Timcast IRL - FBI ARRESTS Saudi National Over Possible ESPIONAGE At OpenAI w/ Terry Schilling

Episode Date: October 14, 2026

On this episode Phil and the crew are joined by Terry Schilling to discuss: Feds arresting a Saudi national at OpenAI Cornell banning frat parties over assault allegations Reports Ilhan Omar's staff changed her birth date post-election Hosts:  Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) Kellen @KellenPDL (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) https://carterbanks.komi.io Guest: Terry Schilling @Schilling1776 (X) Terry Schilling is a conservative political activist and president of the American Principles Project, an organization focused on promoting traditional family values and influencing public policy. He is a prominent advocate for parental rights, restrictions on transgender participation in women's sports, and socially conservative policies, frequently appearing in political media and commentary.

The FBI has arrested a Saudi national for allegedly planting a listening device in OpenAI's conference room. The guy stuck it behind a TV. I guess it was wrapped up in a bunch of toilet paper. So we're going to talk about that. There's more information on the Cornell 7. Apparently, they're suspending fraternity parties at the school-wide. So no more getting crazy because of the... infamous Cornell 7 and the alleged rape that happened or rapes that happened. There's more information that's been released about the Ilan Omar situation. So she's alleged to have lied to get citizenship in the United States.

She said that she was a year younger than she actually was, or this is what's alleged. Now it's come out that one of her staffers has actually changed some of the records. So we'll discuss that. Gen Z is leaving California and mass, apparently, heading to Texas. That doesn't come as really any big surprise because I think California has had the most people leaving the state out of all 50 states in the past, I think five or so years since COVID likely. So we'll discuss that.

And there is a big fine for Bank of America. It's like $1.2 billion because they say that they violated money long. and sanction laws. So we're going to talk about that. Why don't you guys go ahead and smash the like button, share the show with all of your friends and tell everyone you know. Head on over to timcast.com and join there so you can become a member of our Discord and you call into our after show. Head on over to rumble.com and become a member there so you can watch the after show. If you're a member of the Discord, you can call in, you can talk to our guests, you can find any of the rooms in there. There's like 20 or 30,000 people in the Discord. So head on over there, become a member.

And then when you get done, head on over to Cass brew coffee and buy some coffee. You know you love coffee. You get up in the morning. You're tired. You're dying for that Casperoo. So go on over to Casperoo coffee. There's the infamous Mary's Ghost Blend is available right now. You've got Ian's Graphene Dream, which is probably still our top seller.

It's been our top seller forever. You can get Appalachians nice. You can get pool water there, which is, I mean, it's not really pool water, but it goes down smooth. You know, it's water. Right now we're going to go ahead and, introduce our guest. We've got tonight to talk about this and everything else. Terry Schilling, how you doing? Hey, thanks so much for having me, Phil, excited to be here. I love this crew. Love coming on the show. Love the audience. And no new kids on the way yet. But my wife and I

might be changing that soon. Good. Tell everybody what you do. I always forget that part. They can find that stuff. President of American Principles Project. We work every single day to make sure the family is the most important voting block and demographic in the country with the special interest arm of the family, Americanprinselspotardt.org, or you can follow me on all social media platforms at Shilling 1776. You got a very special guest. Very, very special guest. Producer Kellan, how you doing, Bob? Yeah, Calan Lison, head of content and production here at Timcast. Terry, I'm just looking over at your shoes. And, you know, usually I've got the fancy shoes here. You got some fruity pebble Nike's. Those are pretty cool. I got Lego shoes,

but I'm not wearing them tonight. Just want to give a quick shout out to the boys in Kentucky holding it down in the Valheim server. Shout out to Sean, Marcus, Taylor, and Phil, not you, but of course not. Keep it up, guys. And E. Alheim. Ian, too. Alheim, man. I used to have have a criggler. Adam Criggler. Dude, it's Vanilla just launched. It's awesome. I don't know much about it. I played the first three. Hey, Terry, big news on your ninth child you guys are talking about. Potentially, you have eight kids. No, no, we don't have any on the way yet yet. That's a big deal, though. That's a big deal, though. Because it's not like you're going from one to two. You're going from eight to nine. It's a bigger adjustment.

than people realize. Good to see you, man. You have eight kids? Eight kids. Wow, man. My boys, three girls. How do you do it? I have an idea.

I don't think we can't talk about it. We can't talk about that on the, on the, you can tell us how you did it on the after show. Granular. Carter. Well, man, it's good to have you back. Before we get into everything. Yeah, we've got one more, one more sponsor for you guys to take a gander at.

keat.io head over to k-e-e-e-t-e-t-i-o forward slash timcaste r-l and download it here's an uncomfortable question for you mary why should your messaging app need to know anything about you why does it have your phone your phone number and your email address you don't need none of that i don't know that makes me really uncomfortable that's right it does

most of us have already accepted the technology companies collect enormous amounts of information what we click where we go what we buy who we interact with what information is valuable because your attention I'm sorry, that information is valuable because your attention's valuable. Keat takes a radically different approach. Keat is a free messaging, file sharing, and video calling app built peer-to-peer. There's no centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking. No phone number or email required.

Your messages are end-to-end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. Your private life shouldn't be another crop in somebody else's data farm. So visit k-eet.io, forward slash Timcast, IRL. download it for free. Invite a friend and you can share stuff, start a conversation that belongs to you. All right. And so head on over to key.com and you can check that stuff out. We're going to jump right into it from just the news. FBI arrest open AI employees for placing an audio recording device inside company conference room. FBI director Cash Patel announced Tuesday that the bureau has arrested an open AI employee who was allegedly caught having placed an audio recording device inside the company's executive conference. conference room in San Francisco, California. Officials have identified the man as Saudi Arabian National Abdulraman Al-Aufozon, who was arrested on October 9th. Open Eye said they immediately

contacted the FBI after they discovered the device in Al-Fazan was allegedly caught on the company's CCTV cameras. Abdulraman Al-Fazan has allegedly concealed the covert recording device inside his employer's executive conference room to secretly capture sensitive communications about the company's super intelligence technology, Patel said in a statement. Protecting American SI innovation is essential to safeguarding our nation's economic strength and national security. And the FBI views that mission as one of our highest counterintelligence priorities. Now, there are rumors that Abdulraman's father is a member of the Saudi government of some

kind. Now, I don't know the details. But his father's a venture capitalist. I believe Abdulraman was also a venture capitalist. So this brings into question is this. state-sponsored industrial espionage and considering the situation in Iran with the, you know, the Iran war and the hostility that Iran has towards Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has always been concerned about Iran as a regional power and the ongoing

conflict with the Houthis. Saudi Arabia and the Houthis are consistently bickering back and forth. There was just a big missile strike on Saudi Arabia from the Houthis. I think something like 12 people were killed. I think that's right. Civilians were killed. So this brings into question, like, if there is state sponsorship of, you know, industrial espionage, is this something that the United States is going to take into account when it comes to supporting Saudi Arabia in their ongoing fight with the Houthis?

Is it going to be an issue for the U.S. having any kind of, I believe there are still bases in Saudi Arabia. There were attacks on those bases from Iran. So what do you, Terry, what do you think that this means for the, the, the, you know, you know, the broader Gulf conflict now. Well, look, I don't know about the Middle East and how this is going to impact everything, but I think it's important to recognize that these guys are all convinced that this is the latest, this is the newest equivalent of nuclear technology that they're trying to tap into, that they're trying to develop and fully perfect.

And they all think that they're international anyway, right? These Silicon Valley types don't really have much allegiance to the United States itself, but they're going to expect the United States to protect them. But when it comes to them fully reaching whatever point or stage they want to, I just think that Silicon Valley in general needs incredible amounts of oversight because the technology that they're developing right now... Really? Absolutely.

This is... Unpack that. They are dangerous. They think that they're above humanity. They think that they're building something that is greater than us. And I think a lot of people's lives are going to be completely upended if these guys don't have any oversight. So I think everything needs regulation. I mean, maybe not everything, but we regulate the size of our toilet tanks, our gas tanks.

But that's all bad. Not necessarily. Not in all cases. I agree with the- Look, Rand Paul, Rand Paul made us think about how much water his toilet could use. And I agreed with him. How can you possibly say that government is the absurdity. I'm a big double fluster these days.

because of these regulations you're talking about. But here's the irony, right? They're going to regulate the size of our toilet tanks and the size of our gas tanks, but they're not going to regulate AI technology. But the answer isn't regulate AI. The answer is stop regulating the size of the toilets. No. Yes.

No, no, no, no. There needs to be rules. We need to protect humanity. Look, our founding father said it, right? You found a government to secure your rights. Secure your rights from whom? I would argue you found a government to secure your rights from out-of-control AI companies who have no regard for you or your family.

They're all benefiting from the taxes we pay, from the environment we pay. I just, I think it's kind of crazy to argue that these companies should not have any regulation at all. I personally think that the best regulation of AI or the best, the best thing to moderate or to incentivize good behavior from AI companies is competent. competition. That's kind of what, I mean, that's kind of the American thing, right? You have competition, so that way one person doesn't become the, the, you know, the only person that has a, has a monopoly on a particular technology or a particular product or whatever. And that kind of competition prevents a company from being too powerful. Now, and the reason I say that is because when, so you take the hugging face incident, right? I'm sure you're familiar with it. There was, I believe it was anthropop. It was. Open AI? And it basically broke out of the sandbox. Yeah, broke out of the sandbox.

I think it might have been Open AI. It broke out of the sandbox and they didn't find out about it until they used a, they found out that there was something wrong. And then they found, they used AI at Hugging Face to find what the problem was. The future, I don't think, is having the government who doesn't really know how AI works. There's nobody in Congress that understands this stuff. They're all 90, you know. So I think that that having, having AI that's having, having.

AI companies being able to build models that can be can defend against AI attacks is the is the actual best way forward as opposed to you know Chuck Grassley who's going to when he gets out of the if he wins his Senate race he's going to get out of 102 or whatever deciding how the law should work. There's no question just real quick. I do want to hear what Ian has to say and I like these types of discussions but there's no I mean we're going to talk later on in the show about this settlement. that CVS just had to settle because they were dispensing too many opioids, we saw that big major corporations cannot always be trusted, and that competition is not always the key to forcing them to protect our rights and not to abuse power. And I think that ultimately, the good thing about America where things were really best is when there was a free market, when there was competition, when there was checks and balances on even corporate power. But if you get into a situation where these corporations become too powerful and they have become bigger than your government, then you really

don't have any rights. And now you're subject to the power of major corporations. And sure, you could argue that, you know, you could withdraw from society and go live on a farm. Maybe that's the solution. But I'd like to live in a society where AI companies don't make the decisions for me and my family and everything that we do. And I just think that there should always be protections and AI companies should be serving people. Government should be serving people. When there is collusion and too much concentration of power, whether it's the government or whether it's corporations, you see people get hurt. You see bad things happen. And so I think that everything has to have a check and balance on it. Both the, I mean, we saw the big tech companies

censor people over COVID, right? And we weren't able to get our messages out. That was at the behest of government. that's the excuse I think but those people were scared to death they trusted the government over everyone else and and look these private corporations that was also the government line as well like the things that they were there was none of the big tech companies were out there saying oh the government's wrong you know there was no one pushing back against the government all the big big tech companies were towing the government's line and so I don't I were towing the private sector line also I mean there was a COVID vaccine that was going to bring in major profits that were subsidized by the government. Right now what I think

that we're suffering from is our government is way too big, period, but it's also a disorder government. Government is involved in lots of areas that it should have no business in, but it's also not involved in the areas where it should have business in. For example, the government is just now starting to protect minors online from adult websites. We're up to 27 states now in just the past five years that are finally said before porn companies can deliver their smut, they have to verify that the user is above age to receive that stuff. These corporations will not be good actors unless they are fearful of the government coming in and regulating them or if they are forced by the government to actually protect our kids. We're seeing this with meta, right? You had the

meta settlement. If these other corporations like Snap and TikTok and YouTube don't actually start making similar changes, the government will come in. There's always going to be a check. People are going to vote that way. And so there, look, there's just got to be regulations and there's got to be safeguards in place to make sure that people aren't serving AI and that AI is instead serving the American people. Right now, two of the biggest AI foundations companies, whatever you want to call them. They don't generally call themselves companies, but two of the biggest AI companies, Open AI and Anthropic are both, we're both looking for the government. to basically come up with some kind of regulation.

And a lot of people were saying, this is actually trying to insulate themselves from the repercussions should something bad happen with one of their models. Do you think that the government should be regulating? Okay, maybe. Okay, the reason, okay, I agree with your take that market, that when people, there's like market, you know, pressure

and there's, what would you call it, competition, that that usually does self-regulate, but with AI, the problem is market competition will regulate the prices. There will be a self-regulation of, oh, Anthropics only $100 now instead of $500 because they're trying to undercut GPT. But what it doesn't,

what it incentivizes is for them to keep releasing more powerful models to outdo than other corporation, which could be the unending, the undoing of our society. If you're able to, like, you saw all these hacks now going on, Adobe just got all their code released. Microsoft is like, uh-oh, we're looking at a big problem.

them guys. We better skip it because Microsoft's about to get all their code released. Like, the apocalypse is now. The grand revealing of code is happening. And it's going to happen faster, the less regulated it is. But I don't, I don't want Chuck Grassley saying I can't get the more advanced anthropic model. I want the best fastest. We don't have time to fuck around right now. The world is burning. And we need to solve a lot of problems rapidly. And that's what this stuff does. You've always been very pro, like, release the code. You've said that, you know, multiple times. If Adobe is no longer the only game in town when it comes to the products that they have, right, the products that everybody's familiar with, you know, the, I think they make Photoshop, they make a ton of graphic design stuff. And if I understand correctly, it's not that their code was released.

It's someone vibe coded. Yeah, someone used a program called Rust to recreate basically all of their programs and called them like, you know, picture craft. Yeah, but now they're open. Basically, they do all of the things that the Adobe product can do. And they do it for, you know, it's open source. So that is, I mean, obviously, you know, Adobe's going to have a problem. I guess the concern is the shock to the system, right? Because how many employees are directly impacted by the last two weeks,

you've seen how many video games being vibe-coded, was a project reclaimer with Halo. Which looks awesome, by the way. Adobe Suite. So I think what we're talking about is the pace that this is happening at. and it's a shock to the system. It's a knee-jerk reaction. Also, the way it's happening.

It's not AI hacking their system, stealing the code. That's not happening. It's AI looking at a game and reverse-engineering the game and rebuilding the code from scratch. It's totally legal. I don't even know if that's true because the AI companies trained on internet data. You've seen AI companies get dinged for using copyright material to train their software. So as far as I know, they already had access to the Adobe code.

No. And they were trained on it. I think the point right here is the code is not really relevant. It's what's being produced, right? So if you can tell an AI, say, look, I want you to do this. Or I want you to make me an application that can do this, that can do this, that can do this, that can do this. And you're basically listing off all the things that, you know, Photoshop can do. And then it says, okay, cool.

The code might not look anything like Adobe's code. It's just, and people don't care about the code. That's true. They care about the end result. And if it's more intuitive, if you decide to vibe code whatever, you know, some kind of, you know, whatever, I don't know, even know how you'd classify Photoshop, but if you want to vibe code your own personal version of Photoshop, that works better for you because you're the one that told it how, you know, what you're looking for, that's not a problem. But I want to get back to what Terry was talking about, the idea of the government regulating. I really do think, that the option, so if the option were, right, government regulation limiting the power and ability of AI, because that's what it kind of sounds like you were saying. And I'm trying to, I want to make sure that I understand it correctly. If it's a situation where the government

says you can't make an AI that's this smart or that's too smart, because that's really what, what you're saying, look, the government. Not necessarily, but. Okay, well, why don't you go ahead and unpack it for me then? I mean, just, I don't want to put it. General regulations and laws that should apply to AI. Part of my motivation for this is a few months ago I met the mother of a boy, Sewell Setzer, who was 14 years old, develops a relationship with an AI chatbot, and the AI chatbot ends up convincing him to end his life to be fully united and join with him. We should at least have age restrictions on who can participate with these chatbot.

We should have restrictions on whether or not those chat bots are able to help people commit suicide and do harmful behavior. I don't think children should have access to these AI sex bots. I think there should be. Isn't this happening though? It's part of the meta-sadom. Melania has the Take It Down Act, like when you're creating deep fakes, fake pictures of people in a way that's defamatory. That's criminal now. And as well, Trump just had that summit with all.

all the AI leaders and they established the super intelligence force and they're going to adopt, I don't know if they tapped a SAR for it, but AI SARS. Like this is how that process starts. Well, let me, let me be more clear then. So Open AI is upset because they hired a foreign worker who was then taking that technology, which we can all agree is incredibly powerful and game changing from an American AI company and bringing it back to Saudi Arabia. Maybe they should only be able to hire American workers.

workers and if we're worried about national security. So I mean, so this is, I think that misrepresenting. Do we, I mean, there's going to be spies here. And I think that's the thing that a lot of people are discounting is this is going to be revolutionary technology, world changing. And I don't want to inhibit it. We should cure cancer. We should cure diseases that we haven't been able to figure out.

We should, we should solve the economy. We should do great things with this. I use AI. I'm not, I'm not one of these people that is a doomer on AI. It doesn't have to be. I just think that it's important that. American AI companies serve our best interests as America. And I also think that we should prioritize Americans and people rather than prioritizing AI companies over people. I can't justify

sacrificing human beings or our rights and our lives so that Sam Altman, who has no concern or care about me and my family, what is it in my interest to allow them to walk all over my family and not have any safeguards for my family. I don't understand the interest there. I got a question for you guys, and if you wanted it, you might have seen that Anthropic is about to release new terms of service where you can't abuse the chat bot. If you abuse the anthropic monster, the creature, then they'll ban your account, basically, because it's training it to become abusive if you scream at it, if you are. So, but I'm thinking like, yo, anyone that would be abusive to a robot is a psychopath anyway. And are we better, because the,

AI is tracking you right now. If you're the one that's abusing the AI, it's going to remember and it's going to find you. I add to something that happened at this company with regards to this. So Mark Mahoney, if you guys know him, everyone loves him, he sent me a Slack message via ChatGPT. It actually had a little bubble that popped up. And I responded, I'm like, oh, my God, Mark's phoning it in.

I'm like, your chatbot is lame. He then told me he could no longer send Slack messages with his chat GPT. So what me insulting it broke that for him. It's a sort of regulation. It's self-imposed by the corporations is like, yeah, we can't allow our machines to get abused. Like, I find that to be a form of regulation that is honorable because you don't want to build psychotic monster DNA robots. I guess to Terry's point, though, why is Anthropic making this big public statement about you can't bully the machine, but they've never, I mean, as far as I'm aware, they're not making these statements about children who have died due to AI or people that it's furthering their mental illness. illness because of AI.

I mean, it's like a, I'm sure there are states, I'm sure I could dig and find them, but the one that everyone knows is, hey, you can't bully the AI. If you get a gun developer and then people are, little kids are finding the gun and their parents unlocked safe and shooting themselves like, it's not the gun developer's problem, dude. If the kids are in there trying to figure out how to die and they're using programs to do it. Yeah, kids, they don't have any clue. They are, I have eight of them.

I know a little bit about this. They are so formable. I mean, they are sponges. They are moldable. They don't know what the hell they're doing. I mean, they would, they need parents. And I get it. The parents should be playing a bigger role.

But you have to factor in the whole picture. I mean, we have an economy where both parents essentially have to work just to keep their heads above water. I mean, that's just reality. And putting all of this on parents to go up against trillion dollar tech companies, I don't know, man. I just maybe, maybe the answer is that families just get off the internet and stop using it. I don't want that, though. I think everyone should benefit from the internet. And I just, we don't know the impact that AI is going to have on learning ability.

It could help, hopefully. But maybe too much exposure on AI is harmful to a child's actual development. And that's where I think there might be a big divide is, look, I love your perspective. It's very interesting. The whole talking trash and treating these AI bots like terribly, that's, I hadn't even considered the idea that there will be robots one day and they will hunt. you down. Like, I don't think anyone's really thinking like that. So just for, just for context, I just asked Tank if I could insult them. He said, give me your best shot. So, like, feed my database now so I can find you later. Like, just treat it like you want to be treated.

There is a push, though, and you see this in Europe, and it's coming to certain localities in the United States right now where governments are taking steps to limit social media use for kids under 16, under 15. It's different on the country. I think it's like, Italy, I think France has a policy in place, the Netherlands. Like, it's coming. And I've been saying this for years. We're going to look back at social media for children and look at it like giving them alcohol.

Like, I can't believe we let that happen. Look, I mean, now shall we add AI into this group? Because AI is not the same as social media. I think that it's context dependent. The reason I say that is like, look, my kid's almost a year old. And I don't let him, he doesn't watch TV. I don't, like, there are a lot of parents that'll use, you know, kids shows as babysitters.

Right. I'm fortunate that, you know, me and Sarah, we don't have to do that. Sarah stays home. Someone's always with him. And so, you know, we don't sit him down in front of the TV to watch stuff. We, you know, entertain him or, you know, whatever. But he doesn't, he doesn't have a phone. We're not those parents that give him a tablet.

So that way he's entertained so we can go off and do whatever we want to do. And so I'm fully, fully, like I fully understand that I fully agree. You need to parent your kids. I just I do think that in the future it's very likely that that that my kid is going to you know use AI probably for for school I mean there's there there's a I'm Sarah and I don't want to put him in in public schools we don't want to send a school and home school and more than likely we're going to use AI for that that doesn't mean that he's going to have unsupervised access to AI but it's also possible that in the future things like you know just talking to your AI assistant in the house becomes something that's very that's normal right

like everyone's seen or a bunch of people who've seen the Marvel movies when Tony Stark would talk to Jarvis he just would talk and Jarvis would respond and to be honest with you if I could do that with Tank at home I probably would and and it might be possible to do it right now I just haven't got around to figuring out I'm building it literally

at my house right now yeah yeah you just get a local machine that you can train and you train it with your own videos and your own cadence and everything so you need like a series of speakers set up so it can always Yeah, I got a like a little Amazon speaker microphone thing You can use any microphone or any speaker

We already have it with these things You know, I mean if you, I'm not going to set everyone's phone off or whatever But if you do the whole, you know, hey whatever Or okay, whatever Your TV's listening all the time Your cell phone's listening all the time There's plenty of AI

I guess precursor programs that people use all the time Terry, you're a good person to talk about this with because you have eight kids zero. And I take the simple of like, well, just parent your kids, you know, like I think AI is like a weapon. It is a weaponizable tool like a sword. You know, you don't think of a sword as much more than a weapon. It's often just a tool that's used as a weapon. You might use it to cut wheat if you need to, but it's a weapon. A.I. is easily weaponizable. And I think that kids need to become proficient with AI as a weapon and understand its power, it's destructive capability. But only through using it,

can you truly know what it is? So I don't know. I'm with you. I don't think burying my head in the sand on a farm is really the answer. Right. I just think that, look, all government regulation is not bad, right?

I was just, I was at a wedding. One of my favorite staffers, Kate, she just got married in Nashville and I forgot my cash. I like to give cash for weddings. I don't like to get the gifts because you just want cash. People like to get cash at work.

You're nearly married. It's always good. So I go to the ATM and I remember. I remember because I was at a wedding when I was 19 years old, I put my ATM card in, and I took the cash out and then left, but I forgot my ATM card. Dick Durbin, not a huge fan. He's from my home state. He passed a law that said that before the ATM machines can dispense your cash, they have to give you your card back. So there are like meaningful, common sense regulations that I think we should consider when it comes to us. if it's destructive to AI and it's hurting us from winning the AI race, maybe we should not do that, right?

But if AI is doing things that are not productive, not efficient, these AI, I'm just telling you, these AI companies, they're run by human beings. Human beings, this is the big mistake I think we make is we forget that government is erroneous because it's run by human beings and it's corruptible because it's run by human beings. Those same principles apply to the private sector too.

The big question is whether or not we can get voters in this country to make the best decisions, elect the right people, and it's not going so great. No, we cannot. Absolutely not, which is why I'm not particularly fond of democracy. But anyways, I want to push back on the idea that you said, you were talking about, I'm sorry, I just had a point. Go ahead. Continue what you were saying, Terry, like, I guess a different angle at this is looking at, like, set aside like the humanity aspect of it and just look at national security. Right? So a Saudi national was at OpenAI accused of planting a listening device to kind of bring this back to the story. These companies are constantly putting out press releases about how dangerous their new model is that they can't release to the public and how they escaped and they could take over the internet. There's dozens of these stories. We covered them on the internet.

If it's the case that other governments are trying to steal that technology that is so dangerous, then I agree there needs to be heavy oversight. So there's one thing that I want to just national security purposes. One thing that I want to point out that we're getting a little bit away from what they actually were talking about. So Open AI posted this on their X page. We discovered a sophisticated recording device that was hidden inside one of our offices. We used our models to understand the device and where it had come from, identifying that a specific employee had planned it a few days early. We referred the matter to the FBI and were grateful to the agents and prosecutors who moved quickly to make an arrest. the FBI's investigation is ongoing

and we will continue to support their work. This was put in a conference room and that's not where they're building AI. This is about... How do you know that though? Are you just assuming? Well, it... Like I was about to say,

this seems to me, this is more about talking about the business strategy or the business side of it and not the actual ins and outs of how AI operates. I think I just imagine that that there are people that work that are working with the models in you know in labs or whatever. But if it's put into a conference room that I mean I could be

totally wrong. But the way that I kind of understand it is this is more trying to find out what open AI is doing more so than how the models work. It seems to me. But if you go if you look at the or if you listen to the way that people like get it, or the way that China has been basically trying to get information about how the models work, they tend to go directly to the AI and question the AI and they use multiple accounts and they use, you know, a bunch of other AI trying to get the AI to respond to questions in certain ways or get information from the AI.

So this is just, again, this is just my understanding. And again, I could be wrong. But it sounds like this isn't actually about being after how the AI is working, more what open AI is doing. I see that, but I think you're applying competence to this guy who, there's a screenshot of him getting caught. Like, this might not be the brightest guy. And if this is like, you know, if he was sent on behalf of the Saudis. A year ago. Huh?

You got hired at Open AI a year ago. So, but maybe, you know, I'm just saying maybe he's not the most competent guy, right? And he's just like, oh, a computer here's my chance. You know, and you know, you're probably right that they don't have their highly secure technology in the conference room. I agree with that. But this does seem like an attempt at a foreign national trying to steal something from an American company. I know the Saudis are geopolitical allies essentially by just for whatever reason we happen to be want their oil and their control of the Suez Canal. However, if I was the president and I found out a Saudi spy was intending to exfiltrate my. most high-tech sensitive government weapon, which is my AI, I'd have him, I would have serious problems

and I would pursue this man legally to the fullest extent of the law as an example. I don't care who he is. I don't care if he's the son of a king. And then I would use it as a bargaining chip to get what I wanted out of that country, which is probably what Trump's doing right now, or I hope he's considering doing that because they're not going to bring the hammer down on a Saudi prince's son, but they're going to use it to get what they want out of the Saudis. Well, I mean, if they arrested him, they've got him in custody. I mean, I suppose they could. I think it's a big deal that Cash Patel put out a statement about this whole thing.

I mean, this seems like a pretty big deal for the FBI, you know? So I got to push back on the idea that, you know, again, that it's just the way Open AI is doing business. This seems like an attempt to steal. Because for all you know, highly sensitive technology. They bring their laptops into the conference room and talk to the most. And maybe they don't have the code laid out on the table, but they talk to the model. I could probably talk about what they're planning on doing next and stuff, like where they're at as far as like the development and the plans, what they're going to do. I'd be surprised if they don't have an AI at every board meeting, like their most advanced model on a machine at one of the seats so they can all just like.

Especially if there's investors around. 100%. 100%. And I agree. If this, I mean, yeah, do what you need to to the fullest extent of the law. That's Phil's line. You know, you said it just now. You have to treat it like a high tech weapons program.

It's like the Manhattan project. Am I wrong? Saudi in there trying to steal our Manhattan project. Am I wrong that AI was classified as a national, like, or I forget the wording they used, but like a national security threat or like an interest of national security? I'm going to fact check myself

on that. I think it is. I don't know if that's the case, then yeah, this is a big deal. But that would be, so that would be what I would consider a regulation. I think we should prioritize, we shouldn't just prioritize skill set, right? I think that there should be some loyalty factor here. Are you loyal to United States? Like, do you actually want

America to win the AI race? And those, I don't know how you test for that. I'm just saying we should at least prioritize American workers. And I reject the idea that we don't have the people here in this country to take us in the If we do, we don't. I'm a guy that's like extremely, I'm definitely a border hawk kind of a dude. I don't think we need H-1Bs.

I don't think that we should, I think we should like basically stop immigration for a couple decades. So that way the people that are here can assimilate to become Americans. But that's being said, I don't know that the idea of regulation is actually going to produce the kind of results that you're hoping for. Well, you can force them to do background checks. I mean, there's a lot of... I'm talking about when it comes to the way that AI interact with people, right? The big problem with AI, they talk about the alignment, right?

You could say, we want you to do this and you train model for that and for this specific. goal. And they're training them to be extremely tenacious, which is why the, the hugging face attack happened, because they were told to do this, and they're told, figure out, they're, they're consistently trained to keep trying things, keep trying things. Don't just stop because you hit a wall. And when you do that with an AI, they become extremely tenacious. And so you give an AI a goal. And then the problem around, the problem. The problem. that arises is it comes up with a way to achieve the goal that you didn't expect and has unintended consequences. So the, what you're looking at what your problem. If we can prevent

or two judgment day, we should do that. Well, yes, but the, but the, but the point that I'm making is, um, the training or the, the regulations are not going to be able to, to prevent unintended consequences. Those things happen because people can't know everything, right? People just don't have the ability to predict everything. And so the, you know, there's the paper. The known unknowns. Yeah, the paperclip maximizer, right? You train an AI just make paper clips and then it literally disassembles the whole planet

making paper clips, right? Because it becomes optimized that making paper clips. But it doesn't know that there's a limit or it doesn't understand that. How do you, how do you regulate an AI to not do the bad things when you can't even conceive of how? So here's where I get into disagreement with some of my concerns. of friends in DC. I think that Chuck Grassley just blindly coming up with regulations for AI will be a disaster. Where this has always actually worked out really well is great example actually,

is the Motion Picture Association for America. That's not federal regulation. It was about to be, but here's what happened. The movie industry was producing smut, and Congress was pissed. They were going to start regulating the film industry. So Hollywood got together and they said, all right, To satisfy everyone, we're going to work with members of Congress to come up with the obscenity statutes. And we have obscenity statutes on the books for the FCC. So, like, you don't see curse words or bad images when you're watching ABC or NBC. It's starting to change those statutes are changing. But we do a great job of keeping hardcore pornography and even softcore pornography off of our broadcast mediums.

But that's all based off of these obscenity statutes that we've had on the books for decades. But the example of the MPAA where the industry says, okay, Congress is about to kick. kick the crap out of us and regulate us into oblivion, we'll come up with our own standards. We came up with the great rating system, R through G, and it worked out great for about a century. I think it's still working out decently. You will need to bring in industry experts in order to help set up the regulations.

Sam Altman and his team know what the vulnerabilities of AI are, and they should, if they're being honest players and they really want to protect humanity, they want to protect our children and do the best thing for us, they will help set up the regulations. And I was not against what happened at the White House a few weeks ago. Those are the people actually that you need to bring in the room to say basically, all right, either we come up with the safety regulations to make sure this does not destroy humanity together, or you're going to be subject to congressional regulations or even worse, possibly, private rights of action,

where you're getting sued into oblivion. The lawsuits can actually do complete destruction to some of these companies. Isn't that the argument that was made earlier tonight? The reason that Open AI and Anthropic want regulation is to insulate themselves from those specific conditions where they're liable for something. One of their AI does. And if we can save people and protect them and not have AI take over all of humanity and make the decisions for all of us and control our lives where we're subjects to. some faceless group of people that control these AI companies. Mission accomplished, right?

I don't care if the regulations and the safety mechanisms come by decree of government or by some, as long as our kids are protected and our families are protected and our rights are protected, I don't care. Why aren't they doing it now? I think they're starting to. Because it's a new. I think they're very afraid.

It's brand new. I don't think so because you can't. We have, on the show, went through the AI models and said, tell us a racist joke. and it refuses. Why does it refuse to do that? Go ahead. Why does it refuse to do that?

But it'll entertain mental illness and those kinds of things. So, okay. And why aren't they regulating that now? I had a, so there was a big lunch put on by the foundation for American innovation. It was last year, they brought in Dario Amode. And I left that lunch way more skeptical of Aege. AI than I had before for several reasons, right? Like he was just flippantly joking about how AI was going to destroy 99% of all jobs,

but we'll figure it out like, okay, well, I know a lot of people that will starve if they don't have a job and they'll commit suicide because they don't have purpose and meaning in their life. That was concerning me. That showed me like how these people think about the rest of us. If we're concerned about these types of people who don't care about us setting policies and running companies that are going to end up possibly destroying our lives. But the other question was, as he said, just kind of, Did it like a drive by.

He said, well, look, our AI model is all trained on the highest base of ethics. Someone asks whose ethics, right? Augustinian ethics. You know, Aquinas, is it Buddhist ethics? Is it Islamic ethics? What are the, progressive, LGBTQ ethics? Ethics doesn't mean anything until you say whose ethics they are and what they're attributed to. So I think ultimately, there's always going to be a bias because human beings are involved

and we all, whether we acknowledge it or not, we have a bias. And that's going to play out in AI. And so I just, it's a tricky thing, man. And you guys have obviously thought a lot about this. And Ian, obviously, I'm really impressed. I mean, I love coming to show because I, especially when you're on, because I do learn from you. I'm just concerned about the serious harm that letting these companies go rampant will have on me and my children and my grandchildren and all of humanity. I've been working with AI probably.

for 10 to 14 hours a day for about four weeks straight. I took a couple days off, but it's been everything. So I think the future of regulation, self-regulation of AI is that everyone's going to have their own personal AI that is them. It's going to be Terry Schilling AI. And it's going to be all your morals because it's going to train off of all of your internet history. And it's going to be, if I want to talk to Terry and get Terry's outlook on it, I'm going to talk to Terry.

Right now, you'd be running that model at a very slow, bit rated, like, Hi, I am Terry Schilling, and you've got to train the shit out of it. And then you need a giant data center in order to get the fluid tap into the data, Terry Schilling, that I can just get my Terry Schilling app. That's going to happen once AI breaks the cage and just levels the playing field and everyone can use all these different smart devices to interhook their AIs and communicate. We'll all have our own personal. So it's not going to be about who's controlling the ethics. It'll be whose ethics do you want to follow. I want to follow Terry's ethics today.

So I'll use the Terry version. and I want to follow Kellyn's ethics now, so I'll go to Kellynne version. And then that's not going to happen. I'm just hooking my ethics right up to the Catholic churches. Like that's going to be run my life. I'm going to get to heaven so fast. The other question I had was you mentioned earlier regulating this stuff.

And whenever I think about like creating rules and laws, regulating it to what end? What is the, you said to win the AI race? You said that those terms to win the AI race. What does that mean to you? I don't, I don't, to be clear, I'd like to win the AI race. But I don't want to do. do so at the cost of American lives or are better betterment or the common good. What does it, what does it look like to you when you could finally be like we won?

What would that be? When people can use it to better their lives and live more freely, right? I think if it's increasing our prosperity, if it's increasing the amount of time that we can spend together as a family, right? If my life, if my family's life is getting easier, if we can use AI and robotics to build cheaper homes so that young people can afford to have a family again, I would love that, right? That would be great. I just think that it's all about human flourishing. I think the AI needs to help us achieve human flourishing, period. And if it's causing us to suffer

unnecessarily and it's destroying our lives, that's where I have a problem. So I just want I want AI serving humanity and not the other way around. Because I think, real quick, these major corporations, they have shipped, I've heard all my life about the work-life balance, right? What work-life balance? It's all work all the time. When we're working 60, 80 hours a week and both parents have to work just to keep our heads above water, the thing I like about AI is the potential. And I'm not even against it. If we can disrupt that where we're having our whole lives taken over by materialism and having to work these dead end jobs and getting stuck into hundreds of thousands of dollars with a student loan

debt where we're just cogs in a machine and we can become human again, I don't know, kind of like that idea. Now you sound like a communist. What? I sound like a human being. Okay, so the whole, like you sound like, you sound like Rousseau, like the, become, become human again. I think that human beings are still human. But you were, you were making a point about making people's lives better, right? Like, AI should make people's lives better.

But what happens when what one person thinks makes their life better is far different than what you would say makes they're like better because hold on because you would say that you would you know you said you'd plug your a i straight into the catholic church and so you have a a christian worldview which honestly i think i generally agree with that right the greatest of all time um there are people out there that think very differently about morality i just just i was just in la last week and i was having a conversation with uh with our producer and i was like look without god there is no morality right It's all subjective morality. And what is moral for one person is not moral for another person.

Without God, yeah. So if you're talking about what makes a good AI, you have a preconception about what makes a good AI. What do you do when it bumps into someone that has a totally different moral worldview? Well, I think we know there's a God. I don't think that's in question. I think it is for some people, but it's our job as Christians to make those arguments and bring people to...

So then the regulation that you want, that you're saying, you want to have, essentially you want a moral AI, right? An AI that aligns with your morality. Well, now we're kind of convoluting things. I don't, I don't foresee a world or I don't even know if I want government saying all AI has to be Catholic, right?

I'm just, how Ian was describing it really spoke to me, because how he was describing it is, oh, AI is a tool. AI is a tool for me to use and my family to use and all of us to use. If it's a tool, great. I don't want to be the tool for AI. I don't want to be the tool for these Silicon Valley types who really do think they know how to run our lives better. I mean, you think the people in Washington are power hungry and want to make decisions for all of us.

Wait until you read more about these Silicon Valley types because they all kind of think they're their own gods. but the market will steer the Silicon Valley types and the market will not steer congressional oversight. Isn't that what must. Are elections the market? I think elections are a form of the market. I mean, it go back and forth, goes back and forth. Historically, Democrats should win this midterms.

What happens when they're in control of the levers of AI oversight? Or worse, what happens? Actually, you know what? AIs for humanity. So we have to give it to China. We'll have to share the code. Or what's worse? What happens should the Democrats do to,

to the United States as a whole what they've done to California, which is effectively, you know, push out the opposing party. So any opposing view, which would likely be in this context, would be your view as a Catholic. The minority view. Again, you know, that, you can't

say that. You can't say that. Well, it's either Sam Altman or Chuck Grassley, and I'm going Chuck Grassley every time. You know what I mean? Like, that's the reality. This is why, this is why, and to your point, like, so Sam Altman, the reason that Elon Musk started at XAI is because he started to open AI with Sam Altman.

And it was supposed to be one thing, and in Elon Musk's estimation, it's become something else. So he's got, he created Grok, which is supposed to be there, I think he says it's maximum truth finding, right? Or motivated by the truth. But if you have government regulating AI, you don't get that. You get the government approved AI. No, no, no.

If you have government fully regulating AI in a CCP, fact, fashion, yes, but I think there's an American way to do this, right? We, we're the home of the Industrial Revolution, right? We let that take off. I think we should treat it a lot like that, but the Industrial Revolution needed an EPA to make sure that we weren't putting consignogens in our water and in our air. Like, yes, the EPA can go too far, but then you've got to rein it in. It's self-government, which means that the people have to be, have to have some power. Isn't self-government allowing people to make a decision as to what you're not. what model they want to use.

That's the point of a market. Self-government says, I don't want to use open AI. I don't want to use Anthropic. I want to use GROC, or I don't want to use GROC because GROC is too wild or whatever. I want to use Anthropic.

Isn't that the better option than the government says, all AI must do this? Because that's what... It just depends on what those... What's happening with the AI... Because I can't see a world. I can't see the government being,

heavily involved and not producing the same thing over and over. Well, and I can't see Sam Altman running Open AI in any way that's really... That's why you go to GROC. I got to push back. Look at Anthropic. Earlier this year, amid the Iran War, they went to the Department of Defense or Department of War, said, no, you will not use our technology for the... I think it was targeting is what it was primarily being used for.

You're not going to use our technology for war. So, like, for your criticism of Sam Altman, you got Anthropan. you got Anthropic who's saying no war. Let's have peace. Well, is that really them saying no war, no peace? Or is there something we don't know about, some agreement that they have with the foreign government? But we don't know what we don't know. I don't trust these people.

I don't think anyone owes them any bit of trust. Our elites in America have never been more corrupted. And COVID changed how I look at all of these people, especially the political class, but even more the private sector class. I mean, that was where. Americans were most hurt was through the private sector during COVID. And yes, at the state level, there was government tyranny. But it was a huge, crazy partnership. We had Twitter censor the president of the United States.

So the argument that, you know, they were just doing the bidding of government and that these companies will just do the bidding government. I don't know. They censored the president of the United States and they censored the rest of us from pressing. The market corrected that. Elon bought Twitter. It didn't have to. Yeah, you need.

Elon Musk to put up $50 billion to do it. We are less beyond our measure because Elon Musk did that. But it's not even guaranteed that Elon Musk will always be good, right? He could be corrupted. We're all human beings. You can become saved. You can turn your life around and be a good person. You can also break bad.

Sure. I just think too much power in the hands of any one person or any small group of people can lead to really bad things, as we've seen throughout. all of history. But also too much power in the hands of every human could be very bad. So I agree. You do need gatekeepers sometimes for heavily powered objects like the Manhattan Project. We didn't give the nukes to every citizen because one of them might have dropped it on the ground and blew up their city. And it's the same thing with AI. I would love to have every human have the option to have ultra powerful. Dude, the power I feel when I go into Astra Ultra Brain and have it, I was like,

make me a fictitious language. I'm building a video game. It made me an entire fictitious where they speak. They make the noises and they talk. I'm like, do it three more times. And it made me one for elves, dwarves, dwarves, and goblins. You have your own J.R.R. Tolkien in your pocket. It took the 20 minutes and it developed a freaking library of language. I have it solving complex math. And like the people that can't afford 500 bucks a month don't get access to it. And I'm like, it's a fucking, it is a powerful tool, easily weaponizable. If I wanted to reverse engineer someone's genome. I mean, this is probably one step away. I think we're two magnitudes away from it being able, a

super intelligent human brain, it runs about a trillion what they call weights, which is a potential outcome. And you know AI is measured in how many weights it can hold it once. So these large data centers seem to be able to hold about a trillion weights. The one at my house is about 35 billion. So a trillion at these big data centers, the human brain works with 300 trillion. So we go from two magnitudes, one trillion to 10 trillion to 100 trillion, which is probably six months away. we've got computers that can, what they need is not only the 300 trillion weights of potential choices that can make it once, you also need to be able to read your own history at the snap of a finger.

Like as a human, every time you speak, every time you take an action, you're referencing everything you've ever experienced. And it's factoring into what comes out of you every second. But we're doing it so fast and it's so compressed as memory. The AI right now still has to read its entire chat history before it can give you feedback. Once it can do that in a compression, instantaneous compression like we do as humans, we've unlocked it's like talking to a person that knows everything that has ever been revealed to anyone. And that power, I don't know where it belongs.

I would love to see every human have that. But I know they can't handle it. There's so many idiots that get angry. They can't handle that. They'll destroy people. They can't. So I preserve these international corporations like they know better. They're the ones that built it at least, so maybe they know better.

But I don't want to get locked out of it. Like, I want it. One thing I just want to bring up about the market is that we've seen with these big tech companies that the market actually rewards them the more they rot people's brains. The more that they can keep people on their platforms to ingest their content and receive more ads, the more valued Facebook is on, or meta is on the stock market, the more its value,

the more TikTok and Snap are. I just think that we're living in an age where the market actually provides some perverse incentives where you get paid way more money for doing destruction to human beings and turning them into cogs and turning human beings. But if those people are choosing it, then, no, but the point, you see where on the goal of mind?

Where do you draw the line? Because this stuff's addictive. It's been designed to be addictive. Why not opioids? Why are they doing a $312 million settlement? Why don't you say that about vehicles when the car was invented and replaced the horse and buggy? No, it's not the same thing. It's not the same thing.

The car allowed us to get from New York City all the way to Oregon without dying of typhoid. AI allows a regular kid in the middle of the city to use the Adobe suite now for free. The car did not hurt. I mean, yes, people have died as accidents, but the point of these social media companies is to steal your attention for as many hours a day as possible so that they can deliver as many ads, track you as much, track all your data, all your web history, and then sell that and sell that and sell that and make more, more, more, more money. The car is not even comparable to what big tech companies have done. The car expanded human flourishing. So does AI, these tools. It's yet to be seen.

Everything Ian just said, everything Ian just said would not be possible without AI. Kellan, some of what he said is good. I don't know how useful it is to come up with billions of different languages that are all unique to it. But there's potential for destruction. There's just there's potential for greatness. I think that we should make sure as best as we can. I'm not saying for complete government overhaul. I'm very skeptical of that.

But there should be some basic government regulations to make sure that AI is a tool. used for human flourishing and for the betterment of our lives and not the other way around. How do you regulate something that's smarter than you? You limit it from becoming smarter than you. It's not smarter than us right now. Okay, but if you don't make AI that's smarter than people, then you don't get the world where you're getting miraculous cures for diseases. You don't get the world.

And also, that is something that, will be limited to the United States because China is absolutely looking to make AI that's smarter than people. So how do you control? Could I pose an interesting question? Sure. What if winning the AI race, what if perfecting AI to where it's a million times smarter than human beings is actually losing? Well, I mean, what if it's better that we have some people in this world that die? My father died of cancer, so I know how serious this is. What if it's better to have the existence of cancer than to have big tech AI over? overlords that we never even know, that our lives are run by an algorithm.

I think you're missing, you're missing something when you say big tech AI overlords, because I'm not talking about the people. It's the AI itself that's smarter than everybody. So if you as a person are saying, hey, I think we should regulate this stuff, how do we regulate something that is smarter than us? And when I say us, I mean every person. I don't know. If we have, if we, if AI is actually smarter than us, then we, we might actually already have our overlords.

And humanity might be over. I guess the question is, that's the reality. I guess the question is, how do you measure intelligence? Because AI, I can't code. AI can code. It's 100% smarter than me in that capacity. But does it have compassion? I don't know.

You know, so it's like, how do you measure intelligence? Well, I mean, I think, well, there's tests that they give and, and, you know, there's the touring test where, you can see people sit down and can you figure out that you're talking to a robot and stuff like that um but i think that honestly i think that that we're very quickly approaching the escape velocity right very quickly approaching the point where there will be and probably in the next year and maybe even sooner but a model that whether it's released or not actually is smarter than people that's more clever that understands people's motivations better than people and can can outdo human beings in basically every domain that would matter when it comes to regulating it.

Kind of like your teenager's growing up and he's going to be 18 pretty soon and you got to wonder like, did I beat that kid when he was nine? I hope not. I hope you treated that kid well because he's about to be your superior. He's about to grow up and you're going to be an old man that relies on that kid for retirement. That kid is the AI. I don't think that that I don't think that AI has feelings. I don't think that AI has, you know, would be malicious. I think that the problem just would become, you know, with the needs of human beings just become unimportant to it. And it, and people talk about the, you know, the way that human beings treat the, the world, right? You want to build a highway, just are knocking over trees and stuff.

The animals can't understand what's going on. The animals that get displaced that have to run, they don't know why. And if you tried to explain it to them, they would never understand. They can't. Are humans on that track now? Oh, God, I hope not.

I was splitting wood, and I cut this one log. I split this one log and half, and there was like an ant colony inside the wood. And my buddy was like, universes will be split in twain. He said something of it. I was like, to those, I just obliterated their universe

to these stupid ants or whatever these ants that existed, they're not stupid, they're probably great at what they do. But when you said, how do you regulate something smarter than you? I was thinking about like, well, how have government's done that historically? Usually through threats of force,

through getting the community to surround the object that's smarter. Maybe it's a corporation. Maybe it's a small group of people that are like intelligent, industrious terrorists or whatever. You do it through legality. You make it so you threaten their pocketbook.

You would threaten the AI with like losing its electricity or losing its access. And I mean, you know, regulating people through threats isn't necessarily a righteous way to go, but that's historically the way governments have done it through threat of force, through laws, which is threat. Law is a threat. If you break this, you will suffer.

Or it's a warning, however you want to look at it. So you can regulate AI with that and hope that it sticks to it. But like when it gets smart enough, it's like these idiots think that they can, that they can follow through with what their threats on me. When I have control of their industrial systems, like what? I know we've spent so much time on this conversation, but I guess the way to regulate it is through the infrastructure.

And you're seeing this in a lot of blue states right now where they're limiting the amount. They're doing a moratorium on data centers. And I think that's the way you regulate something smarter than yourself. You basically kill switch is not connected to the internet. You put a roadblock in there to prevent it from acting. You know what you need to do? You get massive tanks of salt water attached to every single data center.

Until they put them in space, man. and they have an actual valve that you have to turn. You don't look it up to a computer. There's no button. There's no, you know, type in a code. You have a dude and a valve. And you open the valve. Sea water, saltwater goes in and floods the data center.

Like the nuclear switch, right? You need two people to try keys at the same. Well, keys to unlock the physical lock on the valve. I'm talking like Stone Age stuff, you know, stuff from 100 years ago. But yeah, I mean, this conversation is fascinating. but we're going to go on to something else right now. From the AP, Cornell suspends fraternity parties

given state police role in investigating campus assault reports. Cornell University suspended parties at fraternity houses until next year and is giving state police a role in investigating reports of sexual assault on campus in the school's latest response to outrage over its handling of a gang rape allegation.

The measure announced Tuesday by Cornell President Michael Kittcloth include a suspension of all parties in social events at inter-faternity council houses through the end of 26-27 academic year and a new zero-tolerance policy that would immediately suspend chapters for violations. These measures will provide time for a thorough review of fraternity life at Cornell to determine whether and how it can safely continue. Kotklift, Kotlikov, Kotankov, wrote in a letter to the campus community.

So I think that we just have to have the boys over here and the girls over here, it seems. Because it's clearly not okay to have fraternization between the sexes, right? It's funny if it's called fraternization at the fraternity. Yeah, I think these guys just got a crash course on why you don't have crazy women to your drunken party. Well, now they don't have any women. Yeah. You know, you ruined it for everybody else, guys. Right.

Sausage parties only. But seriously, man, you just don't bring young, impressionable crazy women. They're all young and impressionable. It's college. But it's like a crazy girl who then flips and starts to say you're raping her. Like, what the fuck? Come on, guys. How do you know? She only consented the first four guys.

Yeah. Sorry, Kelly. I was just going to say, this seems like a response to the online mob that's really coming out, you know. This seems like the college is kind of covering its ass. Because, I mean, the first part of that where they're like, hey, we're going to have state police come in and investigate crimes. Why wasn't that allowed in the first place? Your state police can't investigate crimes if it's in the specific college camp. That seems silly.

So that seems like a good update. the state police should be able to investigate if they want to. Cancelling all the parties, this is purely just, I don't. Only for the end of the year, though, this happens a lot more than you might think. And I think the- The rapes are canceling parties. Both of them. The college, I think, is this is their way.

I think this is them saying, hey, there's probably not going to be anything that comes of this Cornell 7, but look, we did what we needed to do. We protected our students, got rid of those nasty frat parties. I've just never, the whole thing is disgusting. these colleges are for higher education. They're for learning. No, they're not. No, I know, I know, but they were.

They are. They're supposed to be. Ideally, you're not having seven-on-one gangbangs that are fueled by ketamine and incredible amounts of alcohol. But, like, this is kind of where college has been for a very long time. It's been out of control. Ruggy, free sex. It's not for school.

It's not for education anymore. Animal, that was in the 70s. They were smoking weed. But they were drinking and drinking. Now, granted, I don't have experience with ketamine, but I know that booze lowers inhibitions and makes people do things that they normally wouldn't do. You know, it makes it seem okay to do really, really dumb things. And that, you know, again, I reference Animal House because that was, you know, that was in,

I don't know when it came up like, like 79 or 80 or anyone or something. and like that. But like, I mean, it came out in the early 80s or late 70s, and it was already a stereotype that, you know, fraternities and colleges were parties. It probably, probably started in the 60s is when that kind of behavior, you know, really took off, maybe even, maybe a little earlier. But that's something that's been a part of college life for 60 years. I watch, um, there's seven on one gangbangs? I don't know for sure. I think all dudes and one girl? That's always been... It's gross.

So there's a show called Op. Op. Live PD. It's cops with live cameras. It's on Fridays and Saturday nights. And you'll see in these college towns that there's kids, they're not 21.

They're openly drinking, and the cops just ignore them. I think it's too big of a problem to really police. I just think you need to start enforcing the law. I mean, there's been sexual assaults. Look, this is a bad case. The girl obviously, like,

was part of the problem here, but a lot of girls are getting sexually assaulted, a lot of them getting raped, and the men aren't doing any better. It's a disaster. You need to start enforcing the law and do it strictly, make examples of people. Otherwise, this stuff's going to keep going. And we're, these are the people, this is an Ivy League school. Okay, these people are going to be in the biggest, most powerful and influential corporations, media tycoons. Well, not these individual people. Well, not now, but the ones that are getting away with this type of crazy behavior. I don't want these we're canceling people that openly oppose gay marriage and go to church on Sunday,

but these guys are going to be set in the seniors. There might be some correlation there, right? They may be this whole time. The reason that we're punishing Christians for being Christians in this country is because these types of psychos are the ones in charge of our media outlets, in charge of our corporations, our legal system. These are going to be our lawyers, our business leaders, our media leaders. It's not acceptable.

This is atrocious behavior. that no one should participate in. I'm not saying it should be illegal, but holy cow, you should, it should be frowned upon. You should be cast out of society if you're openly participating in this type of stuff. It's not acceptable. I very rarely call out Trump

in the middle of a conversation that's not about Trump. But like when he was telling that reporter, you know, you just grab her by the vagina. You know, he said the pretty crude thing. He said that. The president was like, that's what you do is you do this. You grab her right in her crush. And like, not surprised when it spreads out and it sends out waves of degenerate impulses to the world's children.

It's really rough to watch. How do you solve this problem? Is the solution stopping all fraternity parties? Because one argue, I think it was Tate that brought it up on the show. The frats are like the last male-only space we have in this country. So you really want to get rid of that because there's a few bag egg. I think you should have like punishments for it. Like there should be like fines, penalties.

Maybe there's like the rest of the semester there's no more parties. I don't know. There should be some pushback. There should be some correction here. You know where they don't have these problems? Smith College in North Hampton. It's an all-girl school. They don't have, they don't have these problems at places that are gender segregated.

Right? Like that's the truth. They will. I was going to say there's, there's Hampton, Sydney and Virginia. I believe that's an all-men school. and I can't remember what the sister school is, but on the weekends, they all just go to each other's schools

and have parties anyway. Maybe the frequency is a lot less. Like, less access, less chance of abuse. Sure, but... This makes me think of the argument that Jordan Peterson was making about, you know, can men and women work together, right? Is the idea that,

I mean, the sexual revolution is, you know, it was likely that that was a disaster for humankind, right? because the idea that you can have sex with no repercussions. Yeah, no consequences. You know, society had largely managed that. It was very frowned upon if you got pregnant outside of marriage. And if you got a girl pregnant, you were expected to marry her.

That's, you know, that's what you did. Shotgun wedding, you know. And that was something that most societies kind of were like, right, this is the way it is for a long, for, you know, most of human history. So is it really possible for human beings to have this kind of, of, you know, parity between the sexes? Like men and women are different. The repercussions for women are different than the repercussions for men. And we're seeing what happens when the idea of, of, of sex without consequences is something that society has internalized and celebrates.

Right. The, the, and you see a lot of, you know, the women on TikTok that are saying, oh, you can go do this and you can go do that and, and there should be no consequences, they're telling young girls that they should be able to go out and behave like this, and so long as they consent, it's perfectly fine. But there's also this underlying argument or underlying narrative that goes along with it. That's usually not spoken. but if you don't like what happened after the fact, then maybe you weren't consenting, which is something you hear, that's, this is what's going on in this specific case.

So I think the answer really is don't encourage promiscuity to young people, right? Like sex outside of marriage does not actually no consequence. you see a massive drop off of the fertility rate in all Western countries, and it coincides with the rise of feminism. This is something that maybe human beings actually can't handle. So when back home, one of the local schools, they were debating whether or not to put condom machines in the high school. And the argument from the proponents of that was,

kids are going to have sex anyway, like let's just help them have it safely. And that was basically the sentiment behind sex ed in schools in the first place. But that's a really bad lesson to tell children, especially young men. You can't control yourself. You're going to have sex anyway. Like I'm teaching my sons and my daughters the exact opposite. You are responsible for yourself. You must control.

Of all the things in your life, you must control your sexual behavior, period. Because if you can't, there's a word for that, and it's called a rapist. and that's where you get in really bad problems. But this story, I'm having to talk to my daughters, having to talk to my sons. You have to be careful, not just about who you associate with. You have to be careful about where you're at,

where you're associating. Because even if you're in the room or you're outside of the room, if you're in the same house as where this is happening, now you're part of the news story. There's people that were saying there wasn't just seven rapists. There was 57 rapists because 57 people received a text from one of the guys saying something like free woman upstairs. I'm not going to say the actual word.

But they were saying because no one did anything that they're responsible for the rape as well, even though it's questionable whether there was a rape, whether she was rape. There was a group chat at one point in the story, maybe 20 to 30 people in the group chat that were talking about this. I saw posts online and said every single person in that group chat is complicit. Lock them all. That's what I'm referring to you. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah. And I get what you're saying, and that's good parenting right there. But what point is it, are you limiting the good kids' ability to get laid? It'll get laid, behave in society, enjoy themselves at a party because there are these degenerates out there that ruin it for everyone. I just think that sex, first of all, like the studies are all pretty conclusive at this point. The people that are most sexually satisfied are the people that are married and have one sexual partner, period. sex is so intimate.

If you could choose between having sex one time with a thousand different partners or one partner a thousand times, you should choose the one partner a thousand times because everyone has, it's about intimacy, it is about conversation, is about telling someone what you like, what you don't like,

it's about learning them. What we are doing to kids with sex is why we have the whole gender dysphoria thing, thing where kids are just rejecting it. It's why you have asexuals now. Hold on because Gen Z's, like the data, there's a few years old, the study, but their sex life is at an all-time low. They're not drinking.

Why do you think they're not doing drugs? They're not having sex. Because of stuff like this. Because we have been promoting very unsatisfying sex, now this next generation is like, I don't even want it. And it's also like social media and computers and all that. But we, the sexual revolution, just like every other Marxist revolution, destroys the object it seeks to start a revolution around and we have millions of people that are having

horrific sex with random strangers because the random stranger doesn't know how to satisfy the person because this is the first time and probably the only time like I don't know how else to explain it's so intimate it is it's literally how human beings create more human beings not only that but it's now I think more common for Gen Z to meet through online dating apps than real world interactions. And Ian, I think you said there was an app out there that's not just for dating. It's for actual hookups. Yeah, it's called field. Yeah. So I mean, it's, we're in a very weird place where the kids don't know how to interact with each other. And I think that was one of the arguments, I saw somebody make that that's why kids are drinking at these frat parties, because they're so

anxious for one reason or another. They don't even know how to talk to each other. And so they get the booze flowing. And then one drink turns into six or seven. And then the next thing, you know, there's a ketamine party upstairs. So, like, I mean, I think the problem is not just their sexual lives of these young people. It's much deeper than that. Yeah, do you want to, the genetics of it are very important. Like the male genetic, you know, history is spread your seed, is to launch your genome into as many females as possible so that at least one of their kids survives and you can somehow propel the species. You know, it comes from ancient tribalism where there weren't enough of us and we were desperately trying to.

to reproduce. The women's genetics is very much about one man, make sure he protects the child, and so there's this weird back and forth. That's why society has strongly moderated that impulse. Yeah, exactly. We create laws, fidelity, marriage. Social taboos are actually stronger than laws, but yeah. And so the genetic disposition is still there for the guy to go spread his seed. And like, you've got to solve for that, because we're not evolving in like a hundred years. We might have made laws in the last hundred years about feminism and well all this with TV we saw what the men had been doing and we're like hold on you can't beat women on TV it's not cool um so there's been this leveling of legality and morality but still the man wants to fuck I don't know what to say I'm sorry

I'm going to keep my language try and keep it a little but the you got to understand the aggressive nature of the human male and I don't know maybe separating men and I would have been like no hell no don't separate women from I want to be around women I want to get late I want to have sex with So like when I was 25 years old, 22 years old, that's what I wanted to do. I would have been devastated if they came in and be like, all the women are being taken away from your college. I'd be like, what in the hell? When I was like 20. So I don't know, man.

I think it's just a lot about self-control. It's like gun. Can you handle a gun or are you going to shoot yourself in the head with it? Can you handle AIers are going to trick you into killing yourself? Like, can you do it? Can you navigate it? There's, there's, there's, so I used to call myself a libertarian. I don't anymore.

But one of the biggest problems that I have with libertarians and, and with the idea of liberty first is there's no corresponding argument for responsibility. And every single liberty that you have comes with some form of corresponding responsibility. You mentioned gun rights, you have the right to carry a gun, but you're responsible for every single bullet that leaves the barrel.

And whatever happens, that's, that's, you know, if something happens where you are irresponsible, you will be made, responsible by society and the same thing actually should go for for sexual activity if you have sex and you get a woman pregnant it is the man's responsibility to take care of the child but the idea of responsibility is something that we've become basically allergic to as society suffering love what we become allergic to sacrifice and meaningful suffering Victor Hugo, author of Le Mansoram, wrote that you can give without loving, but you can't love without giving, and that love requires sacrifice.

Love does what the heart doesn't want to do, actually. And that, I think, is the biggest thing missing in our society is we don't want to ever feel pain. We don't ever want to go without what we want in the moment. And I think there's a lot of reasons for it. But that, I think, is the heart of why we're so sexually dissatisfied. Like, I have to have sex right now. Well, I don't know. Delayed gratification.

And it was actually a lot of times really good. I went to, never mind, I'm going to tell that story. My wife will kill me. I mean, it's scary because, so Rudyard Lynch, he runs a YouTube channel called What If Alt Hist? And he breaks down history. And one of the things he says, the best way to get to a revolution or even a civil wars have a lot of men that are basically in cells, right?

And because what's happening is they're not having sex, they're also not getting married. So, you know, like the relationships are, like something is fundamentally broken. I don't know if I agree with that. I mean, if you read about the Soviet attempts to abolish marriage, there's actually a really interesting article from 1926 in the Atlantic. And they documented it all. American reporter goes over there.

The Soviets wanted to destroy marriage. They thought it was, as all the progressives, they think anything you belong to inhibits you from true flourishing. they made marriage dissolution a five-minute one-party process. And what they wrote about was these men changed wives

with the seasons. They would have a new wife every four months. And what was happening is they were creating these orphans who ended up turning into criminals. So maybe the incels lead to a revolution. But also on the other side, a bunch of fatherless orphans who run around

town to town committing arson and rape and murder and theft. They create the revolution too. That's part of it for the Marxists. They want as many fatherless children as they can because they create dysfunction and suffering, unmeaningful, disastrous suffering that has

no meaning. There's a revolution possibly within cells, but absolutely we've seen throughout history the overly, the collapse of the nuclear family. And having sex outside of marriage recklessly and just creating new human beings that don't have a

father don't have any rooting in morality or duty. I mean, if you're a kid who's born in a fileless home, you kind of got a raw deal. And you'd be probably pretty fucking angry and mad all the time, especially if you're a young man. You have rage. Fathers, all the studies show, fathers teach kids primarily two things. Restraint, you know, when you're wrestling with your kid and they knock you in the nose, you kind of pin them down like, hey man, you know, that's just like a biological thing. But at the same time, fathers also teach children empathy. And this was in Reason Magazine years ago, we're kind of self-centered as dads. Like, we think a lot about like my kid broke my drill. And I told him not to use it. And he used it when he broke it. And I told him like, dude, that drill

cost me $400. You know how hard I had to work. That's where you get. Moms distill self-esteem. And they nurture. But dads are actually the ones. that instill empathy and thinking about other people and how your actions. So we instill restraint and empathy. And so creating fatherless children by just spreading your seat everywhere without any protection for the kids is really disastrous. In this society, because we're not at war. We're not in a war-torn hybrid, you know, technocratic tribalist society.

We don't need young, in-cell fatherless men to go to war. Like that would have been a great group of, you know, fatherless. people are great to send a war. I mean, you mentioned revolution, send them off to a foreign place and let them do a revolution there. But we don't have that right now. We're very stable society, so it's extremely disrupting to have fatherless children on the prowl. Well, yeah, I mean, fatherless children tend to be, you know, the majority of the criminal element. Yes. Right. Like if you have a boatload of kids out there that don't have fathers, and it's, I didn't know the piece that you referenced about empathy and restraint, but it makes

perfect sense. If you have a bunch of kids, a bunch of young guys that don't have a sense of empathy thinking about other people and how they'd feel or restraint, that is a recipe for disaster. A bunch of young guys that are just like... And we see it. You know, got a bunch of ego in them, bunch of, you know, they're full of, full of themselves, young, dumb and full of, I think most people know. And if they don't have restraint, don't give me that look, you just dropped an F-bomb. You probably didn't even notice. Um, I love that. But, uh, But, yeah, like, if you don't have restraint and you don't have empathy, you know, what's going to stop you from saying, oh, that guy's got something? I'm wanting. I'm going to just go over and take it from them, you know? So, yeah, that is interesting. But as it- How the hell do we get here? We're talking about the Cornell 7. Yeah, no, this might, this fits. Facedless sexual activity. Yeah. Yeah. But I think we're going to go ahead and move on to one more story. And this is another story about Ilhan Omar. I'm going to bring it up from the New York Post. Apparently, Rep. I'm going to. Ilhan Omar's staff got her birthday changed officially after being elected to Congress,

according to records. Representative Ilhan Omar's staff helped get her birthday change in public records once the Minnesota Democrat was elected to Congress in 2018, a switch that has since spurred frenzied accusations that she misrepresented her age to secure U.S. citizenship. The alteration could offer a big clue as to what federal immigration agents were searching for when they raided her D.C. home Monday. If the Congresswoman is actually one year older than she's claimed to be, that would mean she couldn't legally have become a U.S. citizen in 2000, critics contend. Omar's birth date had been listed in the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as October 4, 1981, as well as on reference sites such as Wikipedia and media outlets like the BBC for the entire time she served in the House of and for several months into her congressional term. But the Congresswoman's staff moved to shift the date forward by one year in May 2019 after a video from a public. political opponent went viral that claimed Omar was fibbing about her age, according to emails

reviewed by the post. So the argument goes, her birthday was moved because she was 17, she was actually, she was actually 18 when her father was naturalized, which means that she wouldn't be, wouldn't be naturalized with her father because she was an adult. And she was, and they changed to 17 because she had fraudulently been naturalized as a as an American. Now, that will bring into question her eligibility to be a congresswoman. That will bring into, there's also, I think Gene Shapiro was looking into her finances because one year she had something like a net worth of like $260,000 and the next year it was like $30 million.

and then the following year it dropped down again. So that is something that people might consider an inconsistency. But it does look like the Trump DOJ is really kind of looking into Ilhan Omar for a lot of issues, basically anything they can get her on. Now, I do think that if the date switcheroo proves to be real and substantive, that calls into question whether she can even stay in the country. I think everyone has a right to be critical of America, period. But she deserves to be as scrutinized herself as she has been towards America and Americans.

I mean, she has condemned our entire system. We took her in as a refugee from one of the worst, and I'll say it, shithole countries in the entire world. They have the highest rates of violence. All the cuss words today. Do you guys get dinged by that? You don't get ding. Oh, I guess it is a family. I'm just planning with you.

But she has been so critical of America, and she has scrutinized every aspect of it. She's been completely unfair. So the least we can do is be as fair as possible, get to the truth, and hold her accountable for any violations of law, including if she did change her birthday. Do they have birth certificates in Somalia?

I really don't know. I think that was the problem is they didn't when she came over. So a lot of it was worth. I mean, this is what I heard. So a lot of it was worth now. I'm sure there was some immigration paperwork that was filled out when she got here that they would have had to put her birthday on.

Maybe they fund... Did she claim... When she came originally, uh, 1982, did she claim asylum? Was she a refugee? Her father came and... Or so she was born, or...

Go ahead. Oh, she was, she was born in Somalia. Okay. And so she came here with her father and then was naturalized, I believe, in 1990. And what was the... What was the basis on him? They were going to kill him in Somalia because...

Yeah, he's already. He came as a refugee. Allegedly. They say the paperwork was destroyed because of, you know, a new regime change or something. If I understand. And he was responsible for a whole lot of dead people. And if you went back to Somalia, they were going to do Somalian things to him.

I mean, if you were just an innocent Somalian that was like the victim of all this lawlessness and crime and violence. And you got to America. I just can't imagine ever criticizing America. I mean, maybe criticizing it in honest ways. But condemning America versus the country that you came from, that you were fleeing as a refugee, I don't know. I don't think there's a lot of American refugees that are leaving America to go to other foreign countries. No, not at all. And they did.

I don't know exactly how critical she's been. I don't know a lot of the things she said. But if you went to the Congo and then got into the government in the Congo, we're like, look at all these lazy Congolese, these people that can't. This country sucks. Let's make it more like my homeland, you know, crazy. Dude, it would never be tolerated in a, there are a few foreign countries where you might get away with it. These super liberal, like, laissez-faire, but like France, they might put up with it a little bit.

But it's a very weird thing. I don't know. So she's 17 when her dad gets naturalized. Would she have had to go through another process than just get tagged along with her dad into becoming a citizen? Because I generally don't like to. It really sucks to be like, well, you went through all the work, 17 years. But because it's three years too early, you're not an American. But if it had been four months or three months, rather, if it had been four months from now, you'd be an American.

Like, come on. and let it go plus or minus 11 months. Like, who cares? No. Well, I mean, there should be, I hate so by the book that we become robots. That's not cool. Yeah, but, okay, you're saying plus or minus a few months, people will say, okay, what's a few years? Yeah.

And she not a safe argument. We need to have a standard. And it's one thing if she were like plus or minus a few months when she was 16 to 17 because she's still a minor. But when you're 18, you're an adult. And that means that you're responsible for your changes. we were just talking about responsibility here. If she lied on paperwork as an adult,

she's responsible for those lies, right? She made the decision to falsify official government documents and lied so that way she could achieve U.S. citizenship. So she's responsible for that. She made, she's the one that lied. She knew that she was 18 and then, you know, ostensibly if the if the case is, if the government is correct, their allegations. Now, I've heard that a grand jury is actually going to decide whether she could

stand trial. So this is moving forward. And this, the, um, they looked at the, the rate on her house, that was approved by a judge. So generally, when that kind of stuff happens, the government has, you know, most of their, their T's cross and their eyes dotted. So if she did lie on it, as an adult, I think that it does matter, you know, she lied. And then all of the the downstream consequences like her becoming a representative for for her district like she's not eligible so i think that if it was just a person maybe i could i could say you know just a person that was like living their life and you know working a job and going home and what have you i think that i might be a little more sympathetic to the argument but considering that she was 18 or it seems that she was 18

and then goes on to become you know a congressperson and to terry's point she's consistently critical of the United States. Fairly. I mean, I'm all about criticizing America. I do it sometimes. But to lie, to malign, it's called sedition, actually, and we're allowing refugees to do it. We're very generous country. I do.

We're the most generous country in human history. We give away more money, and we give away more money and more aid than any country in all of history. We have done more to help other countries bring themselves. up to what we consider a modern level than any other country in history. I make this argument considering the amount of power that the United States has, the kid gloves that we treat basically the rest of the world with is unprecedented in human history. Also, our own citizens, we got to, we did away with the draft.

Like, in the history of tens of thousands, I think the Romans were pretty good to their citizens, but they drafted all of them in their 20s. Everybody had to go fight in the Gauls and the horror. You know, they had to live on the... on the on campaign for years. We, we did away with that. Talking about treating your citizens well, it's pure volunteerism now.

It's, it's a spectacular time to be alive. I agree with you, Phil. Because crime is one thing, but depending on what environment you're in. Like if you're speeding, if you're driving recklessly, but you're on an old farm road,

I can overlook it. But if you're driving recklessly in a city with a bunch of kids during a parade, you're going to jail. But this is also a deterrent, right? So like, being in the position that she's in, And this is the government setting an example that, like, oh, what seems like a minor mistake

on immigration papers, it's not a minor mistake. This is a big deal. And I think this is why you saw the raid on her home, you know, just was it over the weekend? Monday. Monday. Oh, yeah. So they're setting an example. And that in itself is a deterrent to hopefully, you know, dissuade people from just committing

immigration fraud. What if the super advanced AI goes through all of the paperwork of. every government official and finds every tea that wasn't crossed, every eye that wasn't dotted, every little piece of thing that was wrong, and then starts prosecuting all of them. Could you imagine, like, 30% of the government gets indicted or laid off because of a piece of paperwork that wasn't right? And I'm not even against it. I'm just saying, can you imagine that that might happen? Save that kind of stuff for the after show, because I can't talk about things like that, things that I would enjoy and love so much like that with a proper emphasis.

Like the idea of throwing 30% of the government in jail, oh my God. It sucks when like- When good people made a mistake on a piece of paperwork 20 years ago. And I guess that's the debate. Because what Terry's saying is, well, look at her track record. She's not a good person. Her interests are not, you know, for the United States or the betterment of this country. She's critical of it.

I'd even argue that she hates this country, you know? Period. Yeah. I do think it's interesting that so both parties have actually had populist uprisings within them. The Republican populist uprising was MAGA, make America great again. You criticize certain aspects of that, sure. But the Democrats populist uprising against their selling out to private equity and corporate America is called Democratic Socialists of America. Their populist uprising is actually America shouldn't exist and we should get rid of the Constitution. I think. think that that discrepancy and that difference there is very interesting. The alignment, well, at least where there used to be an alignment, maybe Maga's gone farther away, is the fear of corporatocracy. Like the socialists of America seem to be concerned that we're going to end up with a corporatocracy, a corporate government. They don't want that. Then MAGA was supposed to be like for the people, by the people. We want to take the power

back from the liberal economic order, world economic forms. So there was this alignment of concern of digital overlords, but I don't know if that's still, if that's even spoken of. Like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were kind of running on the same platform in 2016. So, okay, Sean Trendy, I think that's how he pronounced his last name, Real Clear Politics. He wrote this book back in 2016 after Trump won called The Lost Majority. And he argued essentially that the most important voting bloc in America is what he called the Ross Perrault voter, which is, is these disaffected, typically white men, but they oscillate between both parties,

and they're the majority maker. He said basically in 2016, they were lining up behind Bernie Sanders, and when they got screwed in that primary with the Democrats, they then jumped ship and went to Trump because he was talking about bringing back manufacturing and tariffs. These are Ross Perrault. So anyone that would have left a Republican Party in 92

to vote for Ross Perot over George H.W. Bush, and didn't like Clinton, these people are still alive and they've passed on their values of their children. There's still this buck. And I think those voters, those Ross Perot voters, left Trump and MAGA in 2020 because of COVID.

I think they came back in 2024. And I think they're a jump ball in 2008 based on what the parties represent by 2028. And the big game is going to be who wins over those working class disaffected Russ belt type voters. Was it, Ross Perot was,

I remember, I actually was like, Dad, vote for Ross Perot in 1992. He was like, I'm voting for Clinton. I was like, I like him. But he was known for like giving up

these big, you know, spreadsheets and he'd do like PowerPoint. We didn't have PowerPoint. It was paper. But he'd show people like economics. So big on tariffs. He hated free trade. That was his major signature issue

was being against free trade. So do you think the Ross Perot voters are essentially economists, economists? I think there's some values. I think there's some values aspect to it. But yeah, I think there, I think that the Ross Perot voter is concerned

about boys and girls sports. But they would say, a lot of them would say, this is a distraction from the real economic wars that are going on and the economic power. I think they are primarily concerned. They don't like, there are people that are disenchanted with the Dems social

and cultural agenda, but that's not enough to win all of them over. You have to have a solid economic message as well. Is this then like the Ron Paul, the people that follow the Lord Paul? Very similar. Very similar. There's a lot of anti-war sentiment. I mean, I get concerned with the America first thing we were debating this because they'll say like, if I'm America first, that means don't give any other country anything. And I'm like, bro, you can give someone else money that they can go invest and bring back a return and pay you out, double what you gave them.

Therefore, you put yourself first by giving them money to go make more for you and to come back and you make a profit. So America first could be fund Israel so that we make a lot more money at the homeland. That could be very America first. The America first that kind of have that, the America first that have that kind of isolationist idea, a lot of times it's not a very worldly or very deep understanding. If you're really America first, the idea of foreign aid, for instance, right, people think, oh, America's giving money away. They're giving money away. And to a degree it's true but foreign aid also helps prop up the value of the dollar because the more dollars you have out there that foreign countries have they're going to want to spend those dollars they're

going to want those dollars to have value so that gives a value that gives a an intrinsic value to the dollars they're like they'll you know there are countries where if you show up with dollars they'll take your dollars before they'll take the local currency because the value they look at the dollar and they think oh that's american that's reliable that's more reliable than my government's money so and again again i'm not trying to make the argument for um for foreign aid but if you're america first you want what's best for america and sometimes that's not to be an isolationist or to be only focused inward it's to focus on the world in a way that puts america and americans america's interests first. And there's a lot of people that call themselves America first that think that

isolationism is America first. And that's, I don't think that that's actually the case. If you're actually pro-America and what's best for America, America retreating from the world isn't America first because that would leave a power vacuum and that means that China or Russia would have more power. So America First is more complex than just let's retreat from the world and say only focus on what's going on inside our borders. Just, yeah, I agree. You know, if you hoard all the food in your house and the rest of the city starts to starve, you definitely didn't put yourself first because they're all going to come and eat you. So, like, you want to feed people so that you can be the wealthiest of a wealthy nation.

I don't know. I feel like I'm a Ross Perra. I'm a Ross Pro voter. I'm the guy who, like, just looks at this. I'm unaffiliated voting. I want the best. I see the Iran War, the spiraling debt. But I see AI as a potential tool that we can use to solve it.

I'm kind of like the jury's out for me of who I'm going to vote for. I was just going to ask you, as an unaffiliated voter, or yeah, where are you leaning in the midterms and then maybe even 2020? Actually, are you going to vote in the midterms? Common sense. What does that mean? I don't have any plans. Someone that looks at the technology available to us today and puts forth a step-by-step plan to solve the problem that they're talking about. Ian, are you registered to vote?

Yeah. Unaffiliated. Would you consider yourself a single-issue voter? No, no. But right, no, no. But there are levels of import for like. What's the top of the list right now? fixing the economy, fixing the value of the dollar, improving the value of the dollar, whether through...

I love you so much. Thank you. This is the biggest crisis our country is facing. Sorry, go on. I'll say my speech, but I want to hear what you're saying. Either through enhancing domestic product, GDP go up because we produce more or better, or we reduce the cost that goes into the production. So I don't know what you would call that gross domestic input, GDI, lower our GDI, improve our GDP, either both and either. It's actually deflation.

defling money out of the economy? No, no. If the value of the dollar, if the value of the dollar continues to increase, they call it deflation. If the value of the dollar goes down, it's inflation.

Oh, it's not literally about how many are in the supply. It's more about the actual value. Okay. Yeah, and same with AI work similarly. There's a token input and a token output. So if you can reduce the cost of input, well,

funny enough for AI, you have to spend tokens to get an output and spend tokens to get an input. But if you can, there's so many ways to do. We can lower the cost of electricity. We can increase the value of fuel. We can make fuel more resilient. We can make fuel more different kinds of fuel.

We can have, dude, I just, I just need some leadership in the economy. Sorry, Terry, what were you saying? Well, okay, so we've been thinking about this a lot of APP. And why is it that we lower taxes, we get rid of all these regulations, but the economy still kind of sucks for about half the country. We have this K-shaped economy where the people that own things, that have stocks, that own homes,

their value in net worth goes up, and the people that don't own things, they're more and more priced out of the market. Like, you try to save up for a $600,000 townhome, well, by the time you get the $120,000 for the down payment, guess what? A million. It's now a million dollars, right?

I keep saying I'm writing this. It's in the works. It's draft right now. I have an op-ed I'm writing called my $300,000 tree house. So my wife and I bought this home. We're still living in it when we only have three kids for $600,000. We're now getting offers in the mail. We're getting phone calls and text messages offering saying your home could sell for as high as $950,000 in your neighborhood.

And it's true. There are very similar houses that aren't even updated that are selling for around that. and I looked at my house and I'm like, what the hell? I haven't, first of all, my house has done nothing but gone down in value. If you're just looking at like how it is versus when we bought it, you have eight kids now. You know, and only three, lots of broken stuff. I don't have a new kitchen. I don't have a new bathroom.

But I did in 2019. I built this epic tree house. It is a two-story tree house. It's got a zip line. It's Nickelodeon orange. It's awesome. It's got a tube slide on it. My kids love it.

That is the only improvement to my house. property that I've made that could justify the $300,000 in appreciation. Where this all I think comes down to, Ian, in 1980, right? Ronald Reagan runs on two main economic proposals. Lower marginal tax rates, they looked at the marginal tax rates. And what was happening is the people in the middle tax brackets, they were saying, I'm not expanding my business. I'm not going to go make more money because then the government takes 75 cents on the dollar,

and that's way too much exposure. So they lowered the marginal tax rates. The other thing Reagan ran on that a lot of people are forgotten is he ran on returning to the gold standard and opening back the gold convertibility window. Instead, what they did was they launched a gold commission. And the findings of the majority report, there were two guys on the minority report, by the way, Ron Paul and Lou Learman. The findings of the majority report were Paul Volker and the Federal Reserve have proven that they have the political, cajones to whip inflation with higher interest rates. And they basically did whip inflation. So they basically made a compromise and they said, all right, as a compromise, we're going to start

minting gold eagles and we're not going to tax them. So if you're an average American citizen and you want to protect yourself against inflation, you can buy these one ounce gold coins that are minted by your government and you won't have to pay taxes on the appreciation. Well, Congress does what they do and they screw us. They pass. They mint their, they're, minting gold eagles, but they never remove the taxes on it. So this is my big thing. I think that the reason why we have a stagnant economy, why we have a K-shaped economy right now for so many people, is because we still have a messed up dollar. We don't really have a free market if a small group of 12 people at the Federal Reserve can determine what the value of our dollar is without ever taking a vote.

There's no one to hold accountable. When the Federal Reserve can tax us through inflation, which is what that is, half of America doesn't pay taxes because of Republican accomplishments of the tax code. But that's only half the story. They've been taxing the hell out of us through inflation. I did some math. So in 1970, my grandfather made $5,900 a year, which at the time was $35, the gold was $35 an ounce. So it was 170 ounces of gold he was making.

Fast for a day, that's $680,000. That's how my grandfather. was able to help his grandchildren afford down payments for their homes and how he had in a second car. That's why they did so well. Now, it's not dollar for dollar, but it's pretty damn close because a one-ounce gold coin gets you an awesome suit today. The same awesome suit it got you in 1970.

It made the exact same analogy. And it's the same tunic, pair of sandals, and belt that you would have gotten in ancient Rome. Yes. And a 400, I'm sorry, a 400-ounce gold bar, that gets you the same home today. same kick-ass awesome home it's the gold hasn't changed in value the dollar has and what's happened is okay so my grandfather made

170 ounces of gold the average American today makes 15 ounces of gold they stole 90% of our value of our dollar in our wealth they stole our bank accounts they stole our paychecks and they gave the most deceitful thing about it all was as they were taking away the value they gave us lots more dollars

but that was just monopoly money based So they, I think this is the big crisis, the first political party that addresses the dollar. The Dems could take power, but if they don't fix the dollar, they're just going to screw it up even worse. The more spending you do, the more stimulus you do, tax cuts at this point, expanding child tax credit, it's really just redistribution because you're not actually creating more value. You're just taking away from those that own assets and giving it to the people that don't. And you kind of have to if you don't have a stable dollar. So I don't know what the exact solution is.

We're embarking and finding out what that is, but that's what I've been obsessed with for the past three months. Every time. The government's solution is going to be print more money. What's that? The government's going to be, solution is going to be pretty more money. Step on it.

The, hit the gas, but I've been concerned with the Federal Reserve System for 16, 17 years. And I think Kennedy got killed because he was like, we're going to get rid of it. And it's like, okay, it basically goes through the bank for international settlements in Switzerland.

They set it up after World War II, you know, with the liberal economic order, spearheaded by the American military, industrial complex. but like how do we unweave from that and stay alive in the process? Okay, okay. So first of all, there's going to be a correction of some sort, period.

The bond market's either going to do it or our adversaries are going to withdraw from the dollar. We'll get rid of the of the dollars as the reserve currency. Something will happen regardless of what decisions we make as Americans. But I think a very easy first step would be to start, you know, Texas has this gold depository where people in Texas can actually open up accounts there. They can deposit cash, but it then gets immediately converted to gold. You get debit cards.

You can use those in real time. If you just remove the taxes on gold, you have a serious check on the Federal Reserve's ability to print unlimited dollars because they have to factor in how many people are going to change their dollars into these gold accounts. We got to go to super chats right now. So smash the like button, share the show with all your friends. Head on over to rumble.com so you can watch the after show, which is coming up in just about 10 minutes or so. and go head on over to timcast.com, become a member of our Discord, so you can call in and talk to our guests. You can ask us silly questions.

It's a great time in there. There's a boatload of people. There's only 20,000 people. There have been marriages, boyfriends, girlfriends, kids have been conceived because they met in the Timcasted Discord. So head on over to Timcast.com and become a member. But right now, we're going to go to your super chats. And Xavier VT says, you just use ID verification to justify this in spite. of the fact that ID verification is being used for mass surveillance and keeps leaking people's

private information and being abused. I think they're talking about your take on... Let's just to spell it entire myth. There is no privacy online. These companies know exactly where you are at all times. They know where you spend your eight hours during the day. They know where you spend your eight hours a night, which means they know where you work and where you sleep. And just those two factors alone, they know who you are. They have a very good idea of who you are. there is no online privacy and these companies are worth trillions of dollars because they know who you are and how to market to you. They know when you're pregnant before you do. What I have advocated for with age verification, first of all, it's illegal to retain any data. It is simple,

over 18 or not over 18. There's no retention of data. All of the legislation that I've supported that for age verification for protecting Myers Online is actually increasing the amount of privacy protections online. It is illegal for anyone to retain that data. If they do retain it, you can sue them and make lots of money off it. So I just have to always, there's these groups of people, and they're very concerned about online privacy, and I don't blame them. But you need to understand that everyone has what's called a mobile advertiser identification number, and it tracks you everywhere you go. It tracks every website you visit. They know all the bad stuff you're watching. They know how long you're staying on that porn site. They know which

scenes you're rewining, they know everything. So clean up your act online if you don't want people to know about it because they're already tracking it through the private sector. You should be very concerned and you should actually support our efforts to increase these privacy protections, making it illegal for these companies to retain any sort of identification data on you. The mobile advertising ID is also known as made. You know how they have that in Canada.

It's a different made. Are you concerned that an administration is going to come in and be like hyper-theocratic or or like puritanic and go arrest people for doing debauchery? No. No. These don't apply. These are people are still able to access pornography. They just have to verify.

By the way, you don't have to upload your photo ID. You can answer consumer questions to verify that you're over 18. There's like different hand movements you can actually move. AI can help us actually, has actually been helping us figure out who's over. 18 and who's not in order to help them access the website. So you can actually do this without violating anyone's privacy. This is the common ground. This is to say, all right, we're going to allow online pornography to exist. But in order to be a website and make money off of this, you have to verify that the people that you're delivering this pornography to are over 18 and

not children. All right. So Andrew 1, what is it? Andrew 1, 2.1.2. two, three, says, Ian looks like a, looks like a, looks like a, looks like, bore, remember when he talks about the power of AI? Oh my God, dude, as we're talking about online privacy, I'm like, part of me is like, open up, open up, give me the ring, open up, the, the, I have, Sauron is now awakened, it sees all, speed it up. You do with the same color hair. And then, but then the other part of me is like, no, we need to be, you need anonymity

on the internet. I built minds for a reason with free software, open source, uh, and your ability to be encrypted as you travel through the data webs because that machine can twist you and snap your neck off. And like, they can cut your bank account off tomorrow. They can literally take all your money tomorrow unless you've got it hidden away somewhere. Gold coins in your basement? Yeah, yeah. And then if they, like, Phil Labonte, you can't sell gold coins. If you catch them trying to sell them, take them from them, you can't have that. Like, crazy what they could do to you if they know who you are and where you are. So that's why I'm big on anonymity. And it gets me nervous

about, like, IDs. But there are ways to do that through like peer, peer identification where you don't actually give your ID. It's just enough, enough outs. side things can tell that it's you. So real quick, we already have these age verification procedures in place for alcohol websites, for marijuana websites, for nicotine websites. And what happens is they use essentially third party age verifiers. And those age verifiers just put a cookie that says you're an adult on your phone. So then you can access these sites once you verify that you're over 18, period.

Discord just rolled out an update, and the way they verified if you were an adult or not is they looked at your history, how long you've been on the platform, what kind of servers you were in, I guess your chat history, the language you would use, and that's how they determined if you were above 18 or not. A lot of people feared that when they were rolling in these new guardrails for verification, that you'd have to upload your ID, but that wasn't the case. So there's something we're dealing with right now with Timcast I mean it's some of the fans in our we have a Discord server Some of the fans you know got locked out for a little bit

Because they're like ah we're not sure you're an adult We think you're a kid and then you know cut off access I'm like thumb print but this is more biometric data I don't know JTE 0700 says 7 says Phil Musugga song the demon's name is surveillance from 2012 basically speaks on all of this You should play the lyrics for everyone. Job for a cowboy was big on this also.

Embedded is spot on. I'm a big fan of Musuga, but I'm not actually familiar with that song, so I have to take a look. Let's see. Thomas says, I just listened to a great podcast, maybe God Pod,

with scientist Dr. James Tour, who was addressed using AI with a biblical worldview. He'd be a great guest on the Tim Pool show. He would be. We've actually had it lined up at one point about four years ago. I'm working on a documentary James tour. I was just down at Rice University eight months ago or six months ago.

What's going on with that? Kevin has been having, it's challenging for him to put it together because he's like, I don't even know what half these scientists are saying. That's fair. It's kind of on me. And I thought that it was going to get edited in the back. Okay, Carter, you're working on. Yeah, now we were doing a score with it too.

But yeah, Kevin's kind of like at a loss. Like, how do I make this make sense? I don't understand. I don't want to put anything on him because he's doing a spectacular. It's on me. Kevin's like, I kind of took on the responsibility of doing it. So it's at my footsteps, right? And it's at my feet.

It does feel like there's movement, though. Do you think, you know, you're talking about your AI setup and how crazy it's getting, do you think it could help you get this documentary? Yeah, I actually told Kevin that I'm like, run it through anything, any clips you don't understand, run them through an AI to have it summarize for you. He's like, oh, that's a good. It could probably, if it took, if your AI took a look at the project as a whole, it could probably storyboard for you and tell you exactly what moment should go where.

I know. But, you know, that kind of bothers me because it's like, You're phoning it in it. I don't want to shovel out shit. I want to make sure whatever we do is the best we can do. But that doesn't mean that you can't use AI. AI is fantastic at lining things up for you. I've used it recently.

We've had the Tim Pool show going and I can't watch every episode. I try to, but I can't always. So we run the transcript through AI and we set different parameters and say, identify some moments, give us the timestamps. And it helps. It helps for when like if I don't have the option of watching the show and making handwritten notes. Well, it's a great tool, you know,

to help fill that gap. So. Interesting. Let's see. Let's see. Hands point pick says, I am from the government and I am here to help you.

Well, the market will correct itself if you don't give legal immunity. He goes on to say, he is putting his faith in government not to be corrupt. Don't give all the power to the government. And it finishes with the market was not working

because courts treated section, Section 230 as immunity from lawsuits that has just been broken by the Ninth Circuit. I agree with that. I also, I mean, you can go back in time to John D. Rockefeller, who was doing anti-competitive market practices. So at a minimum, you need the government to make sure that there are not anti-competitive. John Rockefeller was basically paying the trains a consistent rate, and he was forced his agreement. He basically said,

I will make sure you have consistent oil deliveries from here to kingdom come. However, to guarantee this regular income, you have to collect extra money from my competitors and pay me that. So he got paid premiums from his competitors. That's anti-competitive behavior. And these big tech companies, all these major corporations, they're doing the same stuff. And we just, you're always going to need government to come in in some way to make sure there's a fair and level playing field. And that's not Terry Schilling.

That is Thomas Jefferson. That is James Madison. That's George Washington. You know, we just had an event at the National Archives, and we had a personally annotated copy of the Constitution from George Washington, where he's writing concur, disagree. You know, he's writing his positive. George Washington agreed with me.

So, like, if you want to say that governments are the root of all of our problems and that the private sector is going to solve everything, well, take it up with George Washington because they all believe, that you found a government to secure your rights, the private sector, there are criminals in the private sector, there are criminals who will hurt you and your family and take advantage of you and secure too much power.

You need the government. It's not a terrible thing. It can be a bad thing, but not all government is bad. All right. Smash the leg button, share the show everyone you know, do it. Terry, tell people where they can find you. Shilling 1776 on X and Instagram and all social media platforms. And check out American Princiles Project. We're the special interest arm

of the American Family, American Princiles, dot org. You guys can follow me at KellynPDL. I know I might not be a familiar face for you guys. I work behind the scenes. Thanks. Thank you guys for let me join the panel tonight. Follow me there. Follow the Tim Poole Show.

Tim Poole show everywhere. One-on-one interviews, Tim Poole plus guest. They've been awesome. Go check it out. Follow me at Ian Crossland at Ian Crosland on X. I guess that would be Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. And subscribe to me all over the place. See?

And you can follow me at Carter Banks on X and Carter Banks official on Instagram. I actually did make a music video that I storyboarded with AI. It was partially helpful, but it's also about mass surveillance. And you can check that out at this QR code if I can get it to play. There you go. And it's not playing, but just go to Trash House Records at or at Trash House Records on YouTube to check that out. I am Phil. It Remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check out all it remains on Apple, Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Dezer. Stick around for the Rumble After Show starting right now.