Timcast IRL - GOP Bill Will SLASH Immigration By 85%, GUT Hart-Celler Act w/ Jeremy Carl, Scott Greer & Steven Edginton

Episode Date: May 16, 2026

Tate and Ian are joined by Jeremy Carl, Scott Greer, & Steven Edginton to discuss Ron DeSantis' backing a new bill to curb immigration, Google forcing tech workers to train their H-1B replacements, UK residents are furious after a deadly stabbing, UK remigration movement explodes, a German leader slamming America, and the Michael Jackson movie is a massive box office success. SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts: Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) | @TimcastTateBrown (YT) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) | @trashhouserecords (YT) Guest: Jeremy Carl @realJeremyCarl (X) Scott Greer @ScottMGreer (X) Steven Edginton @StevenEdgintonc(X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Marketing is hard. But I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom.

Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Lib Sin ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre-produced ad like this one, across thousands of shows to reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libson Ads. Go to Libsonads.com. That's L-I-B-S-Y-N-AIDS.com today. You're a podcast listener, and this is a podcast ad, heard only in Canada.

Reach great Canadian listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libson Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts, offering host endorsements, or run a pre-produced ad like this one, across thousands of shows to reach your target audience with Libson Ads. Email Bob at Libson.com to learn more. That's B-O-B-B-L-I-B-S-Y-N.com. Ron DeSantis has endorsed the most drastic change to our immigration policy in probably the last 60 years. The Freedom Caucus, Andy Ogles, Tommy Tuberville, they've proposed sweeping changes to the American immigration system. And it's very ambitious. We're going to see if it goes anywhere. But this says quite a bit about the current mood in the right wing in the GOP.

There's a lot to get into. We also have a massive. massive documentary dropping. It has already dropped, actually, and it exposes the massive fraud going on in the H-1B system. We're going to dig into that, what the findings were. It's a unbelievable documentary. It really just illustrates how bad things have really gotten. We also have a shocking story out of Britain where a stabbing victim was arrested for being stabbed. Things are getting wacky and wild over in Britain. We're going to get into what that says about America, because quite frankly, there is a lot of crossover. These things are very relevant to our affairs here in the United States. We had a interesting story out of Germany where their chancellor has said he would not tell his children a move to America anymore.

The relationship between the Europeans and Americans have soured a bit over the last few years, and this story, I think, says a lot about that relationship. And finally, probably the biggest story, probably the last year. The Michael Jackson biopic has dropped. It is topping the box office charts. It's really an unbelievable story. I think that says a lot about the right wing specifically, if you had to ask me. an unbelievable, unbelievable story.

So we're going to get into that and so much more. I am your host, Tate Brown here, holding it down, attempting to hold it down. We are missing our valiant leader, Tim Poole, but he is up to some really exciting stuff that you guys will probably be seeing much more from very soon. But before we get in today's show, I want to give a quick shout out to our community, the Discord community. We have our community showcase shout out. It is the book, Owl and Hawk by Louisa Koch.

Unbelievable story here. Louisa Coke is the pen name of Maria Wise, who, lives just outside of St. Louis, Missouri with her husband, Clark, and four children. A pen name was necessary when she originally published in 2015 due to lack of support from her first husband, who ultimately abandoned the marriage three months before the release of her first book. She continues to write under this name for the sake of continuity. Very smart. She remarried in 2017 and the untimely death of her ex-husband. Maria is a former oncology and hospice nurse who maintains her license, but is not practiced since the birth of her third child in 2018. But this is where

this book comes in. The Owl and Hawk was released, was just released on Easter Monday of this year. It is Louisa's first self-illustrated project. The owl and hawk are best friends, but their time together is limited by the fact that one owl sleeps during the day and the other at night. The story has subtle anti-trans messaging by highlighting that we are all designed with certain strengths and weaknesses that will make us who we are. There are at least four stories in this series to follow. The second book, Owl and Hawk in the Cave Rescue, is already completed and will be available on Amazon starting July 1st, 2026. Some seriously exciting stuff.

And yeah, you can find her on Discord at Miami Mommy or Instagram with the same handle that is M-A-I-M-Y. Mommy. She's also on YouTube, Mom of Four Song covers. So some really exciting stuff. Shout out to our Discord community. But with that, on this Friday, I have assembled a rock star panel. This is a high-octane panel, some really exciting stuff. So I think we should just get right into the news.

But first, before we do, I got to introduce our fantastic. guest today. First off, first off, we got the great Jeremy Carl. Jeremy, thanks for coming out. Who are you? And what do you do? I'm a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. And I write a lot. And occasionally I go before the Senate and get yelled at. Some folks may have seen that. And yeah, working on a new book and just happy to be on. Yeah, well, thanks for coming out. Super exciting stuff. And we're going to get into the book and all that and so much more. We've got Scott Greer is here. Yes, I am Scott Greer, writer, highly respected writer and podcast. a new book coming out this summer called White Pill, The Online Right and the Making of Trumps America,

and everyone should get it at the book provider that they prefer. It'll be it's available for pre-order on Amazon and all the great stores that you can find it at. Exciting. I'm so excited for the White Pill book. I think this is going to be a generational publish. Stephen Hedgitine is here. Stephen, what's going on? I'm a documentary filmmaker based in the U.S. for G.B. News, a British TV network in London. Awesome. Well, Stephen, thank you very much for joining. We got the great Ian Crosland. Yeah, the discourse level has been high. I've noticed before the show it was very high IQ. So I'm going to do my best not to take it off the rails and talk about God and spirits.

But we are talking about, you know, morphing our government into some sort of digital thing. That could be a very interesting philosophy philosophical conversation. Carter Banks, what's happening, brother? The collective IQ in this room is off the charts right now. We're going to kill it today. Well, that's why I'm here to drop it back down, drop the average day back down to Earth. So with that, I think we should get into this first story. this is everyone's been talking about it. It's all over Twitter. It's all over the news, quite frankly.

Ron DeSantis put this tweet out. Really interesting stuff here. Both the Hartseller Act of 1965 and the additions to it in the early 90s need to be repealed. So many examples of putting American citizens last in those pieces of legislation. Now, what does he talk? Is this just out of the blue? Well, no. What's interesting here is Andy Ogles has led the conservative, this conservative proposal from House, this proposal from House conservatives. This is per Fox News. House Conservatives unveil bill to end chain migration, scrap diversity visa, and sweeping immigration overhaul. Rep. Andy Ogles is pushing a repeal of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Rep. Andy Ogles, obviously, from the great state of Tennessee, is leading a new bill that would shift the American immigration system from a family-based focus,

largely ending chain migration and prioritizing immigrants who serve the national interest of the United States. The quote from text that was obtained by Fox News Digital, all immigration to the United States shall serve the economic. economic, cultural, and security interests of the United States as determined by Congress. And this is key here. It would also eliminate the diversity visa lottery, an annual quota allowing for 55,000 immigrant visas for people from countries with otherwise low migration rates to the United States. And this was Andy Ogil's initial proposition here that he put on Twitter. This is what Ronda Santos was obviously commenting on and effectively endorsing.

Excited to announce that my 83-page assimilation Act has been introduced. months of labor were undertaken by my staff, Senator Tuberville of Alabama, the great state of Alabama, and myself to gut the Heart Seller Act of 1965, as well as scrapped provisions of the Immigration Act of the 1990s. The goal of this bill is simple, end replacement migration and ensure American cultural cohesion. This bill will end the H-1B scam, ensure migrants never become a public charge and make America look like America again. That is very key. FYI, net immigration decreased by 85% under this bill. So this is some really fascinating stuff. I think before we get into the meat and potatoes here, we do need an explanation of the Hartzeller Act. Obviously, this changed

the fabric of American society quite dramatically. Thankfully, we have Jeremy Carley. I don't know if anyone can precisely explain what has changed in our immigration system better than Jeremy. Well, I'll do my best. So the Hartzeller Immigration Act is an act that's done in 1965 in the wake of President Kennedy's assassination. And the reason why that's relevant in particular is that John F. Kennedy, while he's a senator, but looking to become president of the United States eventually, publishes a book with the notorious ADL called A Nation of Immigrants. This is, by the way, if you are familiar, your listeners with that phrase and just think, oh, we've always called ourselves a nation of immigrants.

No, the origin of that phrase is literally from that book. So they were sort of trying to reconstitute a little bit of American identity. And what this does is this essentially replaced the 1924 Immigration Act, which was, was the most strict immigration control act that we had ever had in America. It had strict national origins requirements, and it was essentially designed to preserve the demographic balance of the United States and what it had been in the late 19th century. Hartzeller, it's a complicated bill, so I'm not going to summarize it quickly, but it overturns all that.

It lets, it allows chain migration ultimately. And frankly, it did some of these things that were genuinely not expected. And you can actually go back and read the congressional debate and see that. And you have people like Hubert Humphrey, who is the senator from Minnesota, later, Democrat Vice President, saying, hey, this is not going to affect the demographic balance of the United States. And then it went to do precisely that. And even three years later, one of the things I found doing research for this book, I have to hold it up here, the Unprotected Class.

In my immigration chapter, I did find a primary source from New York Times. three years later where they had not been expecting that we were going to get a bunch of Latin American immigration from Hartzeller. It was basically all about letting in more polls and Italians and sort of Central European Catholics who had been discriminated against under the previous regime. When they found out that we were in fact getting a much different demographic mix than they had expected early on, they quote in this New York Times piece from 1968 anonymous congressmen saying, yeah, we'd actually actually.

like to change this, but we don't want to look like racists. And I think that's really interesting because I think people sort of perceive, you know, the woke came with George Floyd or whatever. This shows even at a time in which, you know, there actually was a fair bit of racism in the United States in the 1960s, people were so sensitive about not looking like racist, quote unquote, that they, even though a bill was doing something very different than what they wanted it to do, they didn't go and fix it. So that's why partially where we are in the place we are today. Because as I understand it, I mean, the initial fears from when this bill was being discussed was that it would open the door to like mass migration from Europe. Like that's what they were initially fearful of, which is just crazy.

It shows how quickly the national mood in America has changed where it's not even up for debate, you know, until thankfully the last few years. I think mostly because of President Trump, that sort of countries that would be culturally more assimilable into the United States nations were given no credence in the modern immigration system. And that was a massive departure from like hundreds of years of an American conservative. census on how immigration ought to work. Sure. Going back to the 1790 Immigration Act, which you can read, and they talk about who we want to come here and not being a public charge

and things like that and being culturally assimable. They don't use those words because they didn't exist back then. If you imagine, like, a tribal island group, if we just imported them and immigrated them into our country, how different that would be than like some French a French family, a French Catholic family. But you've got to oppose that

drastic counterposition so that people can understand how detrimental it would be to import people with like, not psychotically, maybe that's not the right word, but it seems almost like if they do eat humans, if they're cannibals, or if they kill and eat cats, you know, or whatever, they wipe feces on themselves. I don't know what kind of cultural things they do, but like, if you just like in and date a country with some bizarre difference, you got to, you're going to, there's going to be suffering involved in. Well, and this has been the bizarre debate that, to much of my frustration I've been having to have with some on the right because they're insisting, oh, no, we're just a creedal nation.

If you mouth these words, you're automatically eligible to be a good American. And people like me are saying, you know, actually American creeds are important and we should talk about them, but by the way, we're not kicking out anybody who doesn't believe in them. That seems kind of significant. But we're a people with a creed.

We're not just this amorphous creed. And there are too many people on the right, Vivek, Ramoswamy, very prominently in the political realm, but not exclusively to him. There are all these people coming out. I'm just trying to remember who said it most recently. Oh, it's Justice Gorsuch, who was kind of making this, like, totally ridiculous argument to me. But it's just, this is boomer con stuff, unfortunately.

Yeah, and that was the thing that you guys were bringing up is, like, the immigration concern. It was Eastern and Southern Europeans that was still a concern at this time in the mid-20th century. And they had tried to have a liberal immigration bill with a 1952 Immigration Act, and this was being pushed by Harry Truman and a lot of prominent Democrats, but the national mood was very much turned against it. And what they imagined is they were going to bring all these displaced persons from World War II, which there were still many in the 1950s. But the Immigration Act of 1952 actually reaffirmed a lot of the restrictions that were found in the 1924 Immigration Act. But things had changed over a decade later with the 65 Act. Now, they did have these concerns.

There were senators, were raising concerns about the potential of all these Latin Americans. is coming here. And Sam Irvin, who went down as the primary opponent of it, and he was saying that this is going to change our country. He's even worried that they're like, oh, we're only going to take the best and brightest from the rest of the world. Then he's like, wait a minute, if we're taking the best and brightest in the rest of the world, isn't that going to make all these countries like third world hellholes and then contribute to more immigration as we're taking all their smart people? These concerns are like, no, no, don't worry about that. But they were able to lay these concerns by having, are they at least in theory we were supposed to have strict

restrictions on Latin American immigration where under the 1924 Immigration Act, we, Latin America wasn't covered by it because a lot of the people in the Southwest is like, we need this cheap labor. A cheap labor has been a major concern for immigration and for other things in American life since the founding. But they're like, okay, we won't cover it. But they'd still have things like what Eisenhower did, which I don't even think we can say the operation's name on that live stream, but they were able to deport them. So they have this understanding, well, if there's many we can deport them. And so they were worried that they wouldn't have these restrictions.

So then they got Sam Irvin to sign on to the bill and others by saying we're going to keep a quota system on our hemisphere. And this is primarily, the people are primarily going to benefit our Europeans and some Asians. But it turned out differently because we have no border security. There's no wall there. And now we have this whole illegal immigration problem that was also caused by 65, because there's still this demand for cheap labor and there's nothing stopping them from coming here and there's no enforcement mechanisms and then they came up through here and then we're supposed to solve

that through the 86 immigration bill which was which is now goes down to this infamous amnesty bill it's like how dare they were have this liberal bill but the thing is that was primarily pushed by immigration restrictionist as an immigration control bill and immigration control is in the title of the bill but then there was no immigration control they just amnestyed over three million people which They only thought they'd have a million. And then that only further encouraged the illegal immigration problem. So another cost of the 65 Immigration Act is that it created the illegal immigration problem, even though it was supposed to keep out these immigrants that they were,

or at least keep them under strict quotas. But all immigration acts besides the Immigration Act of 1924 had all these unintended effects that its opponents didn't think it would even be this bad. and its supporters didn't realize they would have these effects. Is that because of the advancements in technology in the 20th century, like telephone, radio and then television and, of course, is that why? Well, there's a lot of things, right? Like, so in the 20th century, in the early 20th century,

one third of European immigrants remigrated back to where they were from. And that's because you basically have no welfare state. So, like, you either like it or lump it here in America. And the costs of going back and forth are a lot. So maybe you make that choice once and then you kind of like, if I'm not liking it, I go back. Now, between all the technologies and being able to move back and forth really quickly, the world is just much smaller, right? I mean, pick your dumb global village metaphor.

But it's much easier to go back and forth. And in fact, a huge amount of our immigration problem today with illegals is visa overstays. And in fact, the Trump administration has done a good job here, not got enough credit to me, in cracking down on countries where you have chronic. visa overstayers and mass. So I think that's been really good. Well, what's interesting, I mean, Andy Ogil's put in his post here, he said, look, I want to make America look like America again. Now, I'll steal man the creedal nation, you know, people here, as they do make this argument where they point back to the founders and they say, well, you know, you would see these

suggestions that, you know, these rights extend to all people, irregardless of if they're, you know, Jewish or Muslim or Hindu. You would specifically see like rhetoric in regards to freedom of religion and these sorts of things. And so a lot of these creedal, you know, these creedal nation arguments would sort of predicate on like at the founding, they didn't explicitly say, this country is for English descended people only or that sort of thing. They almost, this is the argument from them is that they kind of left the door open for the American nation to evolve and change and these sorts of things. And so a lot of people are saying, well, why does it matter what the source of the migration is? They can just, once they, you know,

step foot in JFK, they can become Americans. It's, it's purely a creedal nation. I mean, that's the common argument you would typically hear from, you know, creedal nation advocates. Yeah. Well, I mean, at a trivial level, one of the reasons, there are many, many reasons it's wrong. But if you go back to the 1790 Immigration Act, it specifically says free white persons of character, right? Now, that's not to say, I mean, I'm like, I'm a raging moderate on these questions, right? Like, I think that you can have, you can have good Americans come from anywhere and become really valuable contributing members of our society. But it's a question of pace and scale. Sure. And the pace and scale has been out of control so that, you know,

it's not, you know, like people are developing ethnic enclaves and you get problems, right? Like, people are now complaining a lot about Indian immigration. I have a lot of good friends who are Indian immigrants. But when I look at, like, what the commonality they often have is, like, they grew up in eastern Oregon or they grew up in rural Pennsylvania. So they weren't, like, part of an ethnic enclave. They grew up in this really American environment, and they were smart, capable guys, and they assimilated to the local culture. And so you can do that if the numbers are manageable. Sure. If you just open the floodgates to very, very different people at a mass level, that's when you begin to have problems.

But it also totally transforms the politics of the country. I mean, in the 80s, Reagan was able to achieve these incredible landslide victories where, you know, they had one state, was it where Mondale won, you know, in 84. And today, yeah, in Minnesota, right, but today that could never happen because the demographics of America have changed so much in such a short period of time. And the same thing happening in Britain where we're seeing this sort of sectarian politics, where you have a buildup of immigrants in certain cities and communities, And now they're supporting their own parties that support their own ethnic and religious interests.

And, you know, what the Democrats did with Linda Johnson and the Hartzeller Act obviously had an incredible impact for their party because, you know, most of these immigrants are supporting the Democrats. Yeah, and we've had this problem for a while. And some people, liberals will point out out. I was like, well, we have the Irish and Polish here and they had their ethnic conclaves. But that's not an argument for it because that created many problems. And we're now having more immigrants. And even at that time, it's not a good thing if. you know, you're living in a Polish enclave and you're like, we only care about Polish interests.

And we're voting for this guy just because he's Polish or whatever. And that's like, that's not a model that we should continue to emulate. And there were people critical of this at the time, like Theodore Roosevelt. He's like, we want people who want to be 100% American. They're not Irish American. They're not Italian American. They're 100% American. That's their thing.

And now we're like, oh, we can have that now. But thanks to the 1924 Immigration Act and also the 100% Americanism effort that we saw in World War I, they were able to crack down on these hyphenated Americanisms, which they were not even really loyal to the country. They were basically visitors, but then we forced them to say, you're no longer visitor, you're going to be turned into American.

But now we think that that's a model to make, but even if you go back to the early 20th century, I think the insane city politics that were animated by these ethnic enclaves and ethnic interests and conflicting where they can't come together as Americans, that's not something we want to bring back everywhere. And now we see this everywhere.

It's not just limited to, at that time, in New York City, Boston, Chicago, you know, you'll see this in suburban Texas, where they would have never experienced that in years past. Because shouldn't the takeaway have been when the Irish, the Italian migrants eventually assimilated into the United States, shouldn't the takeaway have been like, we got lucky that that ended up working out? No, they just said, let's get more exotic. Right. Well, and it took many generations. I mean, there's actually good academic studies showing that with, like, Italians, if you use various objective criteria, that it took them four generations. before they sort of start looking like the rest of America in terms of everything from educational outcomes to, you know, whatever else.

In two wars and a depression. Yeah. So, I mean, lots of things like that. And just to give the audience a sense of the scale, so in 1960, which is the last census we have before Hartzeller, we are 4.7% immigrant, and the average age is, I'm making this up, which is roughly correct, 62 or something like that. Today, it's about 16%, and that's not even probably counting a lot of the illegals. were missing, and the average age of an immigrant is like 28, right? So it's a dramatic transformation.

Oh, young people are, they get riled up really easy. They want to have kids, which means they want women, young men particularly, which means they'll take women if they don't have them. They're very aggressive, high testosterone. So young men that don't understand the culture or the language can be very dangerous for a society, especially if the economy starts to crack. Yeah. Well, I think with that with all the Venezuelan illegal migrants coming through, thanks to Biden. Well, I think this is where we should pivot to this wonderful documentary that was put out recently by GB News, conducted by the very great Stephen Edgerton.

I want to play this short clip from the documentary because this is really shocking. I think this specifically honed in on the H-1B visa system, which has increasingly come under criticism from, I mean, large swathes of the political system. Take a look at this clip. They had objectives to outsource percent of work to the Philippines and to Ireland. Those were the two main spots. And I would have to train some of the people in the Philippines who were actually going to take my work. It felt dehumanizing and it felt humiliating in a way to think that Google cared so little about your investment as a worker on their product that they would just throw it, you know, to any group that they thought might be able to do it.

But as I said, they didn't really, some of the Filipino people, they just didn't have that technical background. And then to even force you to train your replacement people was sometimes kind of felt mean, you know, and harsh. Stephen, could you break down specifically, I mean, because you conducted a lot of these interviews, could you break down specifically what was happening in this sector in regards to them quite literally having to train the replacement? Yeah, so this is something I found from lots and lots of people across the Bay Area. So we were filming this in Silicon Valley, where two thirds of tech workers are foreign-born.

There are more tech workers in Silicon Valley born in India than born in California. So this is an incredible transformation of the US tech sector. There's about 400,000 tech jobs in Silicon Valley. And this has happened in the last sort of 30 years since the H-1B visa was introduced in 1990. And this visa was meant to be a temporary work visa for highly skilled immigrants to sort of fill labor shortages. But what actually has happened is these visas have been converted into green cards. these people are staying here becoming citizens, and they're replacing American workers because they'll do the job for a lot cheaper than Americans will.

There's a Harvard economist who did a study on this. H-1B workers work for 16% less than Americans. Companies can save $100,000 over six years for each H-1B that they hire. So basically, you have these Indians, and it is 70% of these H-1B visas go to Indians, which is just an extraordinary figure. And last year, I think it was like 406,000 H1B's approvals from UCAS. You get these Indians come in and they replace these Americans, particularly older Americans.

These are the people that I interviewed. We had three examples, all of which had either been replaced by Indians or their jobs had been offshoreed to India. And it's been an utterly devastating impact on US tech workers in the Bay Area, but also across the entire country, who are really struggling to find jobs. And they're suddenly up against massive foreign competition who will do the jobs for a lot cheaper, as I said.

And, you know, this woman here who's in the next clip, she's been looking for a job for two years. She had an Indian CEO hire her an Indian assistant. And she was then told to train him, and then he replaced her. And, you know, she had to sell her home. She was utterly devastated. She's like kind of crying in the clip.

It's a really sad tale and it's not just her. It's hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans who are being displaced and replaced because of the H-1B visa in these tech sectors and other industries. Well, because you've seen this from, I mean, Ted Cruz comes to mind as an example of the consensus in the GOP for the last, however long, has been, well, illegal immigration. They like chess beat over illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is this big problem. We're going to clear house with legal immigration. It's ripping us off, et cetera. It's like true, but I think for large chunks of the United States, including in the tech sector, obviously here that's even covered, is legal immigration seems to be, you know, tampering with people's lifestyle and standard of living far more than illegal immigration. I mean, if you're working for Google, I mean, illegal immigration is not really going to cut into your bottom line as much as, again, a guy that's going to come in and work for half the budget. I mean, I live 14 years in the heart of Silicon Valley, and I write about this in the unprotected class.

where one of the interesting phenomena that you have as a result of this is normally when we think about white flight, we associate that with a bunch of urban ills and whites kind of leaving because it became too criminal, et cetera, et cetera. And that's true. But in Silicon Valley, you have a very unique sort of situation where you have very significant white flight because of the level of cultural displacement. And so in the huge population growth you saw in my county where I live Santa Clara County since 1970, it wasn't just a question of, wow, we had a ton of immigrants come in and it sort of swamped the domestic population, but the domestic population stayed. No, you can actually show there are fewer, like, white Americans, for example, in Santa Clara

County, California now than there were 60 years ago, even though the population of that county has, you know, tripled or quadrupled in the meantime. So you actually had people who just felt culturally alienated or financially potentially alienated enough because they couldn't get a job anymore. They had to pick up and leave. So what sort of American dream is that? What sort of consideration is that for the American worker? This sounds like a precursor to the automation of workforces. Like they're first, they're going to the cheap offshore labor, then they're going to go to AI and these people are going to lose their jobs. And this is the concern is that they're going to lose their jobs anyway. And like screaming about no stop, no more foreign labor is like saying,

no, no automobiles. We need our horse and buggies. And like, sorry, row. But so, but it's different because, because it's literally people moving here and taking position over another person. That's, the automation is more like just empty buildings. But, I mean, do you think that we can legalize that we can use law to stop this, what seems like inevitable flow towards the automation of workforces? I mean, well, because that's, that's the whole argument is like, look, if we want to cut immigration, I mean, we do know all across the West, this has been the argument throughout Europe that, okay, the population is now declining, right? They're not having enough children. And so the argument

has been from a lot of immigration proponents is we can backfill the loss in population with foreign labor. That is a way that we can keep our head above water, so to speak. And it's actually kind of the other way around is like if we want to increase immigration restriction, we will need to find ways to fill in labor. Now, in this example, this is just purely replacement labor. So this argument wouldn't necessarily be relevant here. But a lot of people have pointed out that, look, if you do want to lower immigration levels, we will have to implement more and more automation technology because again, if you're losing people, you've got to get a job done somehow. I mean, this is kind of the whole argument people say with, you know, manufacturing of vehicles, for example,

is there's just not enough people in the United States to work on assembly lines, you know, just like one guy's jobs to rivet all day. So you can use like automation technology to, again, sort of get the boot off of the neck of a lot of these manufacturers and allow them to get the job done. Well, that makes it insane that the big tech, which is producing the next revolution, automation, the most eager for H-1B visas because they're saying, oh, this is going to replace all this labor, but we still need these H-1B visas. It's like you're claiming that these jobs are going to be replaced in like a year or two. You're still demanding this cheap labor.

So if we're going to see the benefit from automation, then they should be up for eliminating the H-1B visa because we don't need them anymore. If all these jobs are being taken by AI, then why do we need the cheap Indian laborers anymore? Yeah, and I think one really interesting thing is there's actually a lot of good research that shows that when you have more immigration, it actually depresses native fertility. So you actually exacerbate the problems that you had. I mean, my kind of general takeaway on having studied immigration policy for a long time and argued with various folks as like, the other side is just, they're bad faith arguers.

There's two reasons they want it. It is either because they're businesses that want cheap labor or because they're ethnic lobbies who want more co-ethics. And any actual discussion of national interest, it's just like a, At a certain point, you argue with them for the 100th time and they give you the same stupid talking point that you know is wrong. I just stop engaging with them. Like, I'm hoping to engage with your audience because they should, you know, know better

and be armed with the facts. But these are not good faith discussions that we're having with these guys. And beyond, like, let's just say these people were economic miracles. Let's say that they, like, totally revamped our economy, et cetera, et cetera, is the composition of the country still not up for debate? Like, let's just remove any economic argument, any, you know, demographic, et cetera, as far as, like, you know, increasing the population or whatever. Is it still not up for contention that we would just, like Andy Ogle said, want our communities to remain, like, broadly American?

This point that Jeremy makes about tribalism and ethnic tribalism is really important. And this is something I found in my research for the film. That guy we just watched, Stephen Vivian, who was the next contractor at Google, he told me that he saw how the Indian networks at Google operate. And he saw Indians give confidential interview questions to other Indians to their friends in order to give them no advance. to get jobs. And this was something that came up so much where you have Indians come into these networks and these companies. And then they hire their friends, their cousins, their people from back in their hometown or home village in India even. You know, I looked at some of the CEOs of these major American tech companies that are now run by Indians like IBM, Google, YouTube, FedEx.

All of these companies have seen a huge increase in the usage of H-1B visas since these Indians came in and became the CEOs of these major companies. So there's a lot of ethnic tribalism and ethnic loyalties, and that creates a huge disadvantage for American workers who are completely shut out of the system. Well, and we're going to get railroaded because, I mean, Americans, like, we have a taboo around nepotism. We're like, you always see these stories.

I think Sting was the latest one where he's like, I'm not giving my children a dollar when I die. Like, I'm going to spend it all or give it to like some NGO that'll just blow it all. Like, there's like, in American culture, yeah, any sort of nepotism, any sort of fendipism, any sort of favorite, like playing favorites or anything is like the biggest taboo ever. I'm going to give the confidential question to a poor, shrugly child, not my own.

That would be our way of God. Yeah. And I mean, I've lived in India. And so not only is what you're saying believable in terms of the professional culture of India, if you told me the opposite, it would not be believable. It's just, I mean, there are many lovely and interesting things about Indian culture, but there is a huge amount of public corruption and nepotism just built in. And, you know, it's not just, of course, Indian.

And it's like from my subcast in this part of India, right? Like, and there's, there's further division going out in that way that is often not transparent to, you know, the average American, but it's still happening. Because in the U.S., like, if you meet someone and they got a job via, like, their dad or uncle, it's, like, embarrassing. It's humiliating. Like, you have to, like, extract that information out of them. And it's, like, 20 minutes into the conversation, you finally realize, like, oh, okay, well, this guy, you know, his uncle worked already. But, again, that's just, like, a very American quote. We don't like handouts.

I know John Doyle was telling us on this story. worry about how I had like a neighbor and, you know, someone in his neighborhood and their house burnt down. And everyone was like, we want to give you money. Like, we want to get you back on your feet. And he, like, refused all of it because, like, I think it's a very American cultural tendency to just, like, not want handouts or anything like that. Well, we hate the Nepo babies, too. Yeah. Even when it makes sense it's like, you know, your parents were famous actors and you're an actor. Well, that's just genetics and how you're brought up. That's likely to be your profession. But we really hate that. It's like, no, it doesn't matter if your

parents are good singers. You shouldn't be a singer. You should be out at Chipotle. boat lay being a manager or something. We really don't like the nepo babies and all the things. Nephism really rubs us the wrong way. And when we see other groups doing this not just beyond their family, but for their entire ethnic group, we find it very deeply foreign and strange to do that. Was LeBron James' son when he was coming through, like, the youth ranks?

He, like, refused to use his dad's number because he, like, didn't want to be seen as, like, I don't know, somehow getting a handout and a, like, fairly objective system, which is athletics. Like, if you're good, you're good, if you're bad, you're bad. but it's like deeply ingrained in the American psyche to be like paranoid of this Hollywood trope of like the silver spoon like you know dorky or like snooty rich kid that's like it's just it's a phenotype developed by Hollywood that's typically not reflected in real life like typically when you meet the children of these sort of very successful people they're typically fairly pleasant but the Hollywood depiction is that they're this dushy snob with like sunglasses and I think every specifically baby boomer is so paranoid of like that trope that they will just pull the ladder up on anyone that's you. younger than them that would have any commonality with them whatsoever. This is, I think that I'm feeling two concentric arguments. There's the automation, the cheapening of labor by offshoring it or by automating it.

And then there's the importation of foreign cultures, and they're both problems. And then there's the intersection where they're intentionally importing their own culture, and it is cheap. So you're getting both at once. So what I think that if you focus on like I don't want Indians here because they're Indian and they're disrupting the culture, then you get hit slammed as a racist. The other argument's much easier to make. Like I don't want to automate away your jobs, even though kind of I do because that's the nature of the flow of reality. Sorry.

Well, and this is why I think what Ogles, that specific line, you want America to remain American or look American. I think that's a very valid concern for people to have. And again, you're dismissed with all these, you know, slanders. and he's like, oh, you're racist or whatever. But it's like, yeah, again, like I said, even if these people were like economic miracles or whatever, like you're running a nation and it is a distinct nation maybe to push back on the, you know, the creedal nation types, that's perfectly valid to just say, yeah, I would like my children to grow up in a community that looked like it did when I grew up and like that fabric of that

community. Culture is very, that is a very relevant, you know, tie that people have. It's a quality of life measure. People don't want to be in a place where they feel like a stranger, everyone speaking in another language. They don't fit in. They want to be part of something that they, recognize and that they grew up with. Unless, well, maybe if they're up breaking here is really

bad. But for the most part, you want to be something with a familiar with associated with a high quality of life. And if immigration lowers the quality of life for people, then that makes a relevant argument. What is the... I was going to say, I think we buried the lead a little bit on the Andy Ogles and Ron DeSantis thing, because I think the real significance of DeSantis saying that is, Ogles bless his heart as they say in the South. I mean, he's a real firebrand. on these issues, but he's sort of on the bleeding edge of, you know, what would be acceptable for a Republican to say. And so, you know, if it were just Oggles out there, you'd be like, I'm glad he's, you know, pushing the envelope, but probably nothing is going to really come of it.

But for Ron DeSantis, who is the most successful GOP governor, who actually has gotten a ton of stuff done, to be saying, yes, this should be a good mainstream GOP position, that's a huge shift in the narrative. Well, it indicates how, like, how vastly Trump has changed the atmosphere in the GOP, whether directly because of him or because of just the general atmosphere he's created. Because again, Ron DeSantis, you know, for what it's, he's a guy that's aspirational. He's viewed as a GOP leader. He's ascendant in many ways. And so what's like what we're seeing there to your point is like, this is the new baseline for a GOP leader is like, no, you need to be right on this issue. You need to be correct on this. Do you think it's, it's worse to import a bunch

of Indian foreigners to work in a data center in like Silicon Valley or to just have it all AI? It just a big data center that's just no one's there? The first one. It's worse to have foreign cultures. Yeah. I would say absolutely. I think if it's automation, you know, as we were making the point earlier, that some of these jobs, it's harder to find Americans to do these jobs.

But when you have AI and automation, it's also part of the technological advancement we've had. We've had these problems since the 19th century where it's like, well, if we're going to develop these factories, that's going to put a lot of other people out of work. So we're instead having technological advancement that is requiring less labor and we're moving along things. But if you're bringing in a new group of people that you're also then going to remove their employment due to advancement of technologies and automation, then that creates other problems. Because then those people are going to have to go on welfare and they're also not going to leave. So I would say definitely the first, more than the latter.

I think automation and I think that's why big tech should. embrace the idea of eliminating the H-1B visa because if they're promising that AI is going to eliminate all this labor and allow us to, I guess, play more video games or whatever, then they should then they should put this, then they should advocate for this policy that we no longer need H-1Bs. But they're still saying that we're, we're going to take away your job through automation. Also, we're taking away your job through H-1B visas. That creates a very negative impression among the American public.

It seems like a short-term economic grab for them. They're like, yeah, two years, we're going to use you and then discard you. And if there's a revolution, we're offshore anyway. I live on an island with a bunker. I don't care. Yeah, I just think, you know, I don't think, I understand the sensitivities. I don't even think you need to make it about like whether you love or dislike or somewhere in between about how you feel about Indian culture. The more fundamental thing is diversity is not our strength, period, right?

And it doesn't have anything to do with the diverse people could be wonderful people. They could be terrible people. Obviously, if they're wonderful people in the abstract, then, you know, it's easier, but it's still not good. A greater deal of unity, and Pete Heggseth has actually literally said these words and talking about the army and the way that they feel. Now, you know, you don't need to go like such full unity that you're fascists, but a greater degree of cultural unity is a strength. And anything that kind of adds to being more diverse just means you have less in common and you're going to get along. Like diversity through cohesion is the best because that's like it shows in genetics. You want different forms of genetics to override, you know, it discards the worst from both and

utilizes the best from both. But if you have two different diverse things that aren't copulating, they go to war. So you have to force integration with diversity. Otherwise, it's not good. I don't know how you can like force it. You know, you can't force people to fall in love. but I don't know how you you can't whip them into being American

you know I don't you gotta like entice them with TV and like cool things and that's true well I think with that we gotta get to this next story we gotta keep this show on the road here from the Daily Mail man denies murdering student 18

who was stabbed to death on the way home from a night out a man has denied murdering a quote adored 18 year old student who was stabbed to death on his way home from a night out with his new football teammates obviously soccer for the American audience Vikram Singh Degwa, 23, is accused of murdering Southampton University student Henry Noak on and of possession of a knife in public.

Mr. Digua's mother, Kiran Karur, 52, is accused of assisting an offender by removing a knife from the scene, though she also denies this charge. Henry from Chafford Hundred, Essex, a first-year accountancy and finance student, died from wounds sustained to his chest and leg during an altercation on Belmont Road, Southampton on December 4th, 2025. this teenager, obviously we've seen quite a bit of a few locals discuss the type of character he was. They said the teenager said to, quote, be adored by everyone, had been out celebrating the end of his term with friends and teammates. He was obviously very beloved by his community. This was quite interesting here. This was a commentary, Pagliacci the hated has put this up. This was a snippet from the article here. Police were called to the scene, but Mr. Noak, after Degwa claimed he had been racially abused, so they arrested the victim, because again, Digua claimed that he had racially abused

him. This is really salient, the copy that she put on here, quote, police arrest man who was bleeding to death because the stabber claimed he was racist. It's literally impossible to satirize the UK anymore. Even the most extreme, ham-fisted memes are just real things that actually happen now. Now, seeing as we have a Brit here, Stephen Edison, maybe you can break down the story what's specifically going on here. Yeah, I mean, I actually grew up very close to where this happened. It's one of the most scandalous stories I've seen in a very long time coming out Britain, and not saying something, because we see something like this happened pretty much every week. I think the key point here, and let's let's let's be clear about what happened.

Again, we're talking out allegedly because this is still going on in trial, so we have to be careful with that of the British legal system. But you had this young 18 year old kid gets stabbed in the in the legs and in the lungs. And let's just read the quote there. Put simply, Henry drowned in his own blood with his lung having been cut by the knife going eight centimeters into him. The police essentially let him drown in his own blood after they arrested him because the attacker, alleged attacker, said that he had been racially abused. So the police, they did, I think they did try and give him some medicine and try and help revive him, but it was too late. So the guy is there laying out drowning in his own blood whilst he's been arrested because

the guy said he'd been racist against him. I mean, what does that say about the police today? This is the anti-racist ideology at its worst. This is literally someone dying because the police are afraid of not taking so-called racist allegations seriously enough. This has been going on in the Met Police and the police all across Britain for decades, going back to the case of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in the 1990s, our sort of original George Floyd, and later we've had other incidents which also caused riots to murder of Mark

Duggan and others. And the police have become so anti-racist in their ideology that they would happily, apparently, let an 18-year-old boy drown on his own blood than save his life. And they believe the attacker, or the alleged attacker, who accused them of being racist. It's disgusting. Well, what's going on here? Because look, the police in the United States have this reputation for typically being more conservative bent. You know, this is a common understanding of how the American police system operates. And so far as police unions will typically, you know,

endorse Republicans. This is quite common. I believe there's some statistics that police unions actually typically donate to Republicans over Democrats. It's clearly not the case in the UK because this is very unthinkable. We have this strain,

this strain of like, I guess you would say, wokeness, for like a better word, that does run through the United States, but I don't think you would ever see a story like this, this dramatic place. out in the US. I mean, what's going on with the police over there? The police have these targets, these diversity targets. That's number one. So the police in the UK are incredibly diverse, very heavily on women and immigrants. This is embedded in police culture. They have DEI training

constantly. And again, they're so concerned about the optics, like I said, because of these cases, Stephen Lawrence, Mark Doug and others, which are so-called racist attacks from police officers against black people. They're so concerned that there could be rioting, like you saw it with BLM and George Floyd. And, you know, that stuff also hit Britain as well. So I think this is a, this is a police force that are terrified of being seen as racist. That's what's happening. So that's why they allow these things to happen, because it's all about the optics for them. They don't want any more race riots. And that's, it's embedded in police culture and ideology. Well, this is why I said at the top of show, this does as a relevance to the United States.

And so far as I doubt anything like this, this dramatic could happen here, at least not anytime soon. But I believe that this personal, there's this, this specific strain of like, racial identity of, I guess, wokeness, again, they use the term. It's almost a bit cliche at this point, but it's true. It did seem like an American export in a lot of ways. This is something that was very common in the United States, at least this sort of thinking that we're seeing

among these Met Police officers. It's just obviously in the UK because of specific conditions. It really ran. Well, the Met Police took the knee during the BLM protests in 2020 outside of Parliament. Whilst the protesters slash rioters were attacking them, throwing stuff at them, they literally went down on one knee.

It was a, this is a case of what they call two-tier justice in Britain, where the police, they don't care about the left-wing agitators, they don't treat them the same way as someone who's, for example, being accused of racism online. Let's say you do a so-called racist tweet, they'll come and knock on your door and put your way to prison, like in the case of Lucy Connolly, who went to prison or was sentenced to prison for two years for one of her tweets, which allegedly was inciting racial hatred. Again, this is how they police so-called racists, and then this is how they treat the the victims of people who have been stabbed.

It's disgusting. Yeah, and I think one other very important factual piece here, and not that it would really be in any way excused under any circumstances, but not mentioned here, but I read elsewhere that allegedly the victim's cell phone was found on the stabber, which would suggest that, in fact, you know, again, it wouldn't be justified in any way, even if he had yelled some offensive racial thing, but it would suggest that in fact this story is in fact entirely made up by the assailant and for which there was no evidence and then the default of the British police was to believe it.

Well there's a video of the victim Henry takes a video of what's happening at the time and there's some kind of confrontation where Henry says are you a bad man and the attacker or the alleged attacker says yes I'm a bad man and then it appears that his phone is taken off him by the attacker and then the video stopped So that was what was quoted in court. So it does appear that the alleged attacker stole his phone. And they said, again, the alleged attacker said that Henry was drunk. He had less blood alcohol in him. He was legally able to drive.

Like he'd had a couple of pints after going on a night out after celebrating this thing. And it's, you know, there's so many young men who have suffered as a result of our migration policies. And this is just the latest victim of this. Obviously the police didn't step in here. But this also goes, the blame also. has to go on our politicians who open the borders to millions of people from around the world. You know, there was another case of a guy called Thomas Roberts, a young 21-year-old Royal Marine, who was stabbed in the heart by an illegal migrant a few years ago.

That illegal migrant had smuggled himself into Britain in 2018 on the back of a lorry, and he claimed that he was 14, he was actually 19. They sent him to a school in Devon with 14-year-olds, in which he was carrying knives and being aggressive. He gets excluded from the school, suspended. from the school. He then is in with a foster home with a foster mother, again, carrying knives being aggressive, the police do nothing, the foster mother is worried about her life. It turned out that this guy had already been arrested, was being hunted by Interpol, the European sort of FBI,

for murder of murdering two people in Serbia. So if the home office in Britain had done all of their checks beforehand and had actually vetted this guy properly and not put him in a school with school children, even though he'd already murdered two people, Thomas Roberts would still be alive today. And two days, I think, before Thomas Roberts was actually murdered by this guy, the police had had a complaint that he was carrying around knives or a machete in a town. The police went after him. They went to his house. They couldn't get into his house, so they just gave up. I think a day later or just hours later, he went and stabbed Thomas Roberts in the heart because of a dispute over one of those e-scooters, again, after a night out.

And you're seeing like in Britain, I mean, the way this is fundamentally changing society outside of the violent crime. I mean, there's this video that went viral. It was probably a few weeks ago at this point in London in like a popular clubbing area where three, four a.m. rolls around. These women are very drunk. They're very intoxicated. And you'll see migrants just parked up in this alleyway that I think all the clubs kind of dump into. And they're basically just like, you know, preying on these women that are completely intoxicated. Like these guys are probably sober for the most part.

It's just a fundamental change of, again, the way that Brits ought to conduct themselves. They have to keep these things in mind, and to your point, top down. It was imposed by, because this is a common thing in America where we say, all the British, the Canadians, the Australians, like this is all their fault. But it's like at every option, at every, any time there was a pole lever to reduce immigration, Britain would do that. The British people would do that specifically the English. And it's fallen on deaf fears every single time.

Well, I think this is a good point about being on a night out in England. You know, as a young guy, you probably think you're going to be safe after you go to a nightclub or wherever you are in London, Oxford, whatever. But look at this case. Look at the case I was talking out of Thomas Roberts. Another case, I interviewed someone for GB News about this. Anonymously, she didn't want to say her name. But she was on a night out in Oxford.

She was 20 years old. She was walking home and an illegal migrant came and raped her. Grabbed her, literally just raped her in a churchyard. And again, she felt that she would be safe just walking out by herself, as she should be. as she probably would have been 20, 30 years ago. And this is the high trust society that we had, that people still kind of naively think that we can live like that.

And now we can't, you know, on a night out, after a night out, on the sort of early hours in the morning in these big cities or towns in England, it is no longer safe to walk around as it was. And, you know, and the population are unfortunately learning that. Well, it's interesting because obviously this massive upheaval in Britain was imposed by the conservatives and the labor sort of in conjunction. They were both partners in this whole operation of just completely opening the borders, obviously, under Boris Johnson. And they saw the largest wave of migrants, not called the Boris wave.

And it was funny because labor got spanked in the last local elections by reform, obviously reform, promising immigration restriction. And the labor leaders, they were putting, I was watching it, they're putting them up on television. They would ask you, well, what happened? You know, how did it go so wrong? And they said, I just don't think we're selling our policy to the British people well enough. They're basically making the argument, no, this is all working. It's just we're not doing a well-of-enough job of community. They're now saying, we're doing so badly because we need to go harder on opening the borders.

We're being too right-wing on immigration. That's literally what Labour members of Parliament are saying. They're saying that their home secretary, Shabama Mahmood, is essentially a racist bigot who is trying to crack down on illegal migration, you know, far too much. And we need to rejoin the European Union. We need to, you know, be much more inclusive and welcoming of people from abroad. This is the way the Labour Party are seemingly going to take this, despite being completely destroyed in these elections.

Yeah, I mean, I think the more radicalizing thing, if I were English, is that as critical as I am of U.S. immigration policy over decades, on a relative basis, our immigrants are much higher skilled, certainly than the immigrants coming to the UK and Europe. And beyond that, you can at least tell a story of, well, we're in immigration country of immigration history. That story is very, very incomplete, as I detail in the unprotected class, but at least it's plausible. Britain was, England was 99% white in 1950, right?

Like in the lives of people who are alive today. 1066 was the last time you had a lot of unwanted immigration showing up at your doorstep. And yet people just decided that it was fine to totally transform the basis of society. Because, again, you can make an argument that America is a creedal people. I don't think it's a good argument, but you can make it. That's not true. Like, there are actually, there isn't English people. There are British people, right?

There was that quote from, it was Bill Maher, and he was on a show, he was talking about visiting London in the 80s, and he was like, it was suffocating in whiteness. Everyone was white, and this was the 1980s. Like, that's most people's lifetimes. Yeah, and the British people have explicitly voted for immigration restrictions several times. It's even different from America. People could say, well, maybe Trump in 2016, wasn't that?

I mean, 2024, it clearly is that. But every election has pretty much been the people were voting for immigration restriction. What was Brexit? That was primarily over immigration restriction. They were upset about the regulations from the EU, but the primary reason for them supporting Brexit was immigration restriction. And they didn't get that. They instead had immigration increase. And even the vote for conservatives in 2019 was about immigration restriction.

And it wasn't delivered that. And even the Labor Party was attacking conservatives for not restricting immigration and bringing all these immigrants, and when they want. So they keep voting for explicit immigration restriction and the politicians do the opposite. And it's even a different situation from what is in America. But I also find the other

interesting thing is the guy who wanting to defend himself says, oh, he calls me a racial slur, which we even see here in America. Prior most high profile incidents is that any time a football player attacks a fan or another player and the guy happens to be white, he's like, oh, he called me a racial slur because

the famous case of the Browns defensive and Miles Garrett. Yeah. He beat, he hit Mason Rudolph when he had no helmet on with a helmet.

And then like Mason Rudolph was a Steelers quarterback and most of his teammates are black. And he said, he called me the N-word. And then there's all his other teammates. He's like,

he definitely didn't call you that. But in order to defend this completely unacceptable behavior, you had to do this. And then there's a Steelers receiver who attacked a fan. I think it was a Lions fan. And then he claimed that the guy

called him a racial slur, which the guy had to come out of hiding to do a press conference and begged the player to say he did not call him racial slur, which he obviously didn't because all the other fans would have probably attacked him if you. We're not insulated from this in the U.S. I mean, granted, we have systematic blocks that would allow something like this to happen to a degree. But to your point, I mean, this is like a very common sentiment in America where anytime a situation like this happens where, you know, it's a black guy attacks a white person and he's like, well, he racially abused me. The replies or comments will be filled with like black people that are like, yeah, I know. Isn't that crazy? Like, yeah, you had it coming. Because we've set this.

There's even white fans who do that. Yeah. The sports teams and bio people will come out of the woodwork like, oh, this obviously happened. How could you disbelieve him? Yeah. And they will always believe that. Yeah, it's unbelievable.

And it's like a lot more common that people would think, again, like the whole idea of those are fighting words, you know, and it's just like, what's? Chud the builder, dude. We just had this story two days ago. He called the guy, what, racial slurs? And then the guy. And he actually did, to be fair. Yeah.

And there's video of a lot of his past, you know, rhetoric. so that that reinforces the argument. Yeah, but very few people are like him. He's a unique exception. And then, but every, you know, all these other cases is clearly that person not saying that. Just going to bring it back to Britain for a second, because there's actually three examples I can think of of where anti-racism has led to terrible, terrible consequences.

So, you know, the grooming gang is a great example of this where the police and the local councils and authorities refuse to investigate many of these cases because they were worried about being accused of racism. And that allowed for the systematic rape or systemic rape of thousands, if not tens of thousands, even more than that, white young girls in Britain since the 1970s. Another case more recently, the Manchester Arena bombing where an Arianda Grande concert in Manchester, this Islamic terrorist blew up all these children, dozens of young girls were slaughtered. one of the security guards noticed the attacker and thought he looked suspicious, but he said to an inquiry later that he didn't intervene because again he was worried about being accused of racism.

And the third one, and this is even more recent, this was in Nottingham, a black guy went and stabbed two 19-year-olds and a caretaker, I think he was in his 60s, all of whom died or were murdered by him. he could have been sectioned by the National Health Service. He was people, they wanted to section him years before, but the National Health Service chose not to section him because apparently they believed they'd been sectioning too many black people and they didn't want to be seen as racist. So this is the outcome of anti-racist ideology leads to death,

leads to murder, leads to rape. It's terrible. And I know you've written a lot about this in your book. what's sectioning? Sectioning is when someone is mentally unwell, they take you in and they basically lock you up in a hospital, in a mental hospital, and treat you. So this guy was basically mental or mentally unwell, and doctors referred him to the NHS to be sectioned, to be locked up under supervision. And they didn't do that because they're worried about being... Why do you think England's getting hit?

Okay, the reason I ask this, England's getting hit. it so hard by this? Is it because of the deep centralization of authority so it makes it so that the popular, like the king is like parliament is basically the governor generals serves at the leisure of the king can be removed and then they can disband parliament if the king instructs him to? Like, and is the king like a puppet of the world economic forum that's trying to create the new world order? I don't know, not that you know exactly, but what's your take on it? Well, the king doesn't really have any role. I mean, it's a ceremonial role essentially. So he's He can't really do anything politically.

You do have a very centralised political system, though, because Parliament is sovereign. We don't have three branches of government like you do here in the United States. We don't have these sort of so-called checks and balances. So when a government comes in with a majority in Parliament, they can pass any law they like and do whatever they want. So when you have all these instances, which Scott was referring to,

where the British people vote in and elect these parliaments that are promising to reduce migration, they can just do the exact opposite. There's nothing to stop them from doing that. And that's exactly what happened, where you had these conservative governments who kept promising their voters that we're going to reduce migration,

they would do the exact opposite, and they could use legislation in Parliament to do that. Are they importing because they need the labor? It's a complex situation. So yes, businesses want cheap labor. There's also this sort of diversity creed. You know, we're stronger if we're diverse, which obviously isn't true.

And a lot of these people, again, it's a worry of being accused of racism. Boris Johnson, the guy, the Prime Minister who let in more migrants than any other Prime Minister in recent years, 4 million people from the third world in a three-year period, 2021 to 2024. I interviewed his former Chief Advisor who was there when they're in Downing Street. And he told me that Boris was afraid of losing his friends in the liberal media. And that, again, because he's scared of being accused of racism, and that was one of the reasons that he opened the border. It was just appeasing these people in North London

who are very liberal. The elite in Britain believes in multiculturalism as a doctrine. They want cheaper labour, absolutely. And for the left, this doesn't apply to the right, but for the left, it's a political motivation as well, where, you know, same thing here in the States. You import people who will support you politically,

eventually in elections. And I think that's slightly backfired. There's some irony in that with the Muslims that have come into Britain at the moment, because they're not supporting the Labour Party. They're either supporting the Green Party, which is a radical left-wing party, which has been around for decades,

but it's become a kind of essentially Islamist party now, or they're supporting Islamist members of Parliament or Islamist candidates specifically. So now you've got this weird splintering of British politics where it's no longer Labour or Conservative are equivalent of Republicans and Democrats. It's now the Islamist parties, the Green Party, the Reform Party,

led by Nigel Farage, Lots of nationalist parties in Scotland and England and Wales. So you're seeing a complete splintering because of the demographics have just totally transformed in the last 30, 50 years. Is racism illegal in Britain? Because here you can be as racist as you want. It's legal. As long as you see what they know. Essentially, it is illegal because they have these laws against being what they call grossly offensive or racial hatred.

And if you tweet something that they think a judge decides is grossly offensive, you can be sent to prison. If you tweet something that is racially cause it stirs racial hatred, you can be sent to prison. And that has happened. Like I said, the case of Lucy Connolly was a famous one. Do you think this story is going to instig? I mean, because like we had the Southport, you know, stabbing. This was another high profile stabbing. A migrant, you know, obviously was the perpetrator.

And it led to riots. Yeah. Obviously, the atmosphere is a bit different now because, again, with reform, a lot of people have speculated that that will sort of tamped down on civil unrest because, again, reform can kind of be used as a siphon, to siphon off the anger. Do you think that's a reality? Do you think this sort of stabbing will be high profile enough, galvanizing enough to spur on some of that, again, social unrest? I don't know if we're going to see riots.

I mean, that case in Southport was very specific where you had girls who were six, seven, eight years old going to a Taylor Swift dance class, getting stabbed hundreds of times by this offender. Again, this is another case where anti-racism came in, where one of the, I think the head teacher, they did an inquiry into this case where this, this boy who was born of Rwandan parents, loads and loads of warnings. He was preferred to the anti-terrorism program we have in the UK called prevent beforehand.

No action was taken. Again, found with knives on a bus. The police took essentially no action. And one of his teachers, I think the head teacher, raised concerns about the fact that he'd been carrying knives and was aggressive and was told, we cannot look like we're accusing a, black boy of having a knife. Essentially, we can't be, we can't be looking like we're racist here.

And this led, without being, without intervening in this case, this led to him going and murdering little children, little girls. This is why people were rioting. I mean, in this case, obviously it's terrible. But I think in that case, it was so emotionally driven. You know, I could completely understand why people were so angry at that time. Because people point out like in Ireland, it seems like Ireland is where you see the most rioting, the most, like you see people take matters in the Rohan's like burned down migrant hotels and that sort of thing. And some people have pointed out, well, the primary reason why that's happening is because there is no release valve for a lot of that frustration because Ireland doesn't have a right-wing party. There's not really a right-wing

movement to be said at all, really, in Ireland. And so a lot of those people that again have these, they're furious with the situation in their country, there is no release valve. Like they have, if they feel back into a corner, they have to conduct themselves in this matter. Where, again, with the rise of reform in England, that could maybe function a bit more of a release valve. Well, the Southport riots happened just after Labor, one, that. general election. And I think that's a good point. I mean, maybe people felt at that time sort of disenfranchised and they couldn't do anything about it. We're stuck with Labor for the next five years. And as you say, we just had these local elections in Britain where reform did very well.

There's going to be a by-election soon that's coming up where hopefully, I think the Reform Party are hoping to win that election too. So it looks like there is a potential alternative. As you say, in Ireland, there is no alternative. There's just grassroots campaigners in the Irish Parliament. There's like, what, two or three independent people who are anti-migration. So I don't want the UK to go down this road of political violence. I don't want to see that. I think we will see that increasingly if governments continue to promise one thing on migration and do another. And if we continue to see these terrible cases where anti-racism and DEI leads to the murder of white English people.

How do you guys feel about remigration? This is a term I just heard was tweeted out that the Trump administration, I think it acknowledged they want to establish remigration. This is what you can argue the Nazis were doing with getting rid of the gypsies and the Jews. Remigration is an ancient tactic like a punishment after you win a war. You remigrate the old population, meaning you move them out of the country. You get them out of there. So how extreme is it? Do you think it can be done in a way that it actually would be a net benefit to society?

Well, I think you can. I mean, there's actually a book by a guy named Martin Selner. coming out called remigration, it's in the next month or two from passage press that kind of talks about this in a European context. I think it was hugely significant that Trump used this term that has sort of been sort of more associated with like further voices, you know, that have not been in the mainstream of the political sphere. I think in the way that it's actually used by political proponents, I mean, obviously they're true extremists out there who, you know, want to go deport everybody who doesn't look just like them or whatever. But it's the idea

that not just what you get rid of people who are here illegally, but you would very carefully interrogate legal folks here to make sure that they followed all their procedures correctly if there's not fraud involved in them being here, and that anybody who, you know, gain citizenship fraud, you know, that's, that becomes open in a way that it doesn't. And then I think kind of the final wrinkle is, you know, again, the way that it is being pursued today is not that that people who came here through lawful procedures did everything right and are contributing matters to society, they're not going to push those people out the door. But maybe if you're here and even if you did follow procedures, but you're on welfare and you're a public charge,

which, by the way, you're not supposed to be able to do as a migrant that you might offer certain financial incentives for certain people to leave or give up citizenship. So it's the idea that it's not just that you're going to look at illegal immigration. You're going to look more broadly at how you can address that issue. And I think as long as you're actually going after fraud and there's elements of it being voluntary and you're not just sort of randomly picking people up off the street who have checked all the correct boxes

and done all the correct things, I think it's absolutely a viable strategy and it's really trying to change the terms of the debate, which I think is very useful. And we've done this before in America. We did this after World War I with Red Scare where there was tens of thousands of people who hated America and wanted to become,

Bolshevik terrorists and wanted a lead revolutionary and then we deported them because they were a danger to our country. And then we did this under President Eisenhower where we had too many Hispanic laborers and they're taking American jobs and then we deport and they had dubious legal status. We deported tens of

thousands of them. That's part of American tradition. It's what many countries have done and there's ways of just not, you don't even have to as Jeremy was alluding to is that you don't even have to just like pick him up and send him on a plane. Is that you just make the policies that are so unamitable to people who don't want to assimilate, who don't want to

have a good job, who just want to live off welfare, that they're going to go back home. And you make it that it would be more favorable for them to leave, then for them to stay. And so it's a part of American tradition. A lot of the opponents like to claim it's Nazi or anything bad that they might, or that they don't like, they'll just claim as Nazi. Like having a president who likes the military is somehow Nazi or something like that. Yeah, the Nazi. are pretty aggressive about it. They would put people in camps and then, you know, at gunpoint, put them in trains and just cart them out. Like, do you think it could get to that level with an economic? No. No. What about what the economy suffer? The public would be very upset about it. I mean,

it should be, right? Yeah, well, obviously. And even look at what the public has responded to Trump's deportation rates that are fully justified and nowhere near that. And it's the fact that the liberal media can gin up these sob stories. It's like, oh, no, they're taking a hard way, working father way. And then the hardworking father is actually like a twice convicted pedophile who doesn't even have a job and then they're having to pick him off the sheet and is actually a violent criminal but the public would have absolutely no stomach for it and no one's suggesting that type of policy we don't need that type of policy yeah and even we're seeing that on the trump administration where we are having a strong immigration crackdown and we've had at least a million people leave the country so far and there's going to be more

people to leave the country when they realize that they that it's no longer a gravy train going along They no longer can subsist on the American people that it's going to be better for them to go back home rather than them expecting that they're going to get all this welfare and all these benefits just for arriving in a city and saying, oh, I'm poor. So I think we're now having a better situation. And no, we're never having to worry about loading up people on trains or doing anything else. Everyone would oppose that unless we somehow lost our democracy and that somehow the people who are upset about like some pedophile being having a. normal arrest that we can watch on cops every day and then being upset about that, you know, that's never going to happen. Yeah, because I mean, like, you know, the Abrago-Garcia thing dominated the news cycle for like

two months. And that just shows that the left still has the ability to turn specific cases into wedge issues. And so I just don't really see a universe in which any sort of like barbaric remigration, you know, tactic could be utilized because there's somebody stop gaps. I just see it as a way of extending the debate behind beyond, and you alluded to this with Ted Cruz, the legal good, illegal bad. It's like, yes, illegal bad, but also a fair bit of legal if they are on welfare, if they are causing cultural problems through failure to assimilate, et cetera.

Some of that could be bad too. And we're going to offer a sort of incentive structure where some of those guys may choose to not be here in the same way that a third of early 20th century European immigrants remigrated back to Europe. You could also argue sometimes illegal good because if the law is bad, you need to break it. you need to do the right thing. Like down with tyranny. You know, Thomas Jefferson spoke about the British crown overtaxing the people.

We had to break the law to do the right thing. So not saying that it's always good to illegally immigrate into a country, but maybe sometimes it is. I don't know. It depends on who you are. Well, it wouldn't be from my person.

I mean, I'm actually, when I talk about immigration a lot, I'm actually very careful about this point and not just for like being political reasons, but because I really believe it. Like, I don't attack somebody for wanting to leave Haiti, right? Like, I've been in the third,

I spend a lot of time in the third, world. I understand why people want to leave their, so I don't attack them. I don't say that, you know, they're bad people, you know, that they are poisoning the blood of the nation or whatever it is, right? So I understand that why it's in their interest from their perspective, in many cases, to leave, but that doesn't mean that it's in the American people's interest for them to be here. And some of the things that, for example, the Trump administration is doing with third party, third countries. So, you know, if you have a really legitimate claim where you were actually being persecuted in your country. We find a third. You're like, well, you're not going to let you

settle here for the American welfare state, but we will send you to another country where you can be safe, right? That's a way of addressing some of the legitimate claims that might come up in that, but the reality is that's such a small case. These are economic migrants. Yeah. I do have an example of illegal immigration that would be good. Say a bunch of our soldiers decided to illegally immigrate to Canada on behalf of a freedom fighting mission. to liberate the Canadian people from their unjust tyranny there. You know, that would be good. You know, they would just go on their own, of course, under no guidance from the president.

They would even have to take their... Disavow. And they would just go up to free Canada or really to teach Canada a lesson. I think that would still be... Whether liberation or teaching a lesson, I think it would... That would be a warranted form of illegal immigration because we have a tyrannical regime right next door to us. And it might have to be some brave soldiers

to illegally immigrate there. Yeah, Cuba looks like a well-functioning democracy. They just arrested Raul Castro. They're hitting at Raul Castro with some legal issues. Sounds like we're going to illegally immigrate our troops into Cuba pretty soon. It could be. I mean, my distinction is just purely, if it's illegal or illegal, is it good for America or bad for

America? That would be good for America. That would be good for America. Yeah, and also like, you know, to Jeremy's point, I mean, I can't declare these people immoral or, like, get too... I don't Maybe you can call me a Libtar or something. I don't even really get that mad at the mic because it's like they're just following very strong incentive structures to come to the United States.

Like, yeah, if I lived in like in Nicaragua, I would try to leave too. Like it's a terrible country. The problem is my country sucks is not a valid reason for asylum. So with remigration, the term, I assume it indicates through force. That's the term. No, I mean, I think that's the, I mean, I can't speak to every historical usage, but the people who have been advocating it in a contemporary context have really been quite clear that it's voluntary to the extent that you would be moving anybody who's here legally.

Now, again, you might be looking at people who lied on their citizenship application, you know, that might be up for discussion, right? Like, they might have to go back involuntarily. But the people talking about remigration in a political context today are not suggesting that people who have been law-abiding, who've, you know, checked all the boxes, and done everything correctly are going to be forced to leave America. Yeah.

That is not what it's... It's through... You could say it's through persuasion. And even some European countries are doing this. Like, Denmark is making it a lot more difficult to be an immigrant in their country, and that's seeing some of them leave in. So it's Sweden and a couple of other countries.

I think it's just that you make it... That's such a high standard that you have to be here that makes it that these immigrants are going to have to work twice as harder, and they're not going to have to rely on the taxpayer to stay here. or commit crimes or create a nuisance for the community and the country that creates such a high standard that many of them are going to leave. And then also the fact is that we have plenty of people that they're here, they're breaking the law because they're illegal immigrants. They didn't follow the law. And when you commit a crime and that's a pretty big crime, you are arrested and then suffer the penalty.

That's not a genocidal act. That is just following the law. Yeah. I mean, self-deportations is kind of the secret sauce here. if you really want to conduct mass deportations, like how feasible is it that ice can, you know, get 30 million people out just with raids? It's like, no, you got to crank the pressure up. You got to like say, actually, no, the taxpayer is not going to like effectively subsidize your entire life. And oftentimes in the case of Denmark, they're just like, oh, the gravy train's over. Okay, we're going back home. That's the one of the upsides of the CBDC central bank digital currency is you can pay these people and then they'll leave and then you can turn their bank account off and they can't spend the money you pretended to give them. I mean, it's a horrible evil. tactic, but that's the power of centralization. Yeah, I think you could, well, you could just run quick math and just be like, okay, how much would it cost to continue to subsidize them versus how much can you just pay them

once to leave? And it's like, it's more ethical. And then in addition to that, like they'll typically take that. Say, well, I can get, you know, the couple grand and just get out of here. What about their families? Like, if the kid was born here, but the dad gets the boot because he's illegal, do you, do you remigrate the entire family? Well, as Trump says, we want to keep the families together.

I mean, that's the inhumane act to say the kid, you know, grows up on foster carrier. You want to keep the families together. And that's why this all hinges on like the birth rights. I mean, if birthright citizenship continues to be put in place, it makes it much more difficult to actually have like a serious immigration policy. Because again, like the initial point or the initial argument for birthright citizenship is not applicable to like the current situation we're in the United States now where I mean, we were talking beforehand about like the U.S. national teams and these different characters in the soccer team. There's various players on the U.S. national soccer team whose mom literally was like on vacation in America, had the child. And then he

moved back to wherever and grew up there. But because his mom was on vacation in America, he's now eligible to play for the U.S. national team. It's like the whole idea of birth tourism, I think is a bit overstated. I think it's more likely these people are just very conscious of the fact that, again, if my child is born here, then in the eyes of the law, he's no different than someone who's like a Mayflower descendant or something like that. So it's quite dramatic stuff, but we do have to keep moving here. We get to keep the show on the road. This is from Politico. Mertz wouldn't tell his kids to move to America anymore. Quote, right now my admiration is not increasing. Chancellor Frederick Mertz

says of America, it's obviously the Chancellor of Germany. We've seen, it's fair to say, a rift between Berlin and Washington, and this is common among virtually every European leader. I think they're increasingly frustrated with President Trump the way that he has sort of conducted his administration in the United States from Politico. German Chancellor Frederick Mertz said Friday, he would no longer advise young people to move to the U.S. for work or study, citing what he described as the, quote, worsening social climate in America, speaking at a gathering of German Catholics in the southwestern city of Versburg. Mertz said, I would not recommend to my children today that they go to the U.S. to get an

education and to work, a remark that drew applause from the audience. The chancellor explained that, quote, the social climate has suddenly developed in the U.S. and had become deeply concerning and argued that, quote, even the best educated in America have great difficulty in finding a job. Mertz, who is Catholic, has three children and seven grandchildren. Quote, I am a great admirer of America, but right now my admiration is not increasing. Now, there's a lot, you have to read between the lines quite a bit with this quote, because at first glance, you're like, oh, base. Like, he's acknowledging that, like, young people in America having a difficult time.

There's a lot of geopolitical jostling going on right now, and I think this is clearly an indication of that, where Merch doesn't want to full, go all out and just start taking hits at Trump, because it's like the situation between the two countries is so dire. He wants to keep, you know, any form of communication, any form of, like, correspondence between the U.S. and Germany alive. But he's increasingly frustrated clearly, as many other European leaders are, with again, the United States is really prioritizing their interests in negotiations with European nations, with NATO broadly. We just saw recently that the U.S. is going to withdraw thousands of troops from Germany. So the situation is really developing. What do you guys think is the underlying tension here with MERS? I mean, this is a really particular line to use. Well, it's a message to the domestic public because what's happening in Europe is it's a funny line where he said, oh, they can't get a job.

It's actually worse in Europe for the best educated that the young people, they can't get a job. They can't afford housing. And some of them are considering to move to America. Some of them are going to the Gulf states. So it's him telling the young people is like, oh, it'd be far worse for you in America to go there. There's even less jobs. It's much better to stay here. And so it's a message for their own public to say like things you think it's bad in Germany.

You think it's bad in Europe. It's far worse than America, which I think that's a rather dubious claim. That's not quite true. I mean, obviously the employment situation for recent college grads is not good compared to our relative past, but it's also worse in Europe for recent college grads and for the most highly educated. And that's why they feel that they get these jobs and they're not paying as much as they should. And that's why they want to go over to America also that they're going to be paid more for the type of work or for the type of skills that they have. So I think it's him trying to give a message to his own people saying like, oh, no,

you don't want to go to America. It's so bad, which I think he could have made more relevant remarks maybe saying it's like, you're going to have to get a car, you don't want to drive. It's so dangerous. There's no walkability. There's no walkability. The trains are a nightmare. Yeah. Public transportation is nightmare. So you could say something about crime or he says something, but he uses the one thing that we probably have a clear advantage over Europeans for. Yeah, he does say the social climate in America is changing. And I think that's a bit of a wink to maybe a few things. So number one, people in Europe tend to think America is just a gun-ridden, dangerous place where, you know, if you go to anywhere in the States, your chances are of getting

shot are like 90%. Like literally people are a cowboy, no less. Exactly. And also there's a sort of massive backlash against Trump. You've seen tourism in America decline from Europeans, and I think that is a bit of a Trump effect to this. So it's a kind of anti-Trump message to German population, which I imagine we're very popular for domestically. And it's a kind of wink about American crime and things like that. But the salaries here are so much higher than in Europe. I mean, if you look at the GDP per capita of every single U.S. state, Britain is poorer than every single one, including Mississippi. So, you know, there's a reason that lots of Europeans do look to America for jobs and work because the salaries are over. And I think, I mean, I'm someone who've come from Europe,

I now live in the United States. I used to live in London. I think Washington, D.C. is a great place to live, I live in Arlington and Virginia and the standard of living is fantastic. As I said, the salaries are higher. I feel very safe. It's a nice area. Like being in America, I think there's a huge misconception from Europeans of what America is like. Not everywhere is like Detroit or, you know, whatever. Well, I think what's interesting here, and at least, again, this is a bit of reading between the lines, but it seems like part of the frustration with a lot of the youth in Europe is that their countries are like fundamentally, and I'm just going to speak explicitly like fundamentally boomer welfare states where, effectively, effectively, you have an increasingly smaller proportion of the population that is young of working age, that is now subsidizing the boomers, the elderly, to live their lives. And the United States has this problem. I mean, half of our budget is like literally like, you know, discretionary spending effectively. It's going towards social security, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera. But Europe, it's like on steroids. And there's no, there's no way that politicians can ever do anything about this. Because again, they will get decimated at the ballot box that they ever touch any of these, what are effectively boomer

subsidies. And again, I mean, America has these problems, but to Stephen's point, I mean, it still functions. Like, generally, you'll get out what you put in for the most part in the United States. And that is just not the case. And so I think a lot of German youth and Europeans broadly are just growing increasingly frustrated with how much, I mean, it's almost adversarial toward young people in a lot of these countries. Well, I would at all times endorse the comments of any foreign leader telling citizens not to migrate to America. That's like my bottom, My bottom line, I also live in Montana with the highest firearms ownership of any state, but certainly not the highest crime. So, you know, perhaps the German leader could contemplate that a little bit.

But, but yeah, I think I certainly agree with the comments being shared. And I do think it's indicative of a rift and it's also indicative of a lot of delusional beliefs that they have in Europe. And I think, you know, how you say that diplomatically in that sort of a context, I mean, you know, I'll let the folks at state figure that out or the president figure that out. But in terms of the reality, I think it's, you know, he's pretty off base. Do you see that sort of riff, though, between the kind of European perception of America and the reality? Because, I mean, another thing that Europeans are obsessed about is the American healthcare system. And they think that because you have an insurance-based system, essentially, if you, you know,

go to hospital here, you're going to face a bill of like $200,000 and everyone is paying huge premiums and so on, whereas we have the free NHS and it's brilliant and everything else. But again, in my case, if you have health insurance, you know, the health system here is very efficient. You get seen pretty much instantly, whereas in Britain I'll be waiting months for an appointment on the NHS. So, you know, whilst the system here isn't perfect, I'm not defending the healthcare system. I don't think it's amazing. But in Britain, we have, you know, other problems with the NHS. So there's a kind of culture. I think complete misconception of what it's like to be in the United States and what an incredible

country you guys have. I mean I love I've been so lucky to travel with GB News all over the states and see your incredible landscapes and you know meet so many. Don't say that amazing how horrible it is. I know it's terrible. It is a nightmare. There are cowboys. It's prodding everywhere ready to shoot anyone with foreign action. It'll be shot and then you'll be charged a million dollars to yeah. So he will be charged for that gunshot. It feels like the United States, you're kind of on your own here. Like, you don't have insurance. You lose your crypto and a transfer.

We have some, like, if your bank account gets, you know, hacked. Banks, we have FDIC insurance, but you're kind of on your own here. Government ain't here to take care of you. You've got to make the best for yourself and your own. I think it was Lindyman was making this point that if you're middle to upper class in the United States, it's the finest place on planet Earth to live. Like, it is exceptional quality of life. But if you're in the lower class of America, it is something approximating third world.

Like, it is absolute chaos. And like every social indicator is just like in the tank with like lower, like the lower classes in America. Like it's just unbelievable. Yeah, we have clear winners and losers here, which I think in the most, the most well-functioning European countries, there's a greater leveling where it's not like maybe you're more working class, but you can still have a decent quality of life. But here in America, it's like you're either working really hard to ensure you have a nice quality of life and you're certainly working a lot more than Europeans on average to. or your life is far worse than could be imagined in, like, Germany or Norway. Yeah, yeah, it's just interesting because, I mean, kind of back to this point that I was making earlier about how, like, again, Europe functionally is a boomer welfare state now.

As I'm worried because I'm starting to see these elements creep into, like, the American political zeitgeist, where, again, young people, like, seriously, they feel like they're under the gun over there. In the United States, again, to Ian's point, I mean, you are on your own a little bit. like you kind of get out what you put in for the most part. But I'm seeing increasing indications that in the United States, the elderly are driving a lot more policymaking. And something that me and Scott have discussed is the whole property tax debate,

where again, it feels like on its face, the argument that's being made is, well, you should be sovereign over your own property. It's like, yeah, but again, who benefits from property taxes being abolished? Well, it's elderly homeowners and who gets punished the most. It's like young people who are trying to break into the house. Yeah, boomers are not going to be sovereign when someone's breaking their home or that they have a heart attack and they're not going to just drive themselves. Or maybe they could, but probably most likely if they have a health episode, they're going to

be calling the ambulance. And a lot of these first responders are subsidized by the property taxes that they no longer want to pay. And they're the primary beneficiaries of the services provided by property taxes with the exception of schools. But even now they're like, I shouldn't pay for schools because I guess they no longer have grandchildren or they don't care about them. Well, that's what's so frustrating because it's like, okay, yeah, we do have this very tenuous social compact.

Like, there isn't that much that's expected of you to agree as far as like money exchanges. But one thing that we do have is this agreement that, okay, the young people will again pay for social security and Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera. And in return, yeah, your end of the bargain is the property taxes, like you still have to sort of pay into the system to some degree. And seeing that completely cut off where it's like not a chance in Hades that, again, social security gets touched. But again, the elderly are increasingly frustrated with how much money that they're having to pay. on their end of the economic spectrum, they expect that once they retire, now it's their time to kick their feet up and then just receive as much income as possible. And I'm just seeing this as a young person.

I'm seeing how frustrated people are in Europe. I'm like, we're heading towards, again, really zero benefits for the young and then massive benefits for the elderly. And it's like if these people proposing the abolition of property taxes we're doing that in conjunction with also slashing Social Security, I'd be like, okay, let's play ball. But that's not what's happening at all. Yeah, but we're more likely to cut spending for public education,

which there are problems of public schools, but not everyone has the capability or has the time to homeschool their children or pursue options in private school. As a country, we need public education. We should reform it and change it. But the increasing option for defunding public education isn't because it's woke. It's because old people don't want to pay for it anymore because they're like, I don't use it. I'm like, hopefully you have grandchildren that might use it. But increasingly they don't care about that.

Yeah, and it's also like, okay, that's the whole point of the social compact is, again, like, okay, even if they're not your own grandchildren, those are still going to be the future of your country, so to speak. And we saw this report recently that, like, pretty much every academic indicator has tanked over the last few years among young people, especially post-COVID. And it's like, that would indicate that now is the time to, like, really dig into the public school to, like, reform it and these sort of things. Not saying you need to throw more money at it, if anything, throwing more money in it has actually made it worse. Like, I mean, you're seeing a lot of people point fingers at these Chromebooks that are in every school as, like, part of the problem is that young people are, like, increasingly dependent on technology instead of like actually developing academically. But you would think that the reaction would be, okay, like let's get elected to school board positions. It's like really reform it. But instead the option is this nuclear option. You know, people say it's like killing a squirrel with a bazookas. Like let's just blow the whole system up. And then whatever happens happens, as long as I have more money in my pocket. You get into the like the, Corey D'Angeles is leading a charge on like a lot of like homeschooling moves. He's great. He's been on the show multiple times. But like tax credits or actual just $8,000

dollar yearly payments to like women that homeschool their child and the child performs well enough on a standardized test six times a year or something. How you would prove that if she wouldn't be the one, if she's the one administering the test and then getting paid, you got to like let this kid go through a legit testing situation. But are you, do you guys adhere to something like that kind of decentralized? I think I think I think at states, if they want to give tax credits to certain homeschooling parents that meet those metrics, I think that's fine.

But I think if it's like for the average citizen, you know, we're mostly going, we're all paying for it. But if it's a certain parent where they're doing another option and then there's a way that they could get tax credits for their hard work and that's showing that their child is performing above average or at a certain level that's showing that they're, you know, getting a great education on their own, I think that's perfectly. Well, the key there is something that we could explore on the state level. Yeah, and the key that you said there is metrics, right, standards, etc. Because this is kind of the problem as I see it where, again, there's this move towards pro-natalism and we want to start like paying people to have kids effectively is I made this point on my show and like I was getting

eviscerated for it, but I was like, okay, the fact that it didn't work in Hungary will demonstrate that it's really not going to work in the U.S. Because again, for the average middle class couple that's like, oh, you know, the child would be like really limiting to my lifestyle or that sort of thing. Like they have these very like social reasons why they don't want to have children. Five grand isn't going to like move the needle for them. And be like, okay, actually, you know what, five grand? All right, I'll have some kids. But what that will move the needle for is like people that are very poor.

And again, that's typically what the implication is going to be of, again, expanding welfare nets in the United States is that you're subsidizing people to, again, conduct themselves in a certain way. For the middle class, we need much work. If we're going to solve this birth rate issue, if we're going to promote pronatal policy, the solution isn't just throw more money at it, because again, you're not going to end up getting

the desired outcome of a policy like that. Yeah, one thing with it is by abolishing private taxes and taking that money away from schools, that adds an additional burden on young families. Right. Is that now they're going to have to force to take time. They have to quit their job to either educate their children or spend more money on a private school,

which are, and the schools are going to, be even worse. So it's adding an even further burden on those who choose on young families. Not to mention like where I was saying at the top, unless you're in conjunction with like various cuts to other social programs, that's not going to happen. Like if let's just say Florida abolish property tax, they're not going to like cut into any other government programs. That's just like everyone knows this is like, you know, conservative media 101 is like, you know, government programs never decrease in size. They only increase. There's actually a lot of truth of that. And again, if you're like if you're cutting your tax income but not cutting elsewhere to like, again,

lower the state budget. All that's going to happen is they just have to come up with more creative ways to tax people. So again, if you abolish property taxes, you're just going to have to crank up the sales tax. So then if a young person's- Or income tax, even, which conservatives should hate more, but I've argued with people on this. So like, oh, I'd pay more for income tax. I'm like, first off, you're not going to be happy when the lawmakers say, okay, we need to raise revenue. We're going to increase income taxes. And then all those people are going to be voting those people out because everyone gets mad about it. Everyone hates income tax. Or they like crank up some sort of sales tax. and functionally you're just front-loading whatever your property tax would be on your home in the first place.

So it's like then if you already own your home, it's great for you. But if you're young and trying to buy a house, have an extra 10% tab or stuck on the tab. And guess what group pays the least amount in income taxes? Well, besides people in welfare. The boomers, the elderly, the retirees, they don't have to. So it's once again that there's like, well, I don't have to pay that tax. Right. So why has it bothered me?

And they're like, oh, and it's a fixed income. I'm like, no, it's inflation. I don't know why people say this talking point. Like, it's a fixed income. It's like it's inflation adjusted. It's cost of living adjusted all the time. Like this is a very common mechanism that occurs. It's like, no, your income's not fixed.

It does, I mean, okay, you can make an argument that maybe needs to be increased in certain instances. But like, we have a mechanism in place that functionally adjust. It bumps it up as inflation increases, as cost of living increases. We had an article in the American mind, which is a Claremont Institute publication about what was called total boomer luxury communism. And I think that that's basically the situation that we're in. And even when you look at property taxes, you know, in theory, like I'm sort of sympathetic to the idea that when you own something, you should own it, but that when you look at the practical incidents of these things, you're bailing out the people with the most money,

yet again, you know, et cetera. And so I think that it's probably the least of the evils that's on the menu. And of course, you know, for the vast majority of these people, if they really can't pay the the property tax, usually because their property's increased a lot in value, you can, of course, tap equity and pretty much do that for your entire life. So, you know, there are lots of ways to solve this without forcing old people to move out of, you know, their homes. Well, and this is why it's such a good point, the boomer communism, because this I think is, like, fundamentally why the young people in Europe are increasingly frustrated. Because, again, they're paying like 40, in some

cases, 50% marginal taxes on their income. And that money is not coming back to them. That money is going to these massive social networks, you know, social welfare safety nets, I guess you would say, that, again, are just supporting an increasingly large share of the population that's elderly. And so, like, you know, in Britain, the NHS is getting more and more expensive to operate from the government's perspective. That money has to get tapped out of the working age population, and then it's increasingly benefiting people that are older. So it literally is like a wealth transfer from the youth to the elderly. And, you know, so many people on the right will, like, chess beat about, like, oh, we need to win back young people or we need to make young people believe.

again, they can't maybe articulate specifically the issue with like property tax abolition, but they understand for the most part that, again, their wages are getting garnished at the same rate or an increasing rate over time, and they're not receiving the benefits they would expect from that. And in Europe, it's on steroids. It sounds like breeding ground for a Marxist revolution. Like the children will say the upper class, the other class, which is the boomer class now is paying less for more. Why? Why would we put up with this when they're weaker than us? Well, and this is like, I'm trying to mitigate a generational war from occurring because we don't want that.

We don't want like the generations pointing fingers at each other and blaming each other for it. Like, that's what we're trying to mitigate here. The problem is when you start to pursue policies like this, you were going to inflame tensions between the generations. Unfortunately, the most important voters are old people. Well, young people are busy placing bets on bandwool. And I don't know. Young people have more of other things to do, but young people are not that important of a voter demographic. At least for young men.

I imagine this is a big issue because of we live in a Ponzi scheme with fiat currency where we're constantly printing money and then have to pay interest back. So we owe more than we borrow from the Federal Reserve. So we're always looking to get more from somewhere else and there's never enough. I don't know if it's, has the world always been like that? Maybe there have been instances where like sound money. Trump's trying to bring back, you know, the tariff economy. And the tariff, obviously, previously in American history provided a lot of relief for the government when they're trying to balance the budget.

And so Trump is making an attempt to, like, again, recuperate some income for the federal government through tariffs, which is pretty sensible in my estimation. And the court shut that down? It gets jammed up all the time, but like, for the most part, it's still. We are getting more revenue from tariffs. So some of it's, you know, it's a little shaky ground, but we are making more money from tariffs now. Well, with that, I think we should get to this last story. I'd say this is the most pressing story of the day. probably of the year, honestly.

This is from BET. So I would say out of all the reputable outlets that we cite on the show, I would say this is probably the outlet that I think is worthy. I would say has the highest journalistic standards. Again, this is very relevant publication for all of us sitting here at this table. Michael just made biopic history. The new Michael Jackson movie just hit a major milestone and has already earned $577 million globally,

providing that the King of Pops musical legacy lives. Now, Scott, you have some really strong opinions on this Michael biopic, and you were clamoring before the show that we did cover this storm. I'm curious what your takeaway is. Oh, it's an extremely entertaining movie. I mean, from the first he-he that comes out in the opening and seeing want to be starting something, you know, you're just locked in for this incredible entertainment experience where you get to meet all his zoo animals he got. You know, Bubbles, the Chimp is there.

And that was something I really wanted a movie. I wanted to make sure the Bubbles was there. Also the python, the pet python he has. Yeah. His nephew who plays Michael Jackson does a pretty good job. Has all the right dance moves, does the moonwalk, has his voice down and everything. So I think it's a good movie. Is it a documentary film?

No, it's a live action movie. Yeah. So did Michael Jackson not dittle those kids? Well, they don't get to that part, but they're also, I don't think they're allowed illegally to go to that. But I actually am one of those people that doesn't because they did too extensive, expensive, thorough investigations, both in the 90s and the 2000s. In the 2000s, the FBI was involved.

And the authorities wanted to nail him on this. They wanted to find it. I mean, it's obviously this huge entertainer is accused of one of the worst crimes you could be accused of. And he has all these children that are hanging out with them or something like McCauley Culkin and all them. And they could not find enough. They found no criminal wrongdoing.

The FBI concluded that. And they spent all this money, both the L.A. district attorney or it might not been LA but that was the first case and then the federal government spent this money and they couldn't find any criminal wrongdoing. There's plenty of children that they interviewed all these people and they never found it. So I don't actually think he did it. There has been those accusations but those accusations at least for one of them was made by a father who was wanting a massive payout and he did get the massive payout when Jackson asked his attorneys what's going to what's going to make, what's the cheapest option here?

And they said, just make a payout. Let me actually try to take this and make it into a slightly serious, bigger picture. This is extremely serious. There are actually two things here. So, I mean, as we're looking at this story, I mean, 577 million worldwide in three weeks, which in today's depressed box office, you know, that's actually a pretty big deal, especially for its second-highest grossing biopic either. I think there are a couple things.

And I can say this as the resident geriatric here. I was talking with you guys before. I mean, when I was, I was born in 1972. So when Thriller came out, I think it was 83. 82, 83. So I was a kid. I mean, there was nobody in my lifetime who was bigger than Michael Jackson was at that moment. And I think there are two things kind of going on there that are interesting.

One is, like, this was supposedly the era of great systemic, awful racism, right? But here was this African-American entertainment. who was like not just among African-Americans, but among, you know, your most basic white girl and whoever else ever. I mean, this was like the big star, right? So that that was going on. I think that is one sort of interesting point. The second point is I think that this points to the fact that we've had such a artistic and popular collapse of live music in our current era, right, that we're still hearkening back to, you know, these, you know, 1980s guys, right?

Which was like the last time that this all sort of felt new and fresh and relevant. And when I listened to my older kids, who are my, I have three teenagers, and I'm listening to their music, I mean, they're kind of listening to stuff from this era. Or like back in the 60s. Now, we listened to 60s music when I was growing up in the 80s, but at least that was like sort of maybe vaguely, like some of those bands were not geriatric and they were still sort of going concerns. I mean, this is ancient history.

Right. And these kids are still listening to that because. there's nothing being produced by the current culture that has that level of spark. And so I do think that that is kind of interesting and the level at which that this is doing at the box office is interesting for that reason. Yeah, I think there's- brought the racial angle and it's important that, you know, he had a whole song, it doesn't matter if you're black or white, and he literally became white.

And it's also should be noted that that's when they began criminally investigating him. And they're like, we can't allow people to know to see a white man dance as good and to sing this well. And that, you know, that's why they try to break him down. I think that's the real truth. I thought I was born in 79, so I got the Michael action in the 80s. I had the vest with the studs on it, the one glove, and that was, I was like seven, you know, but I never thought of them as black. It didn't ever. I always just thought of him as the awesomest guy, and it didn't matter if you're black or white.

And that's the testament to the music, the power of the hot action thriller. You had the orange vest then? I couldn't get an orange one. I just had like a brown one. The orange one was like zippers and stuff. But I think, Jeremy, you hit on something really important here. It actually is really serious relating to this. It's like, yeah, this idea that we can't produce like superstars anymore.

Like, there's probably multiple angles you could take on why that is the case. But this whole idea that we had this kind of American monoculture, right? There was these cultural touchstones that everyone in the United States could like break bread over, have a common understanding. This happened in Britain. Like, I remember they released that Robbie Williams documentary where he was like a monkey and they released in the U.S. And everyone in Britain was like, that's weird that he's a monkey. And everyone in the U.S. is like, who's Robbie Williams? But he's like a star that would have been ubiquitous.

Yeah, nobody knew what that movie was about here. But like now neither Britain nor American nor anyone can produce like ubiquitous superstars anymore. I think the last one was Beber, Justin Bieber, because he actually wrote on the back of his own talent. Like he was a superstar drummer at the age of two, like a savant musician

and stilis to this day. But he also arose during the age of the internet coagulation where everybody got bombarded by foreign cultures and electronic this or that. So it kind of got diffused in about 2011 Bieber kind of faded into the groups of all these other rising names and things.

But in the 80s, Beber would have been the king of pop. Like, he would have been this guy. Well, it was also cross-generational, right? And I remember, again, you know, maybe as a 12-year-old or whatever, you know, thrillers, the number went out as the best-selling album of all time. And he had been, Michael Jackson had been a huge fan of kind of traditional American musicals and dancers like Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly and all these guys from the classic movies. Fawsey.

Right. And Bob Fossy, with whom he took some of his moves, right? There was actually something on that on the internet recently sort of showing that. But I remember seeing Fred Astaire, right? Like this old guy at this point being interviewed. And he was talking about, wow, you know, Michael Jackson's a really great dancer. He's an incredible performer, right? Like it was a very kind of culturally unifying thing cross racially, cross generationally, et cetera,

in a way that you could just never imagine a pop product doing today. It was a real true underdog story because he was the youngest kid of the family of the Jackson five. his dad beat the hell out of him, which I wasn't really public till later. I don't know if it came out till later, but then you saw him rise from like this brilliant youth to this megastar driving alpha male. And I haven't seen anything like that. Could he emerge today? Because if he has, I mean, he's so odd and he has all these weird relationships with children.

I can't imagine he would survive the kind of cancel culture or the Twitter culture that we have. He would be an Epstein class guy. Right. Well, I think the reason they can't emerge is that you have. have infinite entertainment options. It could only emerge in that time of limited entertainment options. He also benefited from MTV,

which now you're not just listening to music on the radio. You're engaged with the visual aspects of it. So it's now just not the beat or the melody. You're also seeing him dance as a zombie and with a distinctive leather jacket. And that's making him even more of a pop cultural icon is there's now that movie and visual element that makes him even a bigger star.

And everyone recognizes him and his distinctive glove and all this. And so you really don't have that today. And I mean, the closest equivalent we have Taylor Swift, but, you know, I made this argument on my podcast today is that her songs aren't that distinctive. And people don't instantly recognize her music or any distinctive qualities about her, except that she's like a blonde-haired white woman. And she's still kind of a holdover from the 2000s even.

Yeah, she's not, it's not that like everyone could understand. And you make this point. It's not just for young kids because, you know, there's been pop cultural phenoms like him, like Elvis and the Beatles, but that was just for kids. But for Michael Jackson at the time, there was people who were adults, like 20s, 30s and 40s, who really liked Michael Jackson. That's how pop got so big. Some of these pop hits in a lot, while a lot of the 80s stuff has carried on to today,

is that you have this cross-generational support and interest. There's something about a famous artist. They didn't really exist every once in a while before radio. Like before you had the ability to control the production. output. So you had it from like 1911. You started seeing famous people with like country music in the 1920s. Then of course radio TV, the Beatles, Elvis. But then the internet came and you no longer have control of the output. So the ability to create a famous rock star is like diminished again. Like 1820s, you had Beethoven, but I don't know what his music sounded. I never heard him play. So I don't

even know how good he was. I just saw that he wrote good stuff. I think the, I think we're going back to the age of like artists are going to play a song for a meal at night. Like that's, you know, the bard would go to the tavern and be like, can I, can I have a place to stay? I'll entertain you. I like that vision of the future. It feels very cheap to make a lot of money being an actor. It feels like I'm way overpaid.

But we do have to move on to our Discord questions or community submitted questions. That was a fascinating. Highly respected should have been the Rush Limbaugh. You know, you're just 10 years too late. That's what it was. Yes. Yeah, true. We've got to get on to the audience questions here.

This is from Pater. Dack Tato, prompted by last night's discussion about social credit scores, is it likely if when we get social credit scores in the United States, the actions or public opinions that will get you awarded good boy points will flip-flop as the parties flip-flop every four to eight years? Well, you have it with credit. That's just like, do you use our banking system? If so, we will reward you with a better credit score.

But we don't have the social one yet. I mean, your followers online, you sort of have the preempt of it with like, we're going to shadow ban your channel if you say the word fuck sorry they get annoyed when i say that once a show uh but i'm just trying to buffer against this stupid new world bullshit uh pardon me um yeah i think i i i what do you guys think i i will this is i will stand on this hill until i go about maintaining freedom of speech and your right to free assembly and economics i i don't think it'll flip because i think it's uh you know the the republicans are just too cowardly to impose their own social standards.

I don't have any cultural confidence. Now, I mean, I'm a free speech guy like you, right? Like, I wouldn't support anybody putting in that sort of social credit system. But if we do have a social credit system in a formal way, those rules are basically going to be set by the left. And the best that we can hope for is under the right, it'll peel back a little bit. And maybe you won't be able to say something about transgenderism in a certain way, right? Like, it'll be minimal, but it'll just ratchet ever to the left.

Well, it is definitely peeled back a lot from peak woke. era of the 2010s and early 2020s. I mean, you know, you had to worry about in 2019 if you were like pro-Trump, if you're going to be completely yanked from like social media platforms. And we had all these people who were like completely canceled, like someone like Stefan Malinu, who, you know, just the fact that he was taken off Twitter and YouTube, that he was completely, you know, blacklisted. I think that's, I think that's a bit harder to do. And more, more of the country is more culturally libertarian than it was at that time. We still have a lot of aspects of woke. I mean, we can see that. But there's less appetite for cancel culture and even some of the left has

moved back from it and even some of the media environment that made that possible where at the time people actually cared about what Huff Post and these lefty journals said. Now they're all being laid off and those sites are probably going to turn to AI just to write bland stuff. So I don't think we're moving social credit score is a terrifying aspect. But I think thankfully one of the white pills that we're seeing is that we're moving that as a country is socially and culturally we're moving back from it. If you look at what's on popular and X today, it's completely insane for what was tolerated in 2019. Like what will get like 200,000 likes is something that would have gotten you banned and your bank account taken away from you. Now it's like

people competing to have that type of content. You know, we even reference someone like Chud the Builder. Like that would have never happened. Yeah. A few years ago. promising that Stefan is back on YouTube now, too. So if that says anything, you know. Oh, yeah, he's back. And he's back. He's getting a lot of engagement on Twitter. So we have these people coming back.

So even you're having some extremes that, you know, we might not approve of that are there, but that's good for free speech culture. And that pushes back against the idea that we can impose the social. Again, the ratchet is just going one way. And I mean, again, as somebody who's a free speech person, you know, I would not want to impose speech restrictions on people on the left. But I'm just pointing out that that,

That's not on the table, right? Oh, absolutely. And when Trump leaves office, if a Democrat takes power, I could easily see a lot of this ratchet, maybe not cranking back to peak woke, but still cracking back to the point that a bunch of accounts are going to get banned and whatever else. Yeah, for sure.

Well, I think we should get to this question. This is from Haiti's Pulitarian. I'll read half of this question because the other half might get us sued here. Question for y'all. And he said y'all, not me. Question for y'all. A fraudulent vote or not, Ohio will not survive Ramoswamy or the Dem being elected.

And then he effectively says, how do we get Trump to intervene in this situation? Why do people not like Vivek in Ohio? What's the, I've met him a few times. I've enjoyed his presence. I like that he's forward thinking. But what do you guys think and your takes on it? A lot of it's owing to an infamous tweet he sent out where he has applied that immigrants are way better workers and smarter students than Americans. and that's a lot of the internet's reputation for it.

There's been these firsthand accounts of though of people bringing that story up to boomers in Ohio and they're like, I agree with that fully. We need the hardest workers here. They're like, uh-oh. So they're kind of confronted with the ordinary American is like, these good for nothing kids need a worker. So it's not as unappeal, unfortunately it's not as unappealing in voters,

but it's also that. It's also that there's been this backlash towards Indians because for, I mean, we're seeing people are now interacting with them more, that we're having more of these incidents of them being, you know, H-1Bs taking jobs away, and also that certain communities such as in Texas where they didn't exist 10 years ago, where they weren't there, and now they're flooding the community and changing it in drastic ways. There's been more of a backlash, and Vivek represents that. Yeah.

But with that, I don't think either one will destroy the state. I think for all of Vivek's fault, he'd probably be better than acting. I know that's controversial to say we don't want him to move any further up higher. We certainly don't want him president. You know, we don't want him to move up higher than that. But, you know, the state, he can't be any worse than DeWine. DeWine is a, you know, a real rhino, moderate, you know, practically a liberal in a lot of his policies. I think Vivek, which is showing how bad a lot of these moderate Republicans are, would probably be a little bit better.

But, I mean, for however bad Vivek is, Ohio will be fine. You just don't want him moving any higher up in our political system. You don't want him president. You don't want him running for president. I think also Vivek, part of the criticism of him, in addition to those things, which Scott just said that are true, he's the hyper-credal American that we were talking about before. And that also goes back to his sort of doing a lot of hand-waving about Hinduism as Christianity. I'm oversimplifying his position, but there's some of this where people have been quite critical,

and I think with good reason to say, you know, actually, no, we're not just all in Kumbaya here, you're different in some fundamental ways in terms of your religious belief and that sort of thing can actually be valid and matter, not that it's like a single issue, at least for me it wouldn't be to, you know, vote against somebody, but it's sort of an accretion of things of feeling like Vivek does not totally get where the base is on this. And ironically, I think one of the best critics of his has been Nikki Haley's son, Nalen Haley, who also half Indian who has made all of these critiques in, I think, just a very commonsensical way that sort of resonates particularly with younger conservatives.

Yeah, I mean, I think the interesting thing about Vivek is like, it's kind of the situation and it's not a purely on right online thing, like the opposition to Vivek, but it's definitely like something where you need to be quite familiar with a lot of the, um, understandings of the online rights, sort of criticisms of our immigration system, to like fully understand why people perceive Vivek as such a threat, because to your point, Scott, I mean, I think the most of the electorate in Ohio is just like, yeah, he's right. Like these young people don't work. And then beyond that, like, I don't think people have sort of this, uh, deep understanding of like the American nation as much, certainly everyone at this table

and online and et cetera would sort of understand what we're saying. But I think the average voter in Ohio probably doesn't do it. Yeah, when you say the creedal stuff, they're like, that's patriotic. You know, they're about to salute you and have like the national anthem playing, uh, which we are educating people more about like the dangers of creedalism because for a lot of even conservatives, like, hell yeah, that's, I agree with that. But then we're like, say, well, people use those arguments to argue for infinite immigration. Yeah.

And then to argue for a lot of other bad stuff. Then they might be like, oh, but they don't instinctually get that. So that was the fear that I pointed and I, you know, I had some people, most people I'd agreed my take on Twitter where my fear of Vivek I think you'd be whatever as governor of Ohio I don't think necessarily a threat is him destroying Ohio I do think the problem is he will be increasingly viewed as a national figure and there might even be conversations about him getting a presidential or VP slot um in the next 10 years and to me that's what I see is the threat more so than like I don't I think Ohio is pretty contained they have a blood red um house the lieutenant governor seems fine

I don't think the issue is imminent he has a major handicap even to run as a Republican who's run as a Hindu which even for however much more Republicans might progress on issues, they do want like a Christian as their... There was a chunk of the electorate that wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because he was Mormon. Yeah, because he's Mormon. I think when it comes to Hinduism,

and that's so outside of the Abrahamic tradition and when people are going to be really, a lot of our voters are just not going to vote for that. And also they can't pronounce his name. Those are like the two things. I think, which might sound, some people might sound like crude or like, well, that's not real reasons. But if our voters have trouble,

pronouncing his name, and then when they find out his religion, and even though he might say, oh, it has a lot of similarities, but... Yeah. But I do think it's all reinforcing, right? It's, if it were just the religion, I mean, that would be, look, I mean, I'm, you know, member of a conservative church, like, I get the importance of these things. But I don't think if it were just the religion, that would be the deal breaker. It's the religion reinforces all of this other stuff that says kind of not from around here in

terms of like, rocking the, the cultural identity of really what it means to be American in some course ends. And I'm not like the, you know, the fanatical Vivekater, but I, you know, definitely would not want to see him rise any higher than, uh, than he's done. And I wish we'd had better options on the table in Ohio. I'll try to get one more question here before we wind the show down. This is from Terroristork 91. This question is, when is the West going to realize that all this talk about feminism, Zionism, the pro-immigration left, the environmentalists, they're all a death cult. That was his statement. You think it's accurate. I mean, that is kind of the concept of like leftism broadly,

that it is viewed as a death cult. You know, some people have levied criticisms that it might not quite be that serious. But I don't know, that's kind of the popular take among conservative media right now is that there's no, there's no common, you know, there's no way to break bread with sort of an institution like the left broadly. I think you got, I tend to look at it as, not depopulation, but a, call it that maybe is looking more to slow the growth rather than kill off a large segment of. If you think of it as that, it's a lot more understandable. I'm not saying that all those things you mentioned are part of that, but like what Bill Gates says, we need less people, or whatever he said,

he's not saying we need to kill off 30% of the population. He's saying we need to grow slower or we're going to eat ourselves to death. Maybe that's one way to look at it, but I don't even know if that answers the exact question. On the environmentalism thing, it kind of is a death cult, some aspects of it, because they think that we're going to all die in the next 10, 20, 30 years time or whatever they say because the climate is changing and, you know, we're all going to be, we're all going to be killed. And that's a kind of death cult thing. And then also on the, I would say, the far left sort of antifa terrorism angle, they do promote violence. They do promote death towards their political opponents. I was up in Portland last year. And there's

all these people spraying stuff like kill Trump, kill fascists, killed Nazis, kill Nazis. Nazis should be murdered, whatever. And this stuff does fuel violence against conservatives. I mean, obviously we saw recently, relatively recently, that another assassination attempt against Trump. So there is a kind of death-culty, I think, atmosphere amongst the kind of fringes of the far left that see their opponents as worthy of being killed

or because they're Nazis because they're fascists. They take their politics dead seriously. That's there's a type of dire aspect to it. It's like, if we don't do this, like the world is going to, implode over the next five years, which we see with environmentalists, and it's even the people are trying to commit,

who are trying to kill Trump. These people have very established in politics. They have the exact same politics as Rachel Maddow and everybody on MSN now. I was about to say, but it's MS now now. So the exact same politics as those, these are very moderate people,

but then they take it seriously. And so the moderate lives are telling them, this is a dangerous fascist who's going to kill our democracy, then they're like, well, I've got to take action here. And that's the same with a lot of liberals, which maybe this is pro or con for conservatives, but conservatives are more able to rationally consider political viewpoints. We're more open to discussion. Sometimes you're like, oh, that's an interesting idea.

But we're not, well, some ways conservatives are just having better lives maybe, that they're focused on their lives that they don't have as such a dire aspect to it, even if we do raise it. But there's not quite as many people are going to go out and commit action for like what Sean Hannity is saying, it's not like if the liberals are going to raise your taxes, they're like, I've got to take action. Very few people think that, but a lot of liberals think, you know, if they allow Trump to stay as president, that democracy is going to be over, America's going to be over, the world's going to be over. And on the abortion is a huge part of that, I think, for women in America, that, you know, they think that you're attacking their

reproductive rights and that you personally are going to cause some issue for them. You know, you're going to force them to get some kind of illegal abortion or whatever, or, you know, all they say on the immigration issue, they're putting people in camps. And so they see a kind of existential threat to them. And they literally think their lives are in danger because of Donald Trump. I was speaking to some Antifa people in Portland who were saying this to me. Like literally Trump is Hitler and he is going to lock me up or cause some kind of genocide or whatever. So they see a very, it's very personalized to them and they think their lives are in danger.

Well, it would be a big trouble if the boomers begin to think property taxes post an excess. essential danger to them. The book I'm working on right now is basically, I mean, it doesn't quite use those terms, but basically it does argue that the white left is effectively a death cult and we need to do something about it. I mean, it's not a polemical book, so I'm sort of reluctant to describe it in those terms. But it is to say, like, these guys are a profound problem. And we need to do something about sort of fixing that.

That's not meant to be ominous. That's hopefully my persuasion to have better ideas. Yeah, it kind of reformed my perception of what it means. means a death cult, not necessarily that you want to destroy or kill large swaths, but that if this doesn't happen, we will all die. It's also a form of a death cult. So now I understand. For sure.

Yeah, well, with that, we're running out of time here. I wish we had hours more, but it is what it is. We have the two-hour time slot. So with that, we're going to wind this showdown. Jeremy, where can people find you for more? So I'm on X at Real Jeremy Carl. I have a substack, The Course of Empire. And my book, which I refer to a little bit on the show is The Unprotected Class,

how anti-white racism is tearing America. part and audience was interested in anything I said, feel free to check that book out as well. Well, thank you very much for coming on. It's always a pleasure. Thanks so much for next time. Scott. I am on X at Scott M. Greer. I'm also at Substack at highly dash respected.com. Also, if you want to pre-order my book, White Pill, the online right in the making of Trump's America, go to passage.press to find it or at Amazon.com. Awesome. Stephen. Yeah, you can find me on X at Stephen Edginton and same on Sub-Sack, Stephen Edgeington. And where can people find that documentary?

On the G.B. News YouTube channel, you search for it. I think it's called Indian Networks Exposed. It's one of the best documentaries in a while. Everyone's got to go check it out. Ian. At Ian Croson, you'll find me on the internet. Go to graphing.m.movie, check out. We'll sign up to get notified for this new documentary

I'm building where we went out to Rice University and interviewed a bunch of awesome nanotech scientists about upcoming white-pilling technology, including graphene, some other badass stuff. Check it out. At Ian Crosland. Find me there? Yeah, it's going to be a sick documentary and making some music for it, and I'm excited for the dock. It's been a great conversation, everyone.

Thank you for coming. And you can find me at Carter Banks everywhere, at Carter Banks official everywhere else, and that will be it. Yeah, you can follow me on X and Instagram at Real Tate Brown. Could give me a follow. We'll be back here on Monday.

Valiant Leader should return by Monday, so it's going to be a great show. Enjoy your weekend, everyone. Thank you for watching. We'll see you guys next time.