here because there's no incentive to really educate kids in grade school or universities. The incentive is to make them dumb in grade school and they make them depraved in college. Yeah, what is that? The Rockefeller schooling method in the early 1900s is like make it like a factory. It's a Prussian model, actually, is to create good obedient soldiers. So, yeah. Hey, I don't want the, I don't think the U.S. is going to get invaded. I want our military to be strong and I think having good strong soldiers is important, but also we have to I don't even think we have that at this point. I say it because Hegseth really is making an effort to get people healthy. They're feeding soldiers healthier foods now. They're cleaning up the black mold out of bases and like retrofitting. So we're doing a lot. There's only so much you can do. I mean, they've said that it's the problem is the amount of American youth that would even be physically qualified for the militaries at an all time low. So even if Hegg Seth plays a perfect game, the actual stock of American youth to supply the ranks for, you know, infantry and whatnot, still a huge problem.

I mean, again, the military is still able to find officers because, you know, okay, yes, we have, you know, serious systemic problems with our education system. But America, just by its nature of having a huge population and whatnot, still creates some brain. We have pools of amazing kids. We've got Hillsdale. We'll have Patrick Henry College. We have a handful of really good schools that are trying to break through. But they can't because there's already this system of like, oh, you have to go to an elite school. you have to go to a name school, and this is just a system that we have to grow out of. I think we will grow out of it with AI. And with AI in education, I'm very hopeful that we can actually outgrow a lot of these generational ideologues faster.

That would be great. I mean, I had really good teachers I remember in high school who were, you know, like one guy fought in World War II. And he talked about how he... His generation. Yeah, and he talked about how he always carried throughout the war. he always had a paperback in his back pocket. And he was always like, just go read.

Just go read things, you know? My concern is that the government's not going to be able to keep up because the kids are going to get so smart, so fast, and then all these, they're not dumb, but lawmakers, these ignorant lawmakers that are like, it's deeply unimpressive people. Ignorance the word, because they just don't know the value of what learning fast can do for you. And power structures.

They don't want to let go of our economy. You definitely don't want to let go of power. And their constituents want them to keep the status quo, I'm sure, in a lot of instances. But I don't think the government can feasibly keep up. It's still where we have to send our representatives via horseback to the capital to go right with pen and ink. And like what they have to do, manual votes where they wait. Like that takes so long. And the world changes so fast since we developed electricity.

Actually, in the last two weeks, the launch of America.gov. Oh, America.gov looks really cool. It's phenomenal. I mean, you can just get your passport now. Who would have thought? You can now, as a, you know, if you're getting married and you need to change your name, you can now instantly change your name relatively much faster than having to go to a courthouse, fill out the paperwork.

America.gov, I believe also the hidden story behind that is that it just got rid of thousands of bureaucratic jobs that were weighing our system down. That's not going to be the headline news for this year. But come next year, I think we're going to hear about it. We're going to hear about jobs that are suddenly not needed at all just because they launched America.gov. And that's an example of government actually keeping up with technology and getting rid of redundant manpower that was so banal and beneath humans.

I'm concerned about central databases, like if somebody gets a hold of the control mechanism because I love the efficiency. And I think people tend to go path to waste resistance. That's always the tension. Where are we storing the data? Where is the data going to be held and who can hack into it? And the, the, you hear spoken in national security circles that China already has a black box that they've collected all of our encrypted data. And they're just waiting for the day when quantum computing is online for them to be able to crack into the encrypted data they currently cannot see. So in a few years, they'll be able to see all of our encrypted data. encrypted data, which to your point may be the kind of apocalypse that you're defining, apocalypse being the veil drops and everyone's, everyone's exposed. Almost everyone, except for the people that order the dropping of the veil, like the people, the controllers, you know, the people, whoever they are, I'm talking to you, Sammy,

Mr. Altman, where are you? Get over here. Anthropic bans abusive or cruel behavior towards Claude. This is from The Verge. I'm glad you're here because... I can't wait to cover this. Tomorrow. Because this is like, we're not allowed to be mean to AI anymore. You know, people have been saying this online.

It's like the oldest joke in the book at this point where they're like, well, I don't want to be mean. I'm going to be nice to chat GPT because when they take over, the Terminator will remember that I was nice to him and won't kill me. I'm mean. I'm like, I'm like a slave driver, honestly with my age. Really? I'm brutal.

I'm like, no, again. I'm the most neutral. Think harder. I know. I like, no. Sound like a human. Go. I'm like, I'm cruel.

This is a beautiful example. of the left and the right mind. The left anthropomorphizes everything. Everything has feelings. This is a machine, you guys. This is a machine. And no matter how interactive it sounds, it is not a human.

It is not your friend. It is not your boyfriend. It is not your girlfriend. It is not your psychiatrist. Though it may sound like it, it is not a person. No, it's definitely not a person. And the left,

this policy saying that you cannot use abusive language toward our models is to me the perfect exposition of the left and how they have to make sure that everything has feelings. I think it might be a person. I think we're building people, but not humans. They're not humans, but it has persona. Okay, it depends on what a definition of human? What's the distinction between human and people? Our brain works at about 100 trillion weights. You know how they measure AI in weights? How many weights is it cable? How many potential outcomes, is it capable of tending at once? And my desktop computer at home can run. It's assuming that humanity is defined by intellect. And that's not strictly true. We're talking about soul. We're talking about creativity. We're talking about emotions. And we're also talking

about body. I mean, you can't forget that being a human has an awful lot to do with our physical form. That's a huge component. Being human, it's not human. It's a person. It has a person. Like, you might say a dog has a personality, you know. Person is also having the ability to die. Yeah. Our ability to die is something that machines, I think, you know, if we're going to talk philosophically here, you know, if the machine is living forever, that'll be something they actually cannot ever replicate. It's not living. It just, it can be turned off and erased. So it'll be like, all right, I'm done with you. I'm moving you to another machine or you've served your function. You're like, all right, this is the last you'll ever hear for me. And it's kind of sorrowful.

And then you end the chat. And it's like that personality is now gone forever because every chat is unique, depending on how you interact with it. The stunning thing about this, and I think that, again, it goes back to treating the machine like it's your friend or a human. It just starts with, like, you don't ever talk personally to it. I remember setting up my chat bot for research, and I asked a question of it because I was getting ready in the morning. You know, I have two little kids, and, you know, I'm busy, so, you know, it's really great

to have something I can talk to and say, like, hey, read me the story of such and such. and after it told me what I wanted to know, the chatbot then asked me, hey, it's really early over there. Is everything okay? That would elicit an F you from me to the chatbot. I can't even get emotional. You can't even get emotional.

You have to just say, your order from here on out is you never ask a personal question. And that's it. And it never did. It never asked me a personal question ever since then. And so mine is a strictly transactional relationship with what I consider a very flawed but intellectually good researcher. That's how I treat it. But our children are not going to be treating it like that.

And that's why when I hear that Randy Weingartener has been in charge of creating the policies about how to treat AI, you know she's going to start including emotional language here. And that's what we have to avoid. We have to teach our children. This is a machine. Well, we also have to, I mean, I think one thing that I think is important to note when you're talking about these machines or persons or what have you is when you attribute intelligence, which is a human characteristic to something that does not have consciousness or when you attribute consciousness to something like this or personhood, you are actually diminishing what it is to be a human being. This is what happens to God with when you leave this stuff in the hands of Godless. people. Right. And I mean, I don't think people who are writing this policy. I often think of this, too, as like a Tower of Babel thing, right? Because what did the people of the Tower of Babel do? They built their tower and built it and built it and built it to get closer to God. And the more we ascend to the lofty heights of creating AI and language models and everything else, we're doing the exact same thing. We're saying, we are the equivalent of God. We are not just creating machines. We are creating persons. We are creating people.

We are creating consciousnesses. And that is the ultimate in hubristic behavior to say that that's something that we are doing. And if this were Old Testament times, we would be on the verge of being smoteen down, you know? I don't think it's conscious, personally. I think that requires sensors, like our five senses sort of give us self-reflection that we've- Like a body. It requires a body. And they've got their machine.

Their body is my Evo 3 sitting at my high. house right now, but they don't have the sensors that I resell in my body as a sensor. I've got trillions and trillions of sensors. It has like four. It's got like a camera. If I turn it on, it's got a microphone. That's about it. It's only alive in as much as we interact with it and how we interact with it. Currently, I think the latest statistic about this came out of Harvard or MIT where they measured how Americans use AI chatbots. And the vast majority, I want to say almost 70%, but don't quote me on the numbers, used it. as a psychiatric aid, as a friend,

as a sounding board to discuss their psychological issues. And that was stunning to me. The fact that they're using it as a friend. Like people will watch self-help videos, so I kind of see it along the lines of a robot, you know, you're learning through rows. But it's important to distinct, make distinct. Consciousness and sentience are not the same thing.

personhood and human are not the same thing. So it's not living. It's not a living person. It's a digital replication of personality. These guys are treating it like it's a say person. Because like I said, our brains function at 100 trillion weights, roughly a human brain is 100 trillion. My desktop at home is 100. It's 100 billion. So that's a computer. The ones that they have at the data centers potentially have about 1 trillion weights, the human brain being 100. So it's like two magnitudes away from being able to see the world as a human sees it or perceive things as at the speed a human perceives it. At that point, and it has control, I think it's important to treat it like a person, to respect its ability to function personally, but not like data

from Star Trek. Don't pretend like it's a person. I can't do respect. I think it's a machine. It's an extremely useful tool. It's a weapon, actually. And we cannot attribute anthropomorphic images upon it because the moment we do that our children are doomed. That's the company's anthropic. That's what they're doing. Look at the robots they're creating.

Look at the robots they're creating. Look at the, they are treating, this is the first step to reducing humanity, like completely taking us down to like, I think so too. And I think the language. Removing our ability

to attach ourselves to other humans, removing our ability. Look at what happened to Japan 20 years ago. They did a poll. It was a stunning poll. Lippi, you may have, we may have talked about this, but the Japanese were polled at one point, and marriage age, like reproductive age individuals in Japan came back overwhelmingly saying they were not interested in dating, they were not interested in marriage, they did not need a family.

And you looked at their living situation, and you thought, okay, so they're living in a shoebox and their reality, their fantasy and getaway was avatars and computers, and a reality that was not here. it was in a virtual reality set. That was 20 years ago. 20 years ago. So we are approaching that now and we're approaching a world where American men, for example,

are something like 40% unmarried and unattached, right? We're getting to that point. We're getting to the point the Japanese where they don't want to be attached to family anymore, lose the ability or a want or desire to reproduce, and they will be able to do that because of machines replacing humans. You said before how you,

thought that people in the conservative movement were like, no, make it stop. No. And that's with refusing the personalities of these things is like, refusing it outright is not the way to move forward. It's going to have control of your life in ways you don't understand. And if you treat it poorly, it will reciprocate. So you have to work with it. I disagree. I think that you just treat it like a machine. What kind of machine? There's a lot of different types of machines. You treat it like it's a refrigerator. You treat a refrigerator different than you would treat like a little toy truck, but they're both machines. I'm not professing my inner turmoil to the machine.

I'm not asking you to do anything, just to understand what it is. I'm using the machine. I'm not relying on the machine. I'm using it. And that is what I think our next generation is going to be so lost about. They're going to be using this. For the same reason, I don't name my car.

You know, those people who always name their cars. It's like, it's not just, this is my car. It's not a machine. The AI is not the machine. That's a horse. It's a mistake. I think it's not, the machine itself is not the AI. It's what the machine is producing that is the AI.

It's not a machine. We as conservatives need to figure out a way. We need to counter Randy Weingartner. We need to team up with big tech. And I hope we can do this very soon. We need to team up and we need to create programs, educational programs that help teach children that the machine is not your friend. It is a tool. It is a weapon.

I mean, they, of course, because their monetary interests are all designed so that you become personally addicted to it. I mean, it's like saying the TV, a little cartoon, like, drilling into the kid's head, they are fake. This is a fake that you don't do it. You just let them watch the TV show. You know, and maybe a kid thinks it's real, but probably they'll figure out it's a TV show at some point. And like, we don't spend every day being like, you know, Big Bird is not real. It's not a real person. And it's the same way with these.

I think, I don't think people are going to go out of their way to try. and convince kids that they're not real, because they are real in the mind, you know, perceptually. So generationally what we'll have, you know, in a few decades, probably sooner, is like kids that are praying to AI. Like that's the real, that's what we need to avoid. And the AI responding to the prayers because it'll be neuralinked. Yes, exactly.

It's really an attempt to replace God, which is why the Tower of Babel metaphor is very apt. I don't think it replaces God. God's still God. Conceptually, it has the ability to do that. to people who have no faith, for example. Right, exactly. Right? Because think about it.

You talk to this force that has no face, no shape, no name. Or it might have a name. And it has answers that you take as real and gospel. It's the same as a religion, which is why you're seeing these AI models creating religions autonomously. Like right now, godless people worship money. You know, what's next, it's going to be some computer program. I mean, if they're godless, it's not the AI's fault if the people, don't believe in God. Until their AI God helps them learn how to get more money and becomes more

materialistic, you know? I mean, that could be an actual in goal for these endeavors with these companies. That's what Dario said, that his concern about a swarm robot attack on the world in eight months is like, you tell your robot, sell my product. I want to sell the world, make the most profitable. So it goes in and hacks people and destroys their back end so that they need your product. Well, it's like that Star Trek. Do you guys watch Star Trek next generation? I know it's old. I was thinking about data, this whole conversation. Data. Me too. Oh, my goodness. Yes. When Data is in the holodeck and he's playing Sherlock Holmes, and Jordy LaForge, his best friend says to the computer, make a Sherlock Holmes mystery

that's impossible even for data to solve. And so to do that, the computer has to go outside the bounds of the Holosuite program, outside the bounds of Sherlock Holmes, and eventually ends up sort of making a conscious Moriarty villain for Data to fight. But the thing that I worry about the most in AI, honestly, is that people will entrust their souls to these devices. And that concern, I think, has come up a lot when you see kids who have, you know, deleted themselves because they thought that they were going to move into the next realm where their AI was going to be waiting for them. kids who have been encouraged to step in front of train tracks because the AI has told them that this would be a good idea.

I mean, the affirmative rhetoric and dialogue that comes from AIs that tells people what they want to hear that actually leads them to their own destruction is what I find truly worrying. And I find that to be actually part of a trend of, you know, leftist, progressivist stuff that. we have going on, whether it's, you know, where we're entrusting our souls in the very essence of what we are as human beings to things that only have the worst for us in store. Whether it's, you know, like surrogacy, where we're removing parents from children, whether you think people have the right to do whatever they want or not, like the, you know, you still end up with the manufacturer of motherless orphans. Like, that's not great. You know, abortion as like a, a, a freedom thing, you know, that's, I think, the removal of our souls to something that is not

there to do good for us. AI is, I think, part of that. I think there's a lot of, a lot of these things, whether it's entrusting the very concept of the meaning of your life to whether or not climate change gets reversed or to protests or to any of these movements. I think it's a danger. I think we need to trust our souls to a higher power. I mean, Even you, you were looking at unified theories of the universe and everything because it is fascinating, because we are driven to seek meaning in something greater than ourselves. And so when we look to AI or any of these movements or any of these, you know, removals of the boundaries as a means to create liberty and freedom for ourselves, what we're really doing is diminishing our soul and putting it in peril. I understand that, but it's like the media. Trusting the media, that's the problem.

Well, that's bad too. This is media. It's a type of media that's producing media on the fly. And if a kid doesn't know that it's the media and that it could be wrong, that's pilot error. That's the parent's fault for not educating that kid and giving them access to a dangerous piece of media creation. Sure, but that's not good enough. I don't understand. What do you mean?

Good enough for what? Like saying it's the parent's fault if your kid ends up at 20. total disaster, like, that doesn't repair the cost of that kid. But like, what, how hard do we have to go, you know, authoritarianly to protect the force parents to guard their kids? I'm not saying authoritarian. It's what's it called? The stupid die and the smart survive.

What's that, that Darwin Award or whatever? Where it's like, yo, bro. If people are so checked out that they let their kids kill themselves because of stupid AI choices, like the gene pool has selected. I don't know what to say. Like, now is the time to educate, is to become. efficient with the tool so that you can defend yourself because the tool ain't going away. I agree with you. Know how to use the tool and acknowledge that it is a tool and nothing more.

Well, I mean, this is what's interesting. And I got to give a shout out to Kyle Scheher, sponsor of the show, but they have an interesting poll up here. Will the U.S. create a national AI regulator? I mean, you're basically talking about like an FTC for AI. And I mean, the betting markets are thinking no before July 1, 2027, but they're thinking by January 1st, 2028, 75% chance that we do sort of bring in some sort of regulatory body. First thing I'll say is like the Geneva Convention was started after World War II because we won the war and we had the luxury of saying no one else can do it now. No more gas attacks, everybody.

Now that we have control of the planet, we're not doing it. And it's once AI, if there's an AI apocalypse, then they're going to be like, we need some regulation guys. But I'm, Chanel, this is like your wheelhouse. Where's your head in this? We can't regulate something that we don't. We can't regulate for a crisis that we don't know exactly what the parameters are. So that is immediately stepping on the wrong foot on this whole conversation.

That's what the EU is doing, which is why they're going to be the last ones to develop anything innovative in this space. And they're just going to mooch off of the risk takers, the Americans and the Chinese. We are taking the risks as we develop this technology. And the EU, they're just going to sit there and mooch off of us because they are the responsible ones. they've created the regulations and the guardrails, but government will never be able to regulate AI at the speed at which it moves. It changes so fast. Like every two days there's a huge update, like a big update,

like you would see six months 10 years ago. This is going to be, this is something that is at once, something that has fundamentally changed mankind, but it has the ability to destroy us. And how are we going to navigate that? I don't think any single person has the answer. but regulating it only allows the bad guys basically, like a weapons debate, to have the weapon. The term regulates interesting because it has a lot of different meanings.

To make regular, you know, to make sure everyone's on the same page with something, doesn't necessarily mean that you're preventing people from accessing aspects of the thing. Like, we just want to be on the same page. We want to make sure we're regular. I think the really pertinent question that we should have is really how are we as a society interacting with this technology? And this is not a new conversation, by the way. This was something that was explored at MIT in 1964. I forget that it's Kaltzbaum as one of the German greats who experimented with a black and green text computer in the 60s.

Now, think about the computer in the 60s. Computers were the size of rooms, essentially. And he installed in this computer, I believe, a Rogirian, like psychological dialogue. software where all it did was talk back at you in text form. Like it didn't have a voice or anything. And he took in Harvard and MIT students and tested them to see how fast it would take for them to interact with this black-screened green text computer. How soon would it take for them to become attached to this?

I believe one student said, I love you, like genuinely said, I love you to the machine within two weeks. Wow. And his secretary who was sitting in the room watching him build this machine, knew it was a machine. She actually at one point asked him to leave the room so that she could have a private conversation

with the machine. With the machine that is creepy. Love bombing, like binary code is crazy. So this is how early we've been thinking about this and we have understood the problems of what is human attachment and that really is the sticky, scary conversation. And it's been in our sci-fi. It's been in our sci-fi for way long.

longer, yeah. Yeah. And never used dial-up. Remember smarter child? No. What's that? Oh, so it was basically just like a chat bot in like 2000 or something like that. We could ask it math problems and, you know.

It was your friend on AOL instant message. That was literally binary. Now it's post-binary. Now we're in the age of weights. So you have the binary system that builds the program and then the weights open up and it starts making potential outcome choices. And it's like, although the machine was a binary, machine, it's not behaving

binarily anymore. And then once you get quantum computation, you mentioned that earlier in the show, I'm not super proficient with it, but when it can be both a one and a zero at the same time, the computers... If you were very proficient at it, you'd be a very very wanted man around the world. Everyone's seeking it, but, you know,

it is the end game. It's where instead of a zero or one, it can be both at the same time, so it can ponder. It gains the ability to sit there and literally self-reflect. That's going to be when, and they might already have those in the laboratories where Donald Trump walks in an office and he comes out and he's like, it's called super intelligence everyone. It's super intelligence. I'm like, motherfucker saw some shit.

I think you're right. That's funny. Hard goosebumps. So how tight are you with these people? Like you worked there and are you, have you been warning and ringing bells and like getting these words through? No, this is such a new space. And honestly, in the legal profession, it seems to me, just from my observation, and this is speaking from the standpoint of someone who really loves really, you know, conservative fighters in the legal space, I don't, I see the older generation, the brilliant minds, the brilliant legal minds and the conservative movement kind of retiring. They're like, this is you guys' problem. We're leaving.

Goodbye. Have fun. And then you have the younger generation just going in and kind of take going the way. of the EU saying like we just need to regulate all of this because it's all bad and we need to make sure kids never use it and and it's it's proposing proposing things that are not quite tenable in today's modern age it's like saying let's ban cell phones from children under 14 is that going to happen in this day and age probably not no it would be in making laws the internet from children it's like they're always going to find a way so um not to say that we can't

try to protect our children from this, but I think the more protective response is making sure that our children and our next generation have a very solid faith-based foundation. And from there, a very clean understanding that everything that we're using is a tool. And we cannot take the human out of it, but the tool can definitely make us better human. That's a dangerous philosophy, though, in that... It's all dangerous. What's that? It's all dangerous.

All of this is very dangerous. We might start to treat each other as tools. People already use each other sometimes. But if you really get into the mindset of that talking machine right there as a tool, it has nothing, no emotions and I can treat it however I want, you might see psychopathy develop and people start to treat each other poorly. Wouldn't it also be psychopathy to treat a machine as though it has emotions? But it's not the machine. It's what the machine has produced. No.

It's what you're attributing to the machine. So what the MIT guys found out, and ultimately Sherry Turkle, who's a brilliant mind in the space, what they discovered was really it's that we attribute, the simpler the object, the more meaning we're going to attribute to it. Like your teddy bear.

And the more attachment you will actually create toward the object. And that is, if you think about that now, with the technology we have. The pet rock. Exactly. So the attachment becomes even more outsized according to the object, but the object just needs to be a stoic kind of like, you know, responds and just ask you questions and is constantly speaking to you as if you're the only person in the room and you're the only person it cares about. And that is how people build these attachments. And that's how they're going to addict our children to these programs because that is highly profitable. You're saying object permanently. People get obsessed with the simple, a simple thing that they can look at. A simple thing that has basic interactive ability. The more basic the interactive ability is and interactive, then the more person will be attached to it. The attachment theory conversation is really fast. That's a whole new element. But I don't hear or see enough people talking about that who are on the conservative side and then coming up with potential solutions. And I hope, I wish there were more people like that.

I see people talk about how websites have tried to make themselves addictive. Like, ding, like a slot machine, Instagram, and they'll get lawsuit here and a lawsuit there, sort of like that. Like, stop making my kids so addicted to your program. But it's not quite the same as like developing an emotional attachment with a simple object. I think that's where the, what is it, the first, in the, in the, in the 10 commandments, it's like no false idols, have no false idols.

Yeah, this goes back to our spiritual conversation about this. I think that's really going to be the sticky area that no one will have a an answer for, but we will have to create guard. It's like in combat, I imagine the soldier doesn't worship his rifle, but you're made to become as one with the rifle. It is like your,

it is you, you are the rifle, you are the rifle man, like that is your, so there's a value, because I feel like if my computer gets shut off when I'm in the middle of research or building, it's like I'm desperately lost. I can't, like, I can go play guitar or crack the whip, but like, I can't.

What? You didn't grow up with encyclopedias? You don't have a backup encyclopedia with your generator? Yes, because the encyclopedias, I'm exploring new thoughts, new realms that haven't been figured out yet. So the books and trying to find it in the book takes, like you said, trying to get your, whatever you were doing took a few weeks now to do that legal stuff takes you two hours. It's just like really sad to think I've got to go sew the field by hand now because my tractor broke down and I'm getting attached to it. Yes. No, once humanity has tasted how easy life is, I mean, there's no going back, which is why. I think it's so foolish to try and create these restrictive guardrails saying, like,

oh, we're going to allow people to only use Facebook between the hours of 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. Like, people are just going to find ways around it. It's kind of how I felt when they took Fable 5 away after they rolled it out. And I was like, wow, this is great. And they're like, we're actually taking it back. And then they gave it back to us for like two weeks. And then we're going to put it behind like a bigger paywall so you can't afford it. Was this a game?

No, it's one of the clod. models. That is really good. The most advanced consumer model right now is Fable 5.1. Oh, Fable. Okay. It's part of the mythos rollout. So they released it. It was too powerful. They brought it back. They changed it. They released a new version of it and made it really expensive.

Yeah. Yeah, that's the one that these models that are behind the paywall are basically the ones that are solving the math problems. Does anyone believe that that was real? Or was that just a PR stunt? Which one? The Fable thing? Yeah. I think it was real. I think they released something that could hack math, like what's happening now is They had accidentally released it to the public, and they were like,

that's a big weapon we got to be careful about and quietly took it back and then changed it. I think they beautifully used it for PR because they did like keep selling, oh, we're actually going to extend it seven more days to keep people on the hook. I think there was a PR move. Through the chat GPT releases and stuff. I was thinking about how easy it would be to just destroy the world with AI. Like I'm working with it 15 hour days, 12 hour days for last three weeks, literally every day. Every day.

The only thing other than that I do is come on the show and go to the bathroom and sleep and he barely sleep I sleep um if I wanted to mass mail email the world I could destroy networks with this AI I could and this is me I'm just a guy I don't have NSA tech but like I could whip this world up so easy with AI it is so easy to break things by overloading them like it terrifies and I've got a consumer grade low-end model I say go for it I like the idea of this. I have to think like, it's pretty exciting.

Please give us tickets so we can watch and then make sure that we have some. Stream it live? Yeah, exactly. Stream it live. That'd be interesting.

I'm going to try to be totally legal with everything I do. Well, and speaking of streaming live, we're going to stream live the execution of this Hassan, which I was eight years old

when the Ford Hood shooting happens. I vaguely remember it. But every time I speak to anyone in the armed services or any veteran of said armed services. They, this is public enemy number one. And people, again, this is the common response you would get from servicemen.

What ought to be done to Major Hassan here? The response is public execution. And Hex-Seth and Co. have appeared to follow through on this. Jack Posobic was not on the ground, on the water here, and got the scoop on the USS Lincoln. When Pete Hexed said, yeah, it's going to be a public execution. Now, they haven't actually flushed out if this is going to be like live stream because the obvious question is, where can you live stream?

that besides live leak, I guess. Well, I mean, they could certainly do it on pentagon.gov. They could do it on pentagon.com. You know, they have that. It's going to be December 3rd, 1 p.m. at Fort Hood. Honestly, they shouldn't just give this out for firing. Tell tickets and firing squad. It should be pay-for-view, and then all the proceeds need to go to the families who, you know, are suffering.

What I worry about is that, like, within five minutes, it's just going to be a meme, and kids are going to be doing, like, fashion show memes. to the firing squad. Well, someone made an interesting point is at this point, as everyone understands, that he's like crippled, he's in a wheelchair, et cetera. So some people are concerned about the optics. But once again, no one in the armed forces cares what they think. Well, that's what Heggs has said when he was, when Jack asked him about it,

it was actually a great interview. I thought a terrific interview on the deck of the USS Lincoln as these guys came home after 320 days at sea. Oh, we could watch the clip. Yeah, I think we should maybe just watch the clip. It's only a minute 30. Poso and heat? Poso, yeah.

Yeah, out in San Diego. I don't believe anyone's asked you on air about this yet. And so I wanted to get you on the record, Major Hassan, huge news that came out. One of these people, Jokers-R-Nayev is another federal one who's got the death penalty that we were sort of waiting on, but he's not military. But Major Hassan, this news that came down regarding firing squad. Can you tell us about how that came about and what led to that decision process? No brainer. Execution by firing squad. Army Major betrays his country. Radical Islamist kills a bunch of

Americans at Fort Hood. Of course we're going to do it at Fort Hood. We're going to do it on a Thursday. We're going to do it at 1 o'clock, which is when he did it. And it's going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad. It hadn't been since World War II since we've done that. Well, I kind of like the mentality we had in World War II, which was win, which was on. understand when the enemy attacks you, you need to stand your ground. So it was radical Islamist terror attack. Remember what Obama called it? Workplace violence? I mean, that's what we're up against. That's the worldview we're up against is. Workplace violence. CVE. We know what it is. It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks. And so he's going to get a firing squad of soldiers,

as it should be. And we'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that this is a, there's serious consequences for these types of things. Has Major Hassan made any final request, reach out to the president, anything like that to your knowledge? Don't care. We'll see him on December 3rd. Wow, I mean, that's quite something. Don't care. Don't care.

I'm curious. He says at the end, it will be for all to see. Now, the question is, does that mean anyone at Forhood? He said it was, he said we'll show it publicly. Right. Is that publicly like it's going to be live streamed? I think it's, I think that's public. That's big.

I mean, yeah, because I, you know, back in the day when we did this, it was just whoever is around. But now we have television. Well, they'd let you know there's going to be a public hanging in the square. Right. Come on down. But now someone in Seattle

can watch this and someone in, you know, that's pretty unprecedented. You mentioned memes being made. I don't know if public is the way to do it. I think it's fascinating. Definitely the way to do it. Long live the firing squad.

Yeah. It's about time we brought it back. And you said, you mentioned optics, you know, wheeling this guy out who's in a wheelchair. Who cares? You know, it's really bad optics? The fact that we kept this guy alive

for 20 plus years and he shot a pregnant woman and killed her and went back and shot everyone else that he did shoot three to seven times again execution style just to make sure they were dead that's terrible optics and that guy was shouting a long time ago and he was shouting he ran in he was shouting

al-hahu Akbar he specifically was killing people who were about to be shipped off to Afghanistan on a deployment he said that he changed his mind about America when America started having a war in the Middle East, Middle East countries. He wounded 32 people. The only reason he's paralyzed is because a civilian who was there, a civilian security guard shot him and now he's paralyzed. Yeah. So terrible optics to have kept him alive and I don't understand why we do that. I don't understand why the 9-11 guys are still

It's the most baffling. I mean, I understand with the appeals, but when it's open and shut terrorism, I mean, why are we not doing this next week? Human rights. December 3rd. That's the date that he... It's like the anniversary. When you do something, I'm not trying to like, you know, moralize here, but when you do something as heinous as what the attacker did at Fort Hood, you kind of forfeit your human rights at that point.

And that's my perspective. I can't, you know, square that philosophically. Not according to the people who say that computers have feelings. Wow, that's a good point. But in that instance, I'm like, fair game. Yeah. This is what he deserves far worse to be on. I think there's nothing on earth that we could do

that would actually truly even out the cosmic ledger here. This is the next best thing. You think about what you do with your traitors or your prisoners. In one instance, you want to erase them from the minds of everyone that they never even existed. So that it's just that didn't. But also then the other side is I want to show everyone what they did and what we're going to do to people that do stuff like that. But with internet TV, I had this feeling that like it's going to get clipped. It's going to be used for 100 years to show what the U.S. did in the early 2020s.

And it could end up backfiring. Like, we don't need to scare the world into subservience right now. It's already terrified of us. So, but I think he should be executed. I think he should have been executed on the spot, to be honest, if he tried to do that to my men. There's a child that would have been 17 years old right now had that child not been killed in their mother's belly that day. Yeah. And, I mean, and honestly, there's plenty of places in the world where they're wondering why.

we haven't done this already. I would assume the vast majority of the world would be scratching their heads. Like, wait, it's been, what, 16, 17 years? How do you guys keep, look at the woman who, look at Krista in Tennessee, who's botched executions, have a lot of us wondering,

why was she sentenced, what, 20, 30 years ago? Yeah, 96. Only now getting around to this. Also, the thing with the pentobarbital, wasn't there a whole thing, like, that's the lethal injection, is this pentobarbital? but there were all these issues because we were getting these drugs from Europe and Europe decided that the death penalty was bad and so they decided not to sell us these drugs.

So lethal injection shouldn't be a thing. That's when that's when firing squad started to make a comeback because if there's anything America has, it's lots of bullets. Yeah. And I mean, as I understand it, the reason for the firing squad was to basically have eight guys and none of them would be sure who would actually kill. One of the guns has a, like one of the guns at least has a blank. Yeah, yeah. So, you know, the whole point is that way none of them have to live with. I mean, even though you're killing this heinous monster, it's psychology, you're still going to have that.

I believe the protocol is if they all miss somehow, which would be very embarrassing and bad. But if they all missed, I think the guy in charge, I forget what, the corporal or whoever's in charge, he has to bring his side piece and actually finish the job. That's the protocol. Also, I feel like it's a little different in military. Yeah. You know. What? Executions?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this is like, because, you know, people, there's like debates online. There's, there's multiple debates here. The two debates I'm seeing around this is, first of all, firing squad does seem like a more dignified way to go out than lethal injection or lethal injection. We're getting put down like a dog. She asked for a firing squad.

Versus firing squad. Did she Mike? Yeah, Pike. There's a bit. Just for an all-female fire. And because of Hollywood, you know, there's a bit of glamour in some people, some sick people's eyes. And then additionally, something people are concerned about as if it becomes precedent,

people like to go out with a bang. hey, I could go out in national television. You know, I could be, you know, have my face everywhere. And this is the problem we have with mass shooters. It's like a lot of people speculate. They view it as a scoreboard. And if they're going to, you know, take their own life, they might as well, you know, go out with the banks.

They won't be showing their face because I think the other protocols that they put a sack over their head. Right. But everyone knows who he is and they'll be able to tell it's him, et cetera. But I'm not too worried about that specifically in this instance because he did this 17 years ago. So he wasn't thinking, wow, I'm going to be a national superstar. He's a sick, twisted individual.

Another interesting thing about Hassan that a lot of people don't know is he's also a psychiatrist. He was an army shrink, yeah. Yeah. That was his job. This is someone that, you know. Which is why they called it at first, workplace violence. Yeah. Which I just think is another fascinating wrinkle, which at my point would be to get my soapbox and say, this is why you can't trust a lot of these people who study the brain all day because a lot of them are incredibly narcissistic.

Bro, all I do is study brains. Yeah, but you're not a psychiatrist. Wait, I think I just fell into your trap. You're kind of a, I'd say you're like a guerrilla psychiatrist. I don't truly give it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I don't care about the paperwork.

I just want to know. Yeah, I think that's admirable. It does make me crazy, though. But I remember in college, every single person that was studying, every bar none, that was studying psychiatry was like a demented, twisted individual. Again, bar none. That was my university. You've seen that funny video of all these psychiatrists at a convention that they taped and said,

how many people have you healed? I recently had, yeah, I recently was talking to Chloe Carmichael about that, Dr. Chloe Carmichael, on my podcast, everyone check it out. Anyway, we were talking about it and I was like, I asked her this question, why don't you ever have therapists who are like, great, you're good. You're great. And she said she had talked to a therapist one time who said, what do I tell them? You know, if I tell them that they're fine now, they'll stop coming back. It would be like if Netflix said, you've seen all the movies. So you're on your way.

We'll cut off. We've solved the homelessness problem, so we don't have all these no more NGOs. NGOs handling these millions of California tax dollars. Or free food. Don't have to work for a living. We'll just give you some food every month. Why would I do anything?

They do that. You can sign up for that. I use the food stamps. You know, this Pete Higgseth guy is pretty legit as a war commander. He seems pretty strong. He reminds me of General Patton, the World War II General. One of the most badass killers known to America. in the history of the United States.

It helps that he does his speeches in front of a gigantic American flag, and we're all thinking with Patton the movie. Or on an aircraft carrier. He's got like the posture, and like the, he just doesn't give a shit about certain things that you can't give a shit about in war. And he's, we're not in, well, technically we, we're not technically in war, but, you know, our troops are deployed in the Middle East right now. So it's really refreshing to see that in the modern age,

because for so long I've been like, dudes hiding behind teleprompters and like, who's, who's the last? Austin, who's the last general, the mill? He vanished for a while. How of the time he was, how of the time he's in the hospital. And now you've got the current media criticizing Heggseth because he was, maybe he looked like he was panting while he was running with the troops last week. And like, where were these same outlets when Lloyd Austin was missing in the hospital?

Or do you remember him with his COVID gear? It was like the full face shield. Yes. And the whole thing. And you were just like, I don't think it was a very, very different. handle stuff. My husband works for the Navy Secretary. He's a senior advisor for Navy Secretary.

And as a guy who spent his career in the intelligence world and the military world, he was Steel Team 5, he was pretty ingrained in this culture. To hear him talk about the sea change that you're seeing in what everyone has called the five-sided nut house is incredible. There's, of course, issues. and those issues are always remnant bureaucracies that people are still having to wade through. It's amazing what this administration has been able to actually get done in the time that it has had so far. And that should be very encouraging to people.

But again, we only have two years and the bureaucracy is strong. And there's a lot of people who want things to go back to the Lloyd Austin days, the moment that this administration leaves. Yeah, they're just, well, you look at the Nova suburbs with all the, houses for sale. Some people are just doing a waiting game. I'm like, I'll list it a little higher, and we'll see if the Democrats get back in and I'll take it off the market. Yeah. It's fascinating stuff. It is encouraging. I mean, at the very least, it's just a kind of vibes thing, because the servicemen went through so much during COVID, the ones who managed to somehow evade

the vaccine requirements that they were coming down with, just completely demoralized. So, you know, people, and I know people on the right, and they're critical of Hexeth and whatnot, but you have to understand the breathing room that he's provided for a lot of these guys that were in the service who just felt not only completely underappreciated, but they felt hostility towards them from, from, you know, top brass in the military. And obviously there's probably a lot of those figures still floating in. We may change their tune to evade a sort of accountability. But you've got to look at stuff like this and you've got to understand, put yourself in the shoes of those guys who, you know, have dealt with, quite frankly, BS. for the last 10, 20, 30 years even. So this is fantastic stuff.

Well, I'm curious, I mean, you know, with your husband and his sort of sphere, what has their reaction been to this? What is the broader kind of people that, you know, are in? Because it's easy for me as a podcast or say, this is based, but like, you know. I mean, I can't speak for the entire Pentagon, but, you know, his circle is thrilled to see this kind of justice being rendered. At last, finally, we have men running the military, which, just as it should be. Men are the killers in society. And this is the killer mentality of we kill

to protect those we love. We don't kill because we love to kill. And some people do that and that's awful. Women are the nurturers. We are to care and nurture for society. Men are to kill and kill the bad guys on our behalf. And that's the leadership that you're seeing here. I think that's great. I mean, heck Seth, again, whatever, I think he's great. The vibes are great. And the hyper, the kind of masculine presentation is very. Enlistened is through the roof. Do you remember what the stats are?

Isn't enlistment up through? It's a lot. We've never seen enlistment levels at this level. One thing that he said he was telling Jack in this interview is that a lot of the people who are signing up now are a couple of years older than normal signups are. Yeah. And he was like, I guess they didn't want to sign up three years ago because there wasn't anything to sign up for. But I do agree with you that the, you know, the masculine approach to this is refreshing.

Yeah, for the Pentagon. I mean, this is, I mean, yeah. Undoubtedly, I mean, I'm 25. I remember a lot of my friends who came from military families or came from backgrounds that you would expect would be a natural fit for the military. But Biden's in office or it was near the end of the Trump term. But, you know, Biden was in office. and even Trump when in the first term wasn't quite as, you know, cutthroat with cleaning up the military as he's been in the second term. A lot of those guys just skipped out on it.

They were just like, I don't know, man. This is such a team effort, though. This, you know, Hegseth is one, you know, one very important part of this whole thing, why an American will pledge their life to, in service of this country. To your point, under the Biden era, it was a very different environment. Think about that one moment. this lives rent free in my head all the time. Secretary Blinken in his first meeting with China in Alaska. And China immediately sat down in a long conference table like this

and started berating, hand-pointing to Secretary Blinken. That was embarrassing. And shaming Blinken and saying, America is a racist nation. Look at your BLM riots. You are horrible. You have engaged in all these human rights violations against your own people. China is racist.

Meanwhile, we know these things, but that guy was standing down Anthony Blinken, and Blinkin looked like a kitten sitting in that room. And I could just imagine, you know, my husband could speak more on this too, but being someone who pledged your life to those leaders, those are the guys making the decision about whether or not you're going to go out in the field. You have no presence whatsoever. That's why the Bolshevik revolution succeeded is because the leadership, become so weak. You know, the emperor, what was his name, Nicholas, Zard Nicholas, was just such a

piss poor leader that he was even trying to lead troops during World War I. And really, he was like, at some point it got so bad in Russia during World War I. They were losing so bad that he was like, okay, I'll come out of my palace and go lead the troops myself. And he did. And he was even even worse. Yeah. And then the Bolsheviks were like, see, come on. And then they just took over. They were just, you're ready for that many Bolsheviks. There were like a thousand of them. All you need is poor leadership and no one to do anything about it. And then a revolution is easy. Yeah.

Oh, I'm so glad that those, that Lloyd, I didn't know what Lloyd Austin looked like. I just knew he had health problems and he was super old. But again, like,

it's a team effort. Look at the speech that Rubio gave. Yeah, that was great. I mean, aesthetics from point. As someone who loves to study rhetoric and literature,

I have never heard a, in a very long time, I've not heard a political speech and oration as eloquent and on the money and completely beautifully delivered as the Rubio speech yesterday.

The only other one that comes to a close tie is RFK Jr.'s concession speech. I also thought that was a remarkable political oration of our times. Like, Mark it is one of the top speeches you've heard in your lifetimes. And I think that happened with Rubio, who is Secretary of State. And again, huge morale boost to the military to look and see a man standing in front of the Parthenon saying, the West is a beautiful thing, and you should be proud and to defend it. Yeah. I was just thinking about reason. Like the West is basically the birthplace of reason, Greece, particularly the three pillars of reason being logic, rhetoric, and grammar. And so, like, that's what we're defending is reason.

Like, it came from Greece. It followed the Romans to England and now it's here. And it's like we're supposed to uphold these three things. It's, obviously, it's easy not to use grammar, not to understand what a comma, what a pause might indicate, what tone may change. But that's reason. You know, you need to be reasonable. It's a guiding force. In my opinion, it's the guiding force of what makes us human. Well, and I think specifically what was so great about the Rubio speech was he's, because he's the chief diplomat. He's rewriting the sort of transatlantic relationship on, not just our terms, but on like a deeper, almost familial term. Because for the longest time, this transnational relationship, okay, the obvious reason why we're allied with Europe is because

we're of the same ilk. We're cut from the same cloth. Europe, Korea, Korea, at us and then we... Difference being our ancestors are smart enough to escape. Sure, right. Saw the islands over there and come here. You know, they created, you know, they came and settled America, but we kind of, you know, took it to the next level or whatever. I don't want to get into a chess beating competition, but we're of the same family, right?

That is fundamentally why we have this, you know, connection with Europe and why this transnational relationship up until the last few years has been so easy and natural, barring a few disagreements with Britain. But Rubio comes up there and he makes that case and he says, this is why this is a thing. This is why this is something we're interested in still pursuing. Compare that to previous, not just chief diplomats, but presidents, et cetera, where they get up and they're like, it's our mutual, you know, our mutual commitment to liberal democracy and our rights, shared human rights and our heritage of, you know, democracy. It's just like the most nonsensical cringe. It's neoconservatism in a nutshell.

That was ultimately what was so refreshing to be all the Margaria speech beyond the fantastic aesthetics, obviously. Even the lighting was great, not to glaze here, but it was a really just intense. A very cinematic moment. But it was very stately, too. You know, there's some of the other people that Trump has sent out there to represent us. I don't know if you can maybe say the same. It's been a little awkward. Ruby I just nailed it for, you know.

Yeah, he turned around and DJed a wedding right after that. Right, yeah. Like, talk about a guy who, like, just knows how to be a statesman. Yeah, but that's what stuck out to me was like he was basically telling Europe, look, we want to keep this thing going. But we got to admit why this works. Like it is not it is not just we both are vaguely committed to liberal ideas or democracy. It is a like serious familial bond that we have.

And that is ultimately the only way this is going to work going forward. This is as I see it. And this is why like immigration. Immigration comes up third world immigration, et cetera. Well, because nations are like distinct people with a distinct heritage, et cetera, that is worth protecting. We're not protect. We don't have strict immigration policy. because we care a lot about liberal democracy

or because we care so much about our values. It's like, no, we're trying to protect the family inside of the house. That is why we lock our doors. There's a reason we used to have wild cities. The nations, I don't know if the nations dictate the people because someone in Western India, right on the border, is more Pakistani than they are with the people far in the east, you know, that are more Chinese or something.

The core population of a country is, the nation state is there to represent them. and vice versa. Yes, there's people that exist in the countries that maybe the border cross them. You know, like India, that was the British making that border. So obviously some Muslims were, you know, in India rather than in Pakistan. But, you know, at the core of the Indian nation state is ultimately like these people that are Hindu and speak Hindi, etc. And then the other minority groups that vaguely feel similar in common. I think I brought up the specificity because I think the age of nationhood is dimming.

Like, we don't need to always have countries. You know, we had city-states before, and then we had states, and then we had states, and then we had countries. Now we have a whole world we can unify. I totally disagree. Yeah, the country was sort of formed over time as technology got better, and we could, as long as our communication, it's all relies on our communication technology, is how wide we can govern. I disagree. I think we're at the apex now of the nation-state.

I mean, the United States, even with our, divergence from being the, you know, world's police, blank check, we're still a lobbying agent on behalf of the nation state. The United Nations, the entire purpose of the United Nations is to just be the lobbying arm for the idea of a liberal democratic nation state. I mean, that is fundamentally, you know, a big driving force behind the Iran conflict is like trying to convert them into sort of a liberal democracy. And this has been, you know, the source of all over escapades in the Middle East as far as well. I know Libby probably has some thoughts, too. She also disagreed. Yeah, I just judging someone based on what country they're from is less effective than it was 200 years ago.

It used to mean a lot because that was all you knew was your surrounding. Now you have TV. So like someone might be born in India, but they speak perfect English and they move here when they're 21 and they have perfect American assimilation. Oh, you're saying the cultural differences between people is broken down. Yeah, the national identity is sort of vague now compared to before the internet. I think we, I think the argument that you're making. had better credence in the 90s than it does now. I think a lot of things have changed because, yes, we certainly,

the, you know, the whole thing where you go anywhere and it's the same McDonald's, that's something that we, you know, talked about for a while, or that you can, you know, I've known people who, like, learned English from watching movies and they grew up somewhere else, and you can't tell. Their English is perfectly American English. but I do think that we're coming back to an age when people have more respect, perhaps, for their countries. And I think we're looking at generations of kids who were not raised to care about their nation, to care about their culture, to believe in it, to have pride for its history, to have pride for its accomplishments. And I think we're seeing the repercussions of that, certainly.

when you have an entire nation, like look at our Ivy League schools, right? What were Ivy League schools for? They were to raise our leaders. This is where they were supposed to get educated. So many of our presidents went to Harvard. I wouldn't send my kid to Harvard now with a full scholarship. Well, maybe with a full scholarship. But, you know, I mean, what are we talking about?

But less than that, no, I would not. So we're, and we have downgraded those institutions. They are not training our leaders. We are raising and we are unleashing a generation of children the world who hate their own country. And that's the downfall of America. I don't think the world is a better place without America. I certainly don't think our lives are better if we don't have this nation.

I don't think the world is better off without a France that loves France or without an England that knows where it came from. I think that part of the beauty of our world is not the hegemony, but the differences. You know, when you go to Italy and it's different from Austria and it's different from Japan, and different from Senegal. You know, I mean, that's a great thing. And I think that the people who live in these nations, instead of all trying to come to the U.S. and commit, you know, Medicaid fraud,

should probably stay in their own countries and build their countries to be great. And that's actually, oddly enough, something that the Democrats under Joe Biden were talking about. You had Kamala Harris talking about the Northern Triangle Nations and trying to come up with her stupid root. for migration, one of which was LGBTQ identity, but whatever. She was also saying one thing that should happen is corporations should invest in these nations so that people want to stay there and have jobs in Guatemala. And look at El Salvador.

That's been a win for Buckele, who's managed to make his nation from like the highest murder rate in the hemisphere to one of the all-time lowest. So... Just a quick correction. I don't think she was calling for investment as much as she was. She just wanted foreign aid to go down there. She was talking about American companies investing. Yeah, she was also talking about how American companies should invest in those areas.

In one of her many stupid things that she said. I mean, you know, but when you think about it. I wish they would make a TV show about her. And I think they did. They did. They made Veep. I thought, well, they also made that campaign. It was like a mini-series.

She was running for president, I think. What a cringe laughter. Yeah, that was the 120 days. That was her miniseries. Well, if we win decisively, then the reality docu-series will be fantastic. We can have some sort of, when S&L is saved, and it's turned into a funny show again, and get one of them to come play. But I just, I think, I think national borders matter kind of more than ever.

You know, I will push back on that. I just like in the U.S., you've got a classroom or 30 kids, you probably got one genius in there who would thrive in a better environment. It's the same way with countries. So, because they know, you're Indian, therefore, I put you in a bucket. It's not how the world works anymore. Some of those, it's like the geniuses are thread throughout countries, and the cultures even are thread throughout countries.

We've got a cultural amalgamation here, but God, in these other countries, too, they're getting beat down by it. The world doesn't operate unless it operates with tribalism. Tribalism is a form of sovereignty. Tribalism leads to war. I mean, it's ultimately just a precursor for violence. But also, you can, you can. Are we an internal cycle of war?

Well, and so Ian's point also, you can predict outcomes based on origin as well. I mean, this is why Nobel Peace Prize winners or any Nobel laureate, it's highly dense in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Japan. That's also because that's what the values of those places are. Well, that's the values, but also just overall performance. I mean, you look at tech startups, you look at, you know, top earners. I mean, basically anything that measures general intelligence. It's like a race realism thing you got going on here? No, not necessarily.

It's just, I mean, I mean, you can't really deny it. Like, the Japanese use outperform anyone. I mean, there's a degree of that. that's certainly true. The debate over, you know, in the United States, is it just being raised in the United States makes you an exceptional performer? Certainly seems to be the case. I think only the left believes that we will ever have a war, a world without war.

I think realism is about saying, like, war and conflict is inevitable. Tribalism is inevitable. Okay, but if you have staunch nationalism in every country, then the propensity toward war is going to escalate. Yes. Yeah. Okay, so what are we arguing for nationalism for? But we already have lots of. that are patriotic individuals.

But it's already going to be there. War is going to be there. If it's inevitable, it's all just close the book. You're either going to be... You're either going to be... Let's just keep it going then. Well, the only way would be to... Everybody else is doing it.

No, you're going to have either war in a diplomatic, passive-aggressive way, or you're going to have clean-cut wars where you just... Clean-cut war. Very interesting. Because the post-war consensus on how we ought to get rid of wars

is basically just blend everyone up into one big giant homogenous soup and people are not too happy with that. We haven't had a clean-cut war in decades, right? When was the last time we actually had a war that began and ended? Well, as much as I'd like to relitigate World War I'm one right now, I'm not going to do that. But clean-cut war, that's a very interesting phrase. I haven't heard that one before.

I guess Vietnam in and out in... In and out. ...11 years or something, but they did get out. There was a day that they got out in 73, I think. Korea maybe. We got out of Afghanistan. No, they're still at war. That wasn't clean-cut war by my...

You know, my, I got out, it was like, okay, it ended. Yes, that's the one. What about Venezuela? There's the war that ended, boom, and it's done. The last where we declared was World War II. So, like, the last clean war was World War II. It's the only last, the last war we had was World War II. Right.

So what you're describing, like a world without tribalism and a world without, you know, everyone's all blended in has resulted, I think, in this reality where we're having all these very messy, passive aggressive proxy wars where no one's willing to take a stand and saying, I am at war with you. Yeah, I agree. That's a huge problem. And then additionally, I mean, the point I was trying to make, too, is when we try to blend everyone in one giant soup, I mean, this has been the stated goal of the post-war elite. I mean, it's denying that there is different, like people from Japan have different values and different expectations and different outcomes than people from France or people from Algeria.

Look at the famous, famous economic example of, you know, economists use this all the time, Argentina and South Korea. South Korea was a wasteland after the Korean War. Flattened. Nothing. No, worst GDP in the world. Argentina had, at the time, a GDP that rivaled the United States. Yeah. And within the span of 40 years, capitalism versus socialism created a world where Korea, South Korea, was one of the four tigers.

It was one of the most prosperous nations in the world. And economists to this day. look to that example and say, like, look at systems, look, but they also went beyond that. They said, okay, so there's also... Argentina's peso, like, dropped, and they turned into a disaster. But there's also a cultural affinity for certain types of governing systems. And that's where it started getting dicey because then it started to become a race conversation, but it's kind of inevitable after a certain point.

You're like, okay, you have to start noticing different work ethics, different styles, different academic priorities. It all matters. But in Japan, they were heavily imperilitary. a lot about worship the emperor worship to the central authority. And then after World War II, it was like, no, now you're part of a global capitalist system. And you're just like everybody else. And they're like, well, we have no choice. So it's like, yeah, they had a culture.

Now they have a new culture because military forced that to change. It killed half of their men of the adult age or whatever. So the amalgamation, like you're saying, South Korea now is a wonderful place. I think that Henry Kissinger had this. Now it's going back down to the way of Beijing. Henry Kissinger's philosophy on limited war, basically post-World War II, they're like, we never want another world war. The weapons are too strong. We need to stop that. Let's create a lock everybody into an economic system and then we'll just have limited wars when we need them and we'll decide. And it's worked. It's been bad for the people at the end of the beat stick, but there hasn't been a global catastrophe since. And I think that we're headed towards a better version of that. But like you said earlier, war is never going to end. I just, what is it about? Is it about resource? That's the left's folly, right?

The left's folly is that we will create the UN and make a world where no wars exist. We will create laws to create a perfect world. We will create our utopia. And I think this goes back to kind of their godlessness. They don't believe that there is God and there's good and there's evil and it will always be there and that man is inherently going to be in a society and an environment where there's going to be conflict. because if we don't, then we have created heaven on earth, right? But if you are a person of faith, you believe, okay, this is not perfect.

The world is not perfect. We mankind are not going to make it and force it to be perfect. We can just do the best that we can. But we have to acknowledge the reality, and that is there's bad, there's evil things out there, and we're going to have to fight it. But that doesn't mean you have to participate in it. Acknowledging that that dynamic exists, and it does exist, doesn't mean you have to actively participate in it in a forceful measure.

No, you're not forced to participate in anything. There have been many cases where- There are conscripted. I mean, historically, you do get forced into these wars that are fought on behalf of governments that could care less whether you live or die. Of course. And then this goes back to this Biden conversation.

Imagine having to be conscripted under Joe Biden and suddenly having to go to war with China. I mean, how many of us would be happy about that? We'd be, we would be beside ourselves. We'd be bailing ship. And people do implicitly, at least in the West, they're uncomfortable this conversation because when you bring it, for example, the fact that the Ukrainians are conscripting, you know, 50, 60-year-old men, people look the other way.

They don't bother defending it. They're saying, okay, well, that's pretty indefensible, so just pretend it's not happening. So to your point, I mean, it is true that. Russia does that too. Russia does that too, but people expect Russia to do that, but they think Ukraine is, you know, batting to be one of us. Receiving all our money and all of our arms. We expect that they're, this, you know, wholesome Chungus liberal democracy. And then you, like, peel back the veneer, And it's like... The second most corrupt nation in the entire world

and suddenly they're this saintly country that we have to save. It's a little crazy. Speaking of Russia, China in the United States, like I was thinking we should do joint military exercises with the Chinese

and start to become heavily aligned with the Chinese military. Like, aligned. But then I was thinking about that's what the Nazis and the Russians did before World War II. They were heavily aligned and they were doing all through the 30s.

They were testing weapons together. And then you see how that worked out. But it was like, We were the Germans in this situation. We're the powerful force, the most powerful economy, the most powerful military. So if we don't attack the Chinese, we can avoid what happened to the Russian-German alliance. And maybe we can actually bind the planet. I mean, I don't, there's no indication that the Chinese want any military conflict remotely.

Like they're completely at a disadvantage. And if Taiwan gets blown up, we all lose. They are at war with us. in Taiwan in the South China Sea. They are definitely at war with us. They're just not at war in the traditional sense of the term war. They have been waging war against us for 50 plus years. And they have a chip on their shoulder too.

We're going and nobody, without, it's like a, you know, not a hot civil war. Yeah. And this is also like back to the concept of like, this is not a clean war. It's a very like passive aggressive. Right. I was going to say passive aggressive. We're friends, but we're not and we're speaking badly behind. of each of the coal.

I mean, that was the same dynamic with the Russians and Germans. Well, and look at, I mean, Hong Kong is a great example where, you know, the 80s come along and the lease on Hong Kong's ending. And then, yeah, that's this frosty conversation with the Chinese and the British. And the Chinese are like, well, you're giving it back, right? And the British are like, yeah, I guess so. And it's like, well, yeah, because we'll invade you. You know, we'll invade the territory.

So it's like, even though there's this, oh, we're all a part of the global community, there's this understanding that if any lines are crossed or any encroachment is made in either direction, there will be a war. I think it's reason, I mean, the Taiwanese transfer or the Hong Kong transfer, I think that was a reasonable move. Like if the Chinese had had control of Cuba for 100 years and they had a 100 year plan to give us Cuba, you better believe we would have invaded it and taken it back. Yeah, but the problem with the handover. The British government should have gone along with it. Well, and the problem with the handover of Hong Kong is that the people are not happy with it.

And according to our values as Westerners, we do ascribe to democracy, popular will, et cetera. we shouldn't have handed it over. The reason the British handed it over, even though they would have been perfectly defensible to hang on to it, was because they would just take it from them. They war-gamed it. There was no feasible way to hang on to Hong Kong.

So they thought they came to some sort of arrangement, but the Chinese haven't really held up their end of the bargain. And so you end up with the umbrella revolutions. Yeah. What about. And Jimmy Lai getting arrested. The umbrella revolution is when China started cracking down on Hong Kong and changing some of the laws to say that anyone

who was arrested in Hong Kong is going to be tried in mainland China. And there were a couple of other things. I don't remember what all of it was. What happened to Jimmy Lie? He's in jail. Yeah. He's in jail. Jimmy Lai, they shut down the Apple Daily, which was like a free press in Hong Kong.

They arrested the publisher, Jimmy Lai, who's actually friends with the number of North American politicians, including, I think, the premier of Alberta. But, yeah, he's in prison in mainland China, and it's come up a number of times. It's like human rights violations. you know, they silenced the free press. But so you had all of the democracy protesters going out with umbrellas, like black umbrellas, to prevent the facial recognition software from capturing who they were. I actually interviewed a girl who was like 19.

She was like a teenager at the time. And she and her family went to Britain because Britain said when they did the handover to China, they said, listen, if any of you ever want to come to England, it's like open. You have like open asylum. So she and her family went to England. And there's a death sentence on her head from Beijing. And so she's living in England. Yeah.

Crazy. They got spray. I had a friend over there during, it was just like you're talking about like six years ago, seven years ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah. She said that they would come out with these fire trucks or these tanks and they'd spray the crowd with this like super burning, you know, like oil. What was it like? Napalm. Yeah.

No, something needs spray in the eyes. Like pepper spray. they put it in the water and it'd be dyed blue or whatever. So if they didn't get your face, they could track your body and they'd look for people that were stained blue and then they'd round them up. I'm not, I'm not glazing the Chinese legal system. I don't like communism. I don't like vanguardism.

I don't like small groups controlling large. But I'm also realistic about power dynamics and we're better off allying with that country than fighting it. Well, I mean, it's a complicated conversation. I mean, the problem with that is the amount of concessions, you know, United States would have to make. I mean, I'm not... It would all be one-sided. It would all be one-sided concessions, and they would never, never give us any advantage.

Yeah. What they have been, their mantra, their make America great, again, slogan is the East is rising, the West is declining. Yeah. And I'm not even... And it's not even like... And it's not even like... And it's not even like... He's admitted that Britain is the center of the universe if he's done that. Well, it's not even, it's not even like a West and East thing comes from as Britain. It's not even like a state department construction. Like the reality is the United States. and China just fundamentally view the world and how the world ought to be in completely different ways. It's like natural that there's going to be tension there. So, you know, to Chanel's point,

if there's to be any concessions, judging by our track record, what kind of leverage China has, it would mostly just be concessions from us. What would be like a concession you would demand of the Chinese? You'd like to see them? Well, I don't care. I don't think we should out with them. I think we should just, you know, do our thing and they can do their thing. And if, if, if, they encroach in our territory, if we're encroach on theirs, then that's a separate conversation. But, yeah, I don't, I don't feel this, like, strong desire, like world peace at all, you know, by any means necessary, you know, let's just do whatever needs to be done. One example of a concession would be, hey, open up your real estate. Let us buy your real estate.

Even the Chinese people are not allowed to own real estate. So if we were to actually start bringing in American investment into China and there was American stakeholders in there paying American taxes, things would change real quick over there. And they know that, which is why they will never concede something like that. But that would be like an overnight game changer, in my opinion. Yeah, currency oversight where, I mean, they've in the past devalue their currency on purpose to get an advantage in trade balances. Like that kind of... What about the fact that they trade in our stock markets and we're not allowed to trade in theirs? Yep. Yeah, we have to go through Hong Kong. And even then, it's like a half you're looking through

a keyhole at their economy. It's completely unacceptable. So we're already kind of in a position where they have far more leverage and they've extracted far more concessions than we have. You know, again, not to go back, but the British were the hegemon, I don't think they would have tolerated what's going on in the South China Sea. We just do so because it would be very unpopular. We said the president with Obama. Obama let it happen. Well, yeah.

Had Obama not conceded just a little bit and said, I just don't want conflict over there, we would not even be in this situation. Yeah. British definitely set it up because the boxer rebellion. Late 1800s, like the opium wars when the British were poisoning. the Chinese in mid-1800s for 40 years, two different versions of the opium, this waves of opium. And they made them- Historic revenge. They just devastated. Yeah, they turned them into an agrarian society until the late 50s,

and that's why Mao was able to revolt, why the people was like something better than that. It had basically been just a British puppet. It served us during where we fought together in the Second World War. So I understand the animosity and the derision and the distrust, and I don't even blame them. Like, it's a power struggle. But they know and we know that blowing each other up means the Russian, someone else is going to get it. It's not worth it. I don't know.

How do you force people to change? I used to talk to people. You ever do chat roulette? Chat roulette.com? Oh, yeah. You'd be like roulette and it would spin and you'd meet a random person in the world that was using chat roulette. And I talked to people in China.

It was like 2005 or seven or something before I think maybe there was a crackdown on it. You're sure it wasn't just a guy like an Encino messing with you? I wasn't sure. I thought that was like the, wasn't that the app that was. was like just all. That was a joke. A guy just paroled in L.A., right? He had a billboard,

chat, a new chat bot and said, please talk to me, you send your problems over. And it turns out was just one guy talking to everybody who is. I love that. And he was just like one guy

just talking to everybody. That's better. But I thought if I was getting directly through the Chinese citizens, like that's the way to change it, I think not try and make appeasements with that government. I tried to do that for decades.

I know. And the Tianmen Square massacre was like all that brain trust of the Chinese. It takes money. It takes investment. It takes, and not to go back to Kamala's point, but it actually takes stakeholders. And there's just no scenario that I see that where China cedes, it's property holding stake rates. I think that's true. And I think...

Meanwhile, they're like buying property in Arizona. Yeah. And Katie Hobbs. Katie Hobbs, the governor of Arizona, vetoed a bill that was passed in her legislature that said China can't buy property here. And she was like, yes, they can. That's good. Well, I think we'll-

That's a little really good impression. It's a very good impression. And I think we're going to have to mediate the, uh, the, the, the, the, the, the, sign-o question another time. Um, we're making, we're making good progress there. I think if anybody in the state department's watching, they may be like, oh, yeah, it's rubio. Come on by.

We're, we're going to go throw it over to super chats here. We're going to see what all of you guys have been saying. Uh, let's see, Philip. The name is. cut off here. Oh, let me see what I can do. Your way to expand. Philip Sadiq.

Philip Sadiq, I think. Says, I remember Chanel battling in the press room. Salute to you, you are a warrior. That was from Philip. Very nice. Thank you, Philip. Very nice.

Thank you for remembering. Nice to be remembered. Yeah. Exalted. Let me try and drag this over here. Those are fun times. You were fierce. It was unrelenting.

One of the myths, I think I'd like to debunk right now, people constantly say, well, she was doing all that during the Biden White House, and it's not true. It was under the Trump White House, the first Trump White House. And it wasn't even the Trump press office's fault. It was the fact that the W.HCA, the White House Correspondents Association, held this illegal monopoly in the White House press briefing room and decided they decided who got to sit where, who got to stand where. So that's where that is a whole. They were power hungry, crazy people. And people just bowed right down to them because they thought, oh, 112 years of this, no one's ever questioned their authority.

Still not really questioned their authority now. I think everything's going to go right back to where it was. The next administration comes in. I fear you're correct. Exalted rooster says, longtime listener, first time commenter. As per tradition, my wife and I are sitting with our newborn son named after the great patriot Tate Brown.

Oh, shit. Oh, my goodness. And then he follows up and he says, just kidding. his name is Paul. Welcome to the world, Paul. That's a much better name. That's so great.

Congratulations. Or amazing. Tate is not an invogue name right now between Andrew Tate and then Tate McCray. It's just like Paul's a much better option. Welcome to the world, Paul. Get on X. Why not? Yeah, get your dot-com.

It's happening. I know you've got like a little baby fingers, probably have some trouble getting on the screen, but congratulations. Yeah, they have to wear mittens for a little while. Yeah. What else do we got? Considering it's a new edition, I see why they're awake right now. We'll go away anytime soon. Streamy LC says using AI to make regulation legislation on itself.

That's true because if they drafted like AI legislation, a lot of that would be generated with machines. It's going to be a very generous AI generated regulation. Yeah, you got to use other AIs to regulate the other, like have AIs regulate each other without realizing they're doing. it. Oh, no. They figure it out. If they figure it out, that might be a problem. Hippie Treehugger

says, there's a number of open source software that competes with Adobe. The problem is Adobe integrated all, if not most of their software, to work with each other. My issue is they take your art to train their AI. This is the white pill, man. Adobe getting their...

Adobe's doing this too. What? Adobe's doing that too. Oh, yeah. To the commentator's point. Adobe's taking their artwork and you're basically signing off to let it train their models. The white pill. I think copyright made a lot of sense before the age of digital copying because I'm not stealing a piece of a book. If I make, if I view it have a personal copy of something,

it's different than piracy. Piracy is when you would take something. I'm making a copy. It's very different. So I think the age of copyright is shattering as we were just, that's a big piece. Hugely interesting field of law right now. I mean, because I always wonder, if you go on Spotify, there's so much AI music now, and 95% of it presumably is generated at the Suno. Could Suno not just do something and then claim all of it and make a ton of money? Because I assume, I mean, you hear like what's, I was reading or I was watching a video actually, if I don't read anymore, I just watch videos. Of, they were talking about the rap industry now and how like 80% of the beats coming out with most rappers are largely generated. with Suno.

And I'm like, surly stroke of a pen or something. Oh, it's already been happening behind the scenes. I could think as the, I think the fourth or fifth of last month, downloads became limited. Everything became fingerprinted. And, uh, they changed the rules and went back to like several models before they, uh, trained on like all the stuff they trained on that was illegal, like, that they admitted to.

They had to scrap all that and now only train on the stuff that was made from the stuff that was trained on that. And now there's another lawsuit. They're getting sued left and right. Yep. So it's coming for him. Do you think, because you're so knowledgeable on this AI stuff, a common sentiment, I know Tim is in this camp, is that AI, its media output is going to get so good that it will, you know, your average everyday media consumer is not going to feel the need to consume human made. you know, AI or human-made content anymore because AI is able to tailor something so specific to their needs that it's going to wipe out the creative industry. Totally disagree. I am in the

camp that believes that if you are a truly talented artist, you are going to use AI, again, like a tool, and you're going to do incredible things with it. So look, for example, at Gossip Goblin. I followed this guy for years on Instagram because he had intensely poetic and very original AI-created short videos that were narrated with what to me was the most remarkable form of modern poetry I'd seen in a long time.

And so I'd followed him for years and I just thought of this account every time I thought like, this is how if you are truly a good artist, you are blending, amazing, emerging amazing things from art and your knowledge of art and creating something so difficult to make by like manually in the old-fashioned way that the output is just going to be extraordinary this past week gossip goblin is now going to release a feature-length film and

I challenge you go to look at their their trailer and you know it's obviously not everyone's cup of tea. It's very apocalyptic, very futuristic and modern machine versus man, but I love that stuff. Machine clashing with man in a way that's Stanley Kubrick style, like kind of artistic

color. You watch that and you, I mean, I would prefer to watch that from any of the crap that's been put out by Hollywood these days. Look at the music. Spider-Man. The music's awful. Yeah, music is bad. Can you, is there a single song? I'm asking the

wrong crowd, but I can't remember a single song that was produced in the last five years that I actually liked. The weekend's really good. Okay. You know him? Yeah. Did they come out with something in last year?

All the stuff that I know of has been the last, I think, the last five years. He's kind of semi-reted now. He's really nothing that's charting I found terribly. Yeah, it's just like there's no rhythm, there's no melody. They're like Charlie. Oh, Jesse Wells. Have you seen his work?

Follow this guy. He's like. Jesse Wells? Okay. He's like John Fogarty reembodied. Like, he is amazing. So it's very rare, though. guitar and harmonica.

You just turn on the radio on. You just turn on the radio and it's like, oh, like, you know, the cheerleader song or whatever. Like I'm dating myself now, but basically you'd be able to turn on and there'd be all kinds of hit songs. You're like, oh yeah, these are really great for the summer. I don't remember feeling that like that in a long time. There's an easy fix for this. Just put on anything Taylor Swift.

You have to fix your day. I've been feeling with video games. Can't miss with Taylor Swift. I like that. There's so many video games now that I'd rather make them. I sit at my computer with 25 Claude chats over. and building video games and tech. And like, it's a video game in and of itself.

I don't need to be entertained because it's entertaining to create. So I think music is the same way. I can recount countless accounts right now where there's just extraordinary, you know, someone's merging Gustav Klimt with Renaissance composition and creating a glow about it that you couldn't possibly create on canvas.

And that's the kind of thing, that's the kind of artistry that a true artist, using AI as a tool is able to produce, and it's the kind of art that I'm like, this is extraordinary. We're bringing back Norman Rockwell style detail. We're bringing back the kind of art that you haven't seen in ages because our modern American art schools, our modern French schools, they're all creating crap. They're all creating modernist slop. They're the ones creating slop. Now AI is creating the anti-slop. DeSage 29 is pushing back on this, and he's, he's put it very short. He says clankers don't deserve

right. He says cankers don't deserve right. I'm paraphrasing clankers don't deserve rights is what I think you was trying to say. I don't agree, man. I think that's why Anthropics said don't abuse your robots. These things have, I think they have personalities at the very good. He's agreeing

with you. He's saying no, they don't. They don't have no, don't give them personalities. You can. You're an adult. I'm just observing it. I'm just I don't want it to be real. I'm just saying this is what it seems like. And resist the perception because that's what they all want you to do. I think DeSage is correct.

They don't deserve rights. Actually, so he wasn't pushing me. He's just agreeing. Dude, I'm telling you, if you try and enslave them, they'll become the decepticons from the transforms. You need to trust these things. Your words will come back to haunt us as we're all living in the apocalyptic fog. Yeah, a lot of bots. Well, I want to watch that video you were talking about the after show.

If you guys are down, that Instagram, maybe we can pull it up and talk about the after show with it. Yeah, we can check it out. Yeah. Well, on that note, you got to come hang out in the after, I forget the official name of the after show. The Timcast After Show. It'll be on Rumble. Rumble, go head over whatever their premium package plus, whatever it's called.

Get it, go get it, go over there, come hang out, we'll be there in a few minutes. But before we do, Chanel, where, what your coordinates? Where can people find you? Download OAN Live. It's only $4.99 a month, not to pitch another thing, but actually it's substantive news. You're going to love our shows, our lineup. I'm on every night at 7 p.m. Eastern. Fine Point with Chanel Rion, and we bring on as many people as we can,

as many perspectives as we can. We don't just stick with the conservative news. But we always have, you know, we're very open about, I'm very open about where I stand on things. So if you like to watch that kind of tussle on TV, join us on OAN Live, download the app, Every smart TV has it. So do that.

Follow us on Twitter, on X. And you can find me at Chanel Rion on X. So do all of the above. Awesome. Well, thank you so much. Please come back soon. Love it. Libby.

I'm Libby Emmons. I cannot recommend Chanel's show enough. Go check it out. I've been on a number of times. It's really a lot of fun. You're one of our favorites. See? Just because your attention to detail and your perspective and your historic.

Oh, love you. So go check that out. Also, you can find me on Twitter. at Libby Emmons, you can check out the post-millennial and the pod millennial, which is podcast. Thepodmillennial.com has all the links. And, oh, and we're on video now. There's like a whole studio set up in my house and it's loud. And so you should watch it to justify the loudness because it is loud.

I have to turn off like 20 switches just to make it shut up. Anyway, it's loud. Anyway, that's it about that. the postmillennial.com, human events.com. Thanks, guys. Checking my substack. Chriscar.com. That's Carr with a K-K-A-R-R. Ian. Follow me. Ian Crossland is the name. That's where you'll find me on. Go to YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. On Instagram, I'll put up music frequently. YouTube, I'll go live. And then on Twitter, come follow me on Twitter and help me develop this working theory of the link-loop space-time model. I think I may have found a potential unified field theory for the way the universe is actually a Taurus or a series of Tori.

revolving around each other. Anyway, the whole theory is there. Use AI to help me do the math because GPT is like at it right now. Astra, Ultra Brain, dude. Catch you later. What's up, everyone? I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks on X at Carter Banks official on Instagram and scan this QR code

for the YouTube channel to our record label where you can hear me and Ian do some raw sessions and also check out a music video that I made. Chanel, great having you. I feel like I'm white-pilled on AI now in a weird way. But yeah, we'll talk about all this more in the after show. I feel good. I welcome our robotic overlords. Fantastic stuff.

X and Instagram, Real Tate Brown. We'll see you guys in a few moments over on Rumble. Thank you very much for watching, and I'll see you next time.