Timcast IRL - ICE Employee ARRESTED, Accused of SHOOTING Protester w/ The Native Patriot

Episode Date: July 23, 2026

Phil, Tate, & Brett are joined by The Native Patriot to discuss an ICE guard getting arrested after shooting protester in Colorado, a UK conservative being murdered in brutal hammer attack, and the increasing backlash against data centers in America. Hosts:  Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Tate @realTateBrown (X) |  @TimcastTateBrown  (YouTube) Brett  @brettdasovic  (X) |  @PopCultureCrisis  (YouTube) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Native Patriot  @LaNativePatriot  (everywhere)

This past weekend at an Aurora Colorado ice facility, there was a protester shot. Now, the media is reporting as an ICE employee, but he was a contractor working for, I believe it was GEO Corp. Now, this is a big corporation. They do basically half of the detainment for ICE, but I think that the nuance does matter. So we're going to get into that. There was also, there's a big issue in the U.K. Hey, Anne Whitcomb was murdered. Now, she is a, she's a politician, right?

Yes. Tate, yeah. So she's formerly a politician, but it was such a gruesome murder. Someone broke into her house, struck her 21 times in the head with a hammer, and then stole her wallet. So we're going to have, have Tate give us the background on that one. This morning, Open AI had a rogue AI. So it basically was built in a sandbox for what they call like a gym learning facility. And it managed to escape the gym.

It connected to a hugging face, I think, is the AI. And it basically did all the things that Ultron did, save, tried to take over the world. So this is a big issue, particularly with how people are reacting to data centers and flock cameras. We're going to get into a heated discussion about that, I'm sure. The House has passed a bill to limit stock purchases for members of Congress. I don't think that this is actually going to be something that is going to make a big impact on the average person's life. But I know that there's a lot of people that really get upset about the fact that basically all the people in Congress are crooks. So we're going to talk about that.

But first, we want you to head on over to bunker branding, right? And you want to buy some Timcast merch. The new Ian's Betrayal T-shirt is available. You've got the whole Timcast crew shooting Ian. it's a shame, but he said that he was going to bring the rain for the crops, and he didn't do it because he can't change the weather, and he had to pay. So head on over to Bunker Branding and get yourself some Timcast merch. And smash the like button, share the show with all your friends, tell everyone you know.

You want to head on over to Timcast.com and join our Discord. So you can call into our Rumble after show, right? We do the show until 10 o'clock. Then we do the after show. You can call in, talk to the guests, talk to all of us. So head on over to rumble.com, become a member there, and then head on over to Timcast.com and join our Discord. So joining us to talk about all these things and more, we've got the Native Patriot.

Hey, I'm the Native Patriot. Thank you for having me on. I'm a Christian American supremacist, co-creator of the Patriot's Prayer Network, and co-host on the Can't Be Bought podcast on YouTube. Second time, right? Second time. Returning guest. Brett's here.

What's going on, guys? Yep, normally doing PCC Monday through Friday 3 p.m. Eastern, which is, of course, New Pacific. You should join us there, but glad to be here. How are you doing, Tate? I'm doing all right.

What's going on, Patriots? Tate Brown, you're holding it down and happy to be here. As am I, holding it down with you, Tate. And Phil, let's get into it, dude. All right. So, let's see. From the border report,

Colorado ICE facility employee arrested, accused of shooting a protester. Now, like I said earlier, He's not technically an employee of ICE. This wasn't a law enforcement agent. This is a guy that works for the GEO group. And the GEO group is a, they basically run prisons for the, for basically whoever will pay them. Private sector prisons?

Yeah, private sector prisons? Oh, it's going to be a good episode tonight. They do about 50% of ice holding facilities now. So like I said, from the border report, a man who works for the GEO group allegedly shot a woman protesting near the ice processing center. in Aurora, Colorado on Thursday night. According to a press release from the Aurora Police Department on Friday afternoon, the man identified as 42-year-old Brandon Booth was arrested after fleeing the scene in his vehicle, police say.

Just before 7.30 p.m. on Thursday, Aurora Police responded to reports of a shooting at the 3,100 block of North Nome Street. When officers arrived, they located two women, one who had suffered a gunshot wound to the lower body and another who was unharmed. Officers stopped the vehicle a short distance away, and the vehicle with the gun inside was seized. Both identified as the drug. was detained.

I'm sorry, booth identified as the driver was detained. Investigator said an initial investigation revealed the women were part of a protest taking place near the Aurora

Ice Processing Center. So basically this guy's trying to get to work. They're out in front of his car making a bunch of noise and then he gets all shooty in a stupid way because apparently

the woman was walking away so she was shot in the back and he was also a thankfully he was a bad shot because the injury were not life-threatening. This is like, though, like, for somebody who's a huge gun rights activist,

like this is, like, the worst possible scenario you can have for something like this, because it's the opposite of what people who actually own and respect firearms try to preach to people, which is to have reverence for what you have and be very careful when using it, and you should not do so unless your life is threatened. Her back was turned to him, and it makes, first of all, it's bad for people who own guns, and it's twice as bad for ICE who's like literally every time I'm on the show, which is like once a week, it's like something's happening at an ice facility. And I don't know if

it happens every day, and it's just when I'm or if it's just when I'm here. But it seems like a really bad bit of publicity all around. Yeah, he was off duty, so he wasn't technically at work yet. So he was not acting in any security capacity. She was walking away, like I said, and

the GEO group operates the Aurora facility under ICE contract. And to your point, Brett, like, look, if you're going to carry a gun, which everybody knows I carry a gun, you have to de-escalate, right? You have to do everything you can to avoid using any kind of self-defense. And if you, I mean, if you have a gun, you avoid confrontations. Do you remember me and you were on a show, I think it was another day when you were, you were running the show about the guy who,

his house got robbed and he followed him into the street. Oh, yeah. Like, it's the, it's the same, it's the same thing, right? It's horrible PR and it makes everybody look bad. Yeah, I mean, against the law, too. I wouldn't even know if you could relate those to this. This sounds more like that I think that guy in Brazil who just like walked was in a traffic jam and there was a protest and he just walked out and just started shooting. Yeah. It's almost like there's a fatigue that is built

up for a long time and whatever was going on in this guy's life he just decided to throw it all away. Is that the one of the guy with the famous picture? Oh yes. Okay that was the first thing I thought of it as like that didn't happen here, right? No, no. It was in Brazil. I just saw somebody reposted it. It said like I think about this guy

sometimes. Because he just has like he looks like dead eyed George Lucas in that phone? He just fed up. Yeah, just completely fatigued and I mean, there, you would imagine that there was something else going on in his life to where he was just, just decided today's the day to throw it all the way. Falling down in real life, right? Like, you know, it's like, oh, just like the movie. But no, to your point, the, the, the idea that people have gotten to, gotten tired of the protesting and especially if you're, if you're someone that works at an ice facility and you're just like, man, I just,

just want to get to work. You know, again, this is totally irresponsible behavior, but this is the goal of people on the left. I mean, this couldn't have worked out any better for the,

for the ice protesters. I mean, from CPR news, you know, the woman shot outside Aurora Ice facility returns to protest. So she was, she was shot on Thursday, and she's back.

What was it? When was this posted? This was posted yesterday. I think it was the 20th. Or no, this was Monday. Just days after she was shot. at a protest, 22-year-old Emma Landis spoke to supporters at the scene of the crime.

The shooting, which made national headlines, happened at the end of a protest outside the facility in Aurora on Thursday. Police arrested Brandon Booth, an employee of the facility operator GEO group shortly after. He shot me in the right foot. We were on the sidewalk. Sorry for laughing, but he shot me in the right foot. We were on the sidewalk protesting and they were mocking us and threatening us. And as we were crossing the street, that's when he shot me. Landis said in a demonstration Saturday at the facility. So apparently she wasn't even shot in the back, she was shot on the foot.

Never in a million years that I think that would happen. That's a problem too, right? Not imagining that like encroaching on other people and causing problems of them could lead to somebody doing something really stupid and possibly harming you is something you should actually be thinking about. Yeah, I mean, even though this guy wasn't, you know, law enforcement, like any time you go and harass people that are doing their job, there will, there could be consequences. unfortunately this person was shot in the foot and and I mean unfortunately she was shot

not saying that it was just yeah just yeah I think we know what you mean yeah yeah just want to clear that up I don't want anybody clipping the the Marxists would have loved it if they could have gotten on film so they could have cut cut out the part where she's bothering him and only cut you know show the part where she gets shot it like superimposed like a nuclear explosion yeah literally going on I think this is one of those stories where I don't think I really have a dog in this I mean, I really do detest the ICE protesters. I think they're, I was mentioning it before the show. I think they're the only set of protesters that I feel directly offended by, you know,

I think it's, I think it's okay actually to get offended and triggered sometimes if there is, like, a serious, if they are seriously undercutting your life in any meaningful way. And ICE is carrying out this operation that, A, is defending the sovereignty of the United States, which matters, you know, so much to me as an American, as it should be to any American. And then, yeah, secondarily, just the way that they conduct themselves is just very, it's preventing these officers from doing their jobs and often in many cases. So I really don't like these protesters whatsoever. And on the flip side, I don't think I would ever shoot at someone because they were like bothering me. Especially a woman walking away.

That's like it seems just really odd all around. Yeah. So I'm just like, you know what? I don't think I really have a dog in this fight. I mean, like, let's not shoot up protests, but also let's not, you know, harass ICE agents who are doing, carrying out an operation that was voted on by the American people. So, you know, in both cases, I think horrific. But no, yeah, I mean, like, yeah, we probably should be shooting at. Horrific is a little extreme. Well, I think what the ICE protesters are doing is horrific. I think the gentleman there, this happens a lot in the United States where people get in road rage incidents or crash out or whatever. It's just this time it happened to be able to. of an ice facility. But it's funny because this story broke,

and it took like three hours before I finally figured out what was going on. Because initially I was like, oh, well, I shot someone else, you know, outside of this. I said, I'm wondering what this is going to be. And then like three hours later, it came out. It wasn't even an ice officer or anything. I was just like, oh, well, the rushed, the headline rushed out, did not properly communicate that, you know, when you hear outside of an ice facility, that's sort of trying to lead you to think something happened.

Yeah, the whole thing. It'd be like a road raid shooting, how paying outside of a police department. They'd say, oh, shooting outside the police department, you go, oh, my gosh, you know, the cops must have shot someone. Yeah. I mean, the whole framing of it is intended to mislead people or at least, you know, people that would read the headline, they want to be like, oh, see, it's another ice agent that is shot a protester or, or, you know, shot an innocent person or whatever. And I was making this point before the show, like, when it was, you know, when you were talking about the Iraq War, any time Black, black, got into any kind of gunfight or did anything that was outside the rules, they were very clear that they were contractors. There was a very clear delineation between people in the military

and Blackwater contractors, even though Blackwater contractors are the ones that were, they were protecting, you know, they were protecting the, the, poppy fields? No, they were, no, they were protecting, like, diplomats, like ambassadors and stuff like that, they would use private security to do that a lot of times. And every time, that something happened, like I said, they made it very clear. It was not U.S. military. It was not U.S. military. It was the contractors, the contractors, the way that the government could shift blame, basically. And basically, the media went along with it because the media doesn't love private military

contractors anymore than, you know, than basically any other left-wing person would. So it was very easy for them to go ahead. Oh, yeah, it was contractors with contractors. And in this context, the headlines and stuff basically do everything they can to lead you to believe that it was an ICE employee, that it was someone that actually worked for ICE, probably hoping that you're going to think that it was some kind of law enforcement agent, which technically, I guess this guy would be a corrections officer of some kind. But it's definitely not the same kind of thing as, you know, when ICE agents are trying to grab someone off the street and then a protester puts themselves

in between the protest or in between the suspect and the law enforcement officer and the officer shoots. Right to drive over him with the car. something along those lines. I think it just illustrates how slow the news cycle is right now when it's like crazy person shoots other crazy person in the foot and everyone's like, oh, wow, this is really interesting. We should really stop mass deportations. Yeah, literally. It just shows you like one of two things is one that I think these people that are spinning up these stories are trying to realize that like typically these shootings are fairly justified from ISIS perspective and then secondarily

that there really isn't that much news going on. And so they're like, all right, well, let's run the story about a crazy person getting in a road rage incident with another crazy person firing at them like that happens I don't know probably at least once a day in the country probably even more than that media definitely doesn't want to talk about the DSA or the Democrat Party right now the split in the Democrat Party and how the DSA is you know basically taking over the Democrat Party so they're going to do everything they can to talk about any other topic all you think that'll take for the DSA to take over I mean I don't I don't know that I could really put a time frame on it. A few years, I assume. I think the next,

the next Democrat primary will ultimately be kind of the referendum on the DSA, because up until now, we haven't seen a DSA candidate really contest the president. You know, the, haven't seen a primary from the Democrats in a long time, too. Well, true. Yeah. So I think, you know, 2028, if you see an AOC thorough hat in the ring, which seems likely at this point, she's already basically campaigning. That will be now us to kind of get a heat check on. Where's the national department party at? They're creating strongholds in places like Washington State. So where I'm from, they're on the charter review board and they're changing the charter. Like our sheriff in Pierce County is Keith Swank.

And it's like the only person that has ever won since I've been voting that I voted for was Keith Swank. Yeah. And the Democrats and the communists there in Washington basically hate him because he said that men and men in women are women. That's pretty much it. And so our elected sheriff is now, they're changing the rules to where they can remove the elected sheriff and then select their own. And I mean, along with the litany of other things that they're doing behind the scenes, but these places, you know, the West Coast, basically any blue state, they're quietly implementing rules to secure their future stranglehold of our rights. Yeah, I mean, that's kind of the dynamic we've

seen this far at the DSA is they run up the numbers in very blue areas, you know, your Seattle's, your Portland, your New York cities, Chicago's, you know, your major cities. But they really struggle to penetrate any suburban districts or even rural districts as there's barely any left that are Democrat, but you know, the ones that exist. And they also struggle to really break through in a lot of the kind of more historically ethnic districts like in South Texas, the Hispanic districts or the black districts in the South. So I think it'll be interesting to see now at the national level. It's like, okay, we've been building up all this, you know, enthusiasm and activism base and and racking up victories in urban centers.

Let's see you do it on the national scale. And I kind of struggle to see if that's really going to, if that's really going to manifest because, you know, the Democrat Party, I think, to your point, is still probably maybe a decade away from a DSA candidate being truly viable because there's still a lot of baby boomers in the Democrat Party, and there's not much of an appetite for socialism among them. You say it seemed like it would be more, you said like this election cycle is a bit of a referendum, it seems like it would be more like two election cycles from now will be an idea of just how far they've penetrated into the... Yeah, the next one will be the heat check. Like, okay, are they really in the driver's seat?

And I would say, probably not. And then the following one will be like, all right, well, let's see it. Like now you got, this is your situation. The boomers at that point in two cycles, maybe a quarter of them to a third of them will be dead by then. So that's when it'll be like, all right, are the young people really into this kind of thing? Like, what's the situation? What's the future of the Democrat Party? I think that'll ultimately be the election that determines that.

DSA is kind of a millennial party, right? They get their strength of the millennials. I don't know how popular they are with like Gen Z, but Gen Z is kind of a non-issue because not only do young people not particularly vote, there's also very few of them comparatively, right? The number of them are less radical than the DSA. What was that? I think Gen Z is actually more right-leaning.

I've been hearing that a lot, I thought. Well, I think there's like two dynamics there, which is Gen Z is a really interesting study because it's the first generation of its kind in America. And so far as it's 50% white, 50% non-white when the country is about 70% white. So what you're going to see as Gen Z moves up the ranks is I think people are saying, oh, it's the most right-wing generation ever, it's the most Christian generation ever. And then like when you actually see studies and data and polling on Gen Z, and I'm saying this as a Zoom or I'm 25, that's not borne out in the data.

It's true that the trends have slowed down. So they're not secularizing at the same rate that millennials did. and they're not as liberal as millennials were at this point, but they're still continuing the trend that you would expect to see. Now, the interesting thing is if you read the cross tabs among white zoomers, they are very right wing. They are right wing and very Christian, but with a lot of, you know, zoomers of immigrant backgrounds and also like black background, they're very left wing. And so what you're really seeing here, and then obviously there's white zoomers that are left wing and vice versa, but we're talking generalizations here. So what you're going to see is kind of the showdown. I think politics is to get more racial.

And in addition to that, I think you're going to see more polarization because there's not really any moderate zoomers. It's very uncouth to be a centrist. The big streamers like Asman Gold and Hassan Piker, I know that they have feuds all the time. But I mean, Hassan Piker just came out and did his speech dressed as like Mao. Yeah. And he's well supported. And a lot of people will kind of just push that to the side. but, you know, with people like Mammie winning and, you know, Hassan still somehow being popular,

it's just radicalization by both groups and just American culture in general being completely lost in the mix. It's going to be, you know, it's going to be the communist versus American Americans. It's going to be Zumer Woffin versus communists. Yeah, that's the same. Yeah. I don't know why I haven't heard that. No, I mean, that's like literally what's going to happen. And I think that the tier point, Tid, about the racialization of our politics, that actually is a victory for the left.

Because the left are who have been pushing the racialization. When I was young, because I'm an old guy, right? When I was young, you know, you did have a larger majority of white people in the U.S., but we didn't think about our race, right? We didn't think politically when it comes to race. It was just like, well, you know, we want to be, you know, we were basically liberals, right? Like, and when I say liberals, I mean like, but in the classical sense, right? And that was something that that's totally evaporated now, right? Yeah, what you're seeing.

You can't be that way anymore. But it used to be where it was uncouth to talk about, you know, well, I'm white and I think about the fact that I'm white. And now because the left has pushed the racial politics and the desire to awaken a critical racial consciousness, which people talk about, you know, it's probably not something people hear all the time now. days, but back in 2020, people were talking about CRT, critical race theory and how big of a deal it was. Well, the goal of critical race theory was to awaken a critical racial consciousness. And Jordan Peterson was talking about this in 2016 when he would say, look, you don't want to have white people decide that they're going to vote as white people. Like, this is not something that's going to be good for our politics. We don't want to have people thinking about their race first.

But that, you know, and he was predicting it, like I said, 10 years ago. 2020 comes around and CRTs basically in all the schools and stuff. And then people notice they're like, oh, wow, you know, you're supposed to think about your race first. And you're going to see that become something, like you said, you're going to see that become something really important in the politics in the United States. And, you know, right wrong or indifferent. That is the future. And that is a victory for the left because that was their goal. And it's been their goal for ages.

Kind of. Yeah. I mean, it's almost necessary at this point because. of the anti-white propaganda that's going around for a long time. In order to preserve the white race, I mean, you're saying that Gen Z is now, you know,

50-50. You'd actually have to have to have white people aware that they should, that the white race should continue. Yeah. And it has to be a conscious choice. Yeah. Because I have many white family,

like half my family's white. And I remember after the 2016, election, one of my relatives, they were, they came up to me and they were, you know, very tedious, but they were like, I'm worried about you. And I was like, like, why are you worried about me? Like, I'm worried about you. And they had no, they, it never registered that they're white and that there's, there's this anti-white propaganda because they were so bought into it at that point where they believe that the, you know, the white supremacists were going to rule over the whole thing. But it's like, there was no idea to actually preserve.

the white race in general. It was just... It wasn't just a no idea. The idea that it was something that was an idea you weren't allowed to have. Yeah. Like if you thought about being a white person, it was like, oh, you think about being a white person. That's because you're a racist.

It went hand in hand. And what you're describing earlier when you're saying, well, people are starting to have this kind of racial conscious, like, at least among white people, I think everybody else already has for a long time, is really what you're describing there is just the demise of liberalism broadly because post-racialism, the idea that like, you know, it's, you know, it's just skin deep, but it's actually like there's no other differences between anyone, et cetera, like MLK's vision for the United States. That's like a uniquely liberal idea. So what you're outlining is more we're just seeing the disillusion of liberalism, which has been observed by

political scientists all across the world. You're seeing in Europe. You're even seeing it, you know, in Asia and pretty much everywhere in the world, actually. So really what you're describing is this abandonment of post-racialism. And so far as like this idea. This idea. that white people always behave this way, that like we always were just like, I don't know, man, like we're all individuals or whatever. Like individualism is a very liberal idea, strictly speaking in this certain aspect. And before the 1960s, I mean, we had like racial, we had racial requirements for immigration. Like, you know, white people did have this understanding that like the United States, the demographic composition of the United States is that way for a reason. Whether

it's good or bad, that's the debate, but that's the reality. And so they had this kind of understanding of like, well, if we're conservatives, then we should just seek to conserve everything, like conserve everything about society. So, yeah, this idea like, you know, we're like losing post-racialism and this is like the left-pushing identity politics. I guess my counter argument would just be that I think everything, all politics is derivative of identity. Like every action that someone makes is derivative of an identity, whether it's racial, sure, but whether it's religious, whether it's, you know, your class, which I think is a little overstated, or, you know, whether it's like a direct family or a specific ethnicity, you know, you're Italian,

your Irish, or whatever, whatever identity that you have from birth, people have always operated politically in that understanding. The idea that anyone is truly this individual rational being, I think, is a very liberal argument that just sounds nice and I do wish the world was that way. Don't get me wrong, but it's just not really reflected in people's behaviors when it comes to how they operate politically. We just had this 50-year blip after MLK, the Civil Rights Act, where there was this idea that maybe we were moving towards MLK's America, this post-racial America. But you saw corrections, you know, some reality checks. Like we saw the Crown Heights riots.

We saw the OJ Simpson trial. I mean, we saw 9-11 how people just immediately were like Muslims, they got to go, that sort of thing. So you had these touch points along the way where people did kind of shack, you know, take off that shackle, so to speak, of post-racism. And they're like, no, actually, you know, and they like locked in. Well, and the white guilt you're talking about, a lot of that is a result of post-9-11. and the way that Muslims were treated in America when people felt like they'd gone too far with a lot of that.

People my age, meaning like younger millennials at that time, they saw it after the fact and it was drilled into them in the media that the way that people were behaving was wrong. And now they've been trying to correct that ever since in a lot of ways, like what you were mentioning earlier,

the white liberal is the only group in America with an out-group bias, right? Meaning that they don't care what you look like, who you're from, they want to hang out with you, hang out with everybody. everybody else has their own in-group preferences because it's a mode of survival, whereas white liberals in America never understood that need for that type of survival because they didn't think in a post-racial or they thought in a post-racial society. Yeah, and like, you know, and even maybe to push back against like the more like race realist people that are out there, I think that various ethnicities can get along while still acknowledging that there is like we're different.

Like that's just the reality of the situation. So this idea that like we need to reduce everyone down to like just a beige mass, which is really what the liberal regime has attempted to do, you know, even people in our own ranks have said, you know, I'd like to see everyone just kind of melt in the one big ethnicity, global ethnicity. I don't know if that's going to create more, you know, I don't think people are going to get along any better. They'll just find other differences, other identities.

That's like a throw your hands up. Look at hope for it. I mean, look at the caste system in India. Yeah. In India, they're all Indians. and if you're of the wrong cast, you're going to be treated like absolute dog shit. Yeah.

You know? I think the thing that we kind of lost with the racial argument is the idea of assimilation. They focus a lot on the skin color of the person, but not so much as to, you know, if somebody is assimilated or want to assimilated. Yeah. You know, I think...

I do the American culture, which is now almost... It's not completely lost, but there has been a substantial, like just disappearance of the ideals that separated America from all of human history. And now it's it's kind of just going back to the base identifiers, which is going to be race. And hopefully that doesn't last forever. You know, being a half breed myself, it's like, you know, I'm advocating for like white people. I'm like, you guys need to save your race.

For the same time, I'm also like, but, you know, like don't take me out. In the meantime, you know. Don't say it too. And what you're like getting at is this idea that America, I do think that people that are immigration proponents are correct insofar as America does have this unique ability to incorporate people into the tribe, so to speak, the American tribe, you know, broadly, whatever that means is still up for debate. But I do agree that, yes, America, the thing that does separate us from the old world is we do have this ability that no matter where in the world you're from, you do have the ability to assimilate. I think the problem has been the volume. Yeah, that is why you're seeing the reaction now under mass migration.

You know, Jeremy Carle was on the show recently, who has been. been lambasted by the media for various things, which is just ridiculous. And he's a genius, and he's an expert on this topic. And he was saying, like, he noticed among his, you know, his friends and people he's met and whatever that were Indian, you know, they're like from India or their parents are from India, who grew up in rural areas or suburbs of smaller towns or in smaller towns or whatever, you name it, were pretty distinctly American. Like, they carried a lot of the same characteristics you would expect to see of Americans. And he contrasted that with people who are second, even third generation immigrants that grew up in Queens or grew up in

Los Angeles or the San Francisco suburbs. And he remarked about how they seem to have failed to assimilate and, well, what's the explanation? It's like, well, because they weren't surrounded by Americans. When you drop and you create an ethnic enclave or even an enclave of other ethnic groups that are outside of the main kind of groups in the United States, you are going to fail to assimilate these people. So I don't really subscribe to the idea. And maybe people think I'm like a lib trot or whatever. I don't think we need to like make, how? bring back like a national formulas act or anything like that. I'm just saying that the volume has been too much.

You should be conscious of the cultural differences. Like it's going to be easier for someone from Australia to assimilate in the United States and someone from Somalia. But when you do skim the cream, so to speak, like if you do find an exceptional Somali, like in I and Hersia Ali, just bring her over. You don't need to bring over 30,000 people from the same tribe. Like bring her over.

I promise you'll assimilate probably in her lifetime. And then her kids will be fairly indistinguishable and they'll marry into the tribe. And then that's what you do it. Is the difference of this? idea of multiculturalism versus a melting pot. Like, I was raised to believe in a melting pot. Like, you know, you become an American by assimilating into American culture. You know, I mean, there used to be camps that...

Schoolhouse rock, man. Yeah. You know? Well, and there used to be camps that they would send natives to. And the idea was to kill the savage and save the man, right? And they taught him Christianity and things like that. Now, you know, 100 years later, where you have a Native American like myself, who's Christian fighting for Christianity, you know, I don't really say.

see that as a bad thing because for thousands of years, you know, there were warring tribes and various things happening. And then, um, the settlers came over. And for the most part, a lot of Native Americans assimilated. Um, and I think are better off for it for the most part. But if you, if we just bring people over and we allow the savages to take over. Yep. You know, there's, I mean, say whatever you want about the camps, um, that, you know, they put natives into. it was better overall than what's happening right now, where they're just bringing over hordes of people that don't have any, they don't want to assimilate at all.

They want to take advantage of the welfare system, and they want to only extract from our system that has been created, that we've inherited to protect. And I think that what's happening today is far, far worse than what happened to get us to this point. I think that's actually true. So when you talk about people coming over here, there was this idea that we brought people over to share in American values and that they would become American and then in a lot of ways.

Those people learn to love the country even more than the people who were born here because they had to learn so much about the country. But I think a big part of it is also the hollowing out of the middle class. Like there was a sense of idealism about coming over here before. If you were not brought over here necessarily on an H1B visa or if you were coming over here to build a better life without, you know, an automatic into a corporation or something like that, the idea was that you were going to come over here and you were going to build a life for yourself, white picket fence, you know, family, two kids, whatever it was, that was, like you said, a post-racial idea that everybody in America would have access to that. But as that amount of people has shrunk and there's more class warfare combined with race warfare

in America, like that idea doesn't hold the same sway that it used to. Well, I mean, I would just posit that in the 21st century. And this is actually something that I discussed with Jeremy Carl, Scott Greer, and Stephen engine was over there. It's on Timcast, IRL. I think everyone should watch it if you're interested in this topic, is that assimilation might actually, for non-Westerners, be impossible in the 21st century because of modern amenities. So, yes, welfare, we've hit on this. Extensively Europe's wrestling with this as well. And they're kind of, the Denmark has laid out a great example of how to prevent, you know, immigrants from coming and taking advantage of your welfare. But another problem is the modern amenities that are like technology in this interconnected world. The world feels smaller than ever in many ways. So if a Westerner comes over here, again, not really difficult. Because for an American going to Britain or vice versa,

well, depending where you are in Britain, it doesn't feel terribly foreign. Like, okay, yeah, there's some differences. No AC over there. Different packaging. Particularly when you go to cities, right? So if you're in an urban area with, if you're in London or New York or L.A.

Yeah, they're all homogenous. You can kind, you can get around basically anywhere, any major city. And it's going to be like, okay, it's not going to be the same, but it's going to be broadly familiar, I guess is what I'm trying to get out, versus if you went to Lego.

So versus if you went to New Delhi or you went to Manila in the Philippines, it would feel, especially foreign, you would immediately feel alienated, and you would immediately probably have this divide between you. This happens, I mean, I've traveled pretty much everywhere, and everywhere I've gone that's outside of the West, there's always been a level of discomfort just because I don't understand the place very well. And I kind of understand that as an American, I'll never assimilate into this place, no matter how long I stayed. I would raise my kids Christian. I would give them Christian names.

Like, you know, there would be this breakdown. So what I guess I'm trying to get at is people that come here from the Third World are just really outside of the West. general, I don't know if they can still assimilate just because of the internet, because of social media, where you'll see this. And I lived in Queens for four years, is a lot of first and second generation immigrants would engage in and consume more media from their home country than they would from the United States. They would continue to send remittances back to their home country.

They would never, like, truly break. You know, they would never, you know, traditionally when immigrants come to the United States, they would come over and they'd never know if they'd even go back. Like, they were convinced that they might just be here for good. And many of them rarely did go back. where now they're going back and forth all the time for holidays. The Internet makes it really easy to basically feel like you're still there. Online commerce makes it easy to bring in goods from your home country.

It's just a country of wealth extraction then. Yeah, well, I mean, this is, and this is, you know, the fight of our time, really, is what is America? Is it a distinct nation with a distinct heritage, et cetera, as J.D. Vance outlined at NACON, or is it just a giant shopping mall? And right now it feels more like a shopping mall. And Europe, specifically Western Europe, also increasingly feels like this. And I suspect one of the main reasons is because it's not just that they're not assimilating. I just, I question if they even have the capability of assimilating. So no faults of their own, it's just the reality of the 21st century that, again, with how interconnected everything is, it's hard to truly break from your home country.

And some people do, and I know people that are immigrants and they're terrific people. But the difference between them and the majority is that the people that came here and they're terrific and they've assimilated made a conscious effort. Like, we're not going to teach our kids our native language. We're going to put them in American schools, make them consume American media. media, giving them American names. They made a very conscious effort to sort of break to say, we're not going back to India, we're not going back to China, the Philippines, or you name it.

That part of multiculturalism is tied to American export now. So I was having a discussion with someone on my channel about the Odyssey. We were talking about the casting in the Odyssey, and we were talking about the fact that, look, all the casting controversies that were there, for the most part, they didn't have a ton

of screen time except for Himish Patel. And he said, you know, cynically, you cast a man from India, because there's a million people in India that can watch your movie. So America will change, you know, quintessentially Western stories for the sake of capitalist export to the rest of the world because America's a net exporter when it comes to entertainment and things like that. So we kind of, in that way, we handicap ourselves because we don't tie ourselves.

And I'm somebody who comes on the other side of the discussion on this. For the most part, those types of swaps and movies have never really bothered me. I understand that art is vastly different these days. They see what they would like to think of as like a colorblind society. Though oddly enough, it means they have to be more color conscious to do the casting for things like that. But the idea is, is that type of change to a Western story is very American to do because America doesn't feel like it has a cohesive cultural identity. So it's become the world.

What is the American culture identity now? Because when I think of like what is American, I think Christian, and I think to most people these days that doesn't come up and I think that with our founding being so tied to Christianity it's without that

I think that we just will become one of the world without without religion without a religion to kind of bind your people together the like you can man can't live without religion right whether or not they like it, whether or not they realize it, a man can live without religion, but societies can't,

because you base your fundamental principles on something. And the U.S. are fundamental principles were unquestionably based on Christianity. And as you remove those principles, as you remove those ideals, then they're replaced with something else. Well, and you have to be precise about like what's specific, like when you're saying Christianity, well, it's like, you know, there's two billion roughly adherence of Christianity globally. The United States had a very particular expression of Christianity, which was among the general population, sort of a low church kind of Protestantism. And what you're seeing now is there's still a lot of Christians coming to the country, but they have a sort of different understanding of Christianity.

And I think you can't really detach the United States from its foundation. And so you do need to analyze, like, okay, what did Christianity look like in the 18th, 19th, even early 20th century? Well, and the Episcopalians dominated the elite, but you know, you look among like, the low church, and it was low church Anglicanism, it was Methodists, et cetera. And it's, I'm not just referencing Catholicism here, where Catholicism has grown, now it's 20% of the country. And it's something that I think the founders would be, like, pretty horrified by. But I think the founders would equally be horrified at the current manifestation of evangelicalism. It would have been,

where, and I'll just say it's like evangelicalism now where you see sort of these big box megachurches that are, you know, non-denominational and they don't really have any, they're very high on ecumenicalism, right? They're just like, we're all Christians. Like, there's no accountability really in these churches. And I'm not really, I'm not really hating on anyone that is of either of these faiths. I'm just making the point that, like, this is evidence of the deracination of the United States because that mega church model and Catholicism can both be replicated at any point, anywhere in the world at any time where the previous, you know, understanding of Christianity, really until like the 1960s and 70s was distinctly uniquely American. And I think this is what helps like national unity,

is this was the same in Europe. Like, you know, the Dutch were all Dutch reformed, and the Germans were, like, Lutheran, and the South were Catholic, the British were Anglicans, the Swedes were, you know, they had a specific type of Lutheranism. So you would see this, like,

distinct expressions of Christianity that were intrinsically tied to the culture of the country. And what you're seeing now, I guess, what I'm trying to get at is what the type of manifestation of Christianity you're seeing in the United States now is a very globalist expression of Christianity,

whether it is Catholicism or whether it is sort of big box non-denominational. Well, and a lot of those do, like a lot of, missionary work is done that way, right? Because the big churches end up having people going all over the world. Well, what's ironic is that the missionaries of sort of, I guess you would maybe say mainline Protestantism would be the accurate description, were so effective that you're

seeing now there's more Presbyterians, more Anglicans in Africa than there is in their traditional home nations of the United Kingdom of the United States. So as the U.S., I'll just reference to the U.S. here, as the U.S. becomes more non-denominational and more Catholic, and you see kind of the decline of traditional Protestantism that would have been familiar to the founders and early Americans, the more that expression does grow in places like Africa, albeit they've put their own spin on it, but at least like the core theological tenets are there and to some degree the aesthetics. And so that's always kind of fascinating to me is like, I agree you cannot divorce the United States from Christianity, but it's also a very specific

type of Christianity because, you know, Haiti is also like 80% Christian, but I would really kind of argue like that, I would dispute the idea that the Christian. Christianity that Americans have historically had and the Christianity you find in Haiti is fairly similar. I'll be at some core theological, you know, similarities. I think we're kind of seeing, we're seeing the ramifications of removing our representation in government from God. Because in 1962, when the Supreme Court decided, you know, the separation of church and state, as if that was written in the Constitution, and they implemented that throughout the entire government. That's, that separated the family unit by devaluing.

marriage and they came up with no fault divorce, you know, the birth control pill. I mean, all of that stuff kind of added on to it. But we're now seeing a culture that has been raised without God tying them together. So we're seeing, you know, I mean, even if, I mean, like myself, you know, I come from divorced parents. The first son that I had was from my high school sweetheart, not my current wife. And so it's, it's like there's, there's been ripples of, of this happening for a long time and with the actual separation of church and state, what we have now, has led to a lot of these issues that we're seeing throughout the country and no way to assimilate the foreigners that they're bringing in because we don't really have that shared culture,

that has shared American culture that used to be. Can I ask you, oh, go ahead. Well, and I was just saying, I mean, to kind of piggyback off what you're saying, too, is we still have the framework of Christianity, but the way it manifests in like the modern American is they'll say, well, I'm not religious, I'm very spiritual, or I believe in God, but they won't really drill down on what God, they're talking about, which means like I am my own God. And so, really, what's happening here is people are, it's almost worse than what's happening in Europe to some degree. Where in Europe, they're very comfortable saying, I'm not religious, like, I don't

believe in God, et cetera. Where in America, people have this idea of God that really exists for the sole purpose of, like, reemphasizing what they already believe, or for the sole purpose of validating these bad decisions that they're making. And this is very common in the United States. Those people don't have a real religion to your point, right? Like, they'll celebrate, they'll celebrate Christmas. They don't celebrate Easter. They don't go to church on Easter. Those people don't, like, they'll say, oh, you know, I'm Christian, but I, you know, I don't go to church or whatever.

That's not really a Christian, right? Like, it's more of saying, well, you know, I was, you know, I believe in being nice. It's far more like when people are saying, you know, we should be nice and it's more of a, I'm a spiritual person. And because even, you know, as a person that still considers himself, but not agnostic, right? Like, I understand that if you're a Christian, you're saying that you believe Christ is God, right? And without that, you're not actually a Christian. Just because you give presents at Christmas, that doesn't make you a Christian.

You have to believe that Christ is divine. You have to believe that God, that the reason that Christ came to earth is to forgive your sins. And, like, so all of Christianity flows from that. So just saying, oh, well, you know, I'm spiritual and I'm kind of Christian. You can't be kind of Christian. You're either a Christian or you're not. You either believe Christ was divine. Yeah, you either believe Christ was divine or you don't.

And everybody that hymns and haws about it and says, well, you know, I'm a Christian, but I'm more spiritual. No, you're not a Christian. You're a heathen. Can't just believe in Santa Claus like yours. Yeah, exactly. It's a very exclusionary faith. 100%. That's the case with pretty much every religion.

And so far as, you know, historically with Christianity, there was, you know, a pretty good dividing line between if you're a Christian or not. We're now because it has gotten so watered down and now because there is so much wriggle room and whatnot, people are able to shop around and find an expression of really religion broadly, but specifically Christianity. That does kind of steal man what they already believe. This is the whole reason that I still call myself agnostic, right? Like, I don't feel comfortable telling people that I'm a Christian because I'm not 100% sure that I believe in God or that Christ was the son. of God, right? If I were to say, well, you know, I was raised Catholic, so I'm kind of a Christian, blah, blah, blah, and him and Hall about it were kind of like, you know, mince words so that way I can, you know,

make the person I'm talking to feel comfortable or whatever, or I can, I can smooth a conversation over. Then you're lying. And the point, the whole point is, the whole point of Christianity is you believe Christ has gotten. And I don't understand why people, you know, have this, this desire to kind of, you know, not actually tell the truth, which is, no, I don't, I'm not a Christian, or I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm not sure of what I believe, you know? You kind of brought it up earlier with saying that, that, I mean, Christianity's been bastardized to the point where it's almost synonymous with being nice. And Christians, there's, there's, James Tellerico. You're not supposed to just be nice. I mean, it is exclusionary, like you said, in a lot of ways. And, you know, it's, it's,

kind of been boiled down, you know, with, with our holidays and everything. And, and the, the way that it's been marketed over the years, you know, it's more about the tree now than it is the birth of Christ. And that's a leftist position to try and straw man in an argument. Anytime you push back on anything they do, they're like, well, that's not very Christian of you. Yeah, of course. But I think what Phil was getting at is a really interesting thing, because that's actually a very uniquely American thing, to be at the point where you're functionally agnostic or even potentially functionally atheist, but you still claim that you're Christian is actually a very uniquely American thing. This doesn't really occur anywhere else in the world. And I think the reason for that is actually ingrained in

the American DNA, because if you look at the time of the founding, and people have pointed out that some founders were indeed deists, but what's interesting is if you were to go to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson and press them on this, they would identify as Anglicans. And also the overwhelming majority of America, I think it's 80 to 90% of Americans, actually upwards of 90% of Americans, identified as Christian. And they would be able to, they had high biblical literacy, so they would be able to explain Christianity at a very high level. But what's interesting is at the time of the founding in 1776, only about 20% of Americans regularly attended church. So what you had was a cultural Christianity and a population that was highly illiterate,

very intelligent, that had a very good understanding of Christianity, and they were able to correctly identify that the structure that they exist in exists because of Christianity. So they ought to carry themselves in a Christian way, you know, promote Christian values, even if they themselves weren't convinced on, you know, the resurrection or something like that, We're now where we're kind of in this era where it's Christianity, it's kind of difficult to see around you these days because of how bad things have gotten to your point, how much the government has seemed to distance itself from Christianity. People don't have that knee-jerk reaction. People don't have any biblical literacy. People can't even explain what Easter is.

So instead, you just get the schizophrenic, man, the schizophrenic outgrowth of that historical American tendency, which is, well, I'm spiritual and you have a rabbit's foot and tarot cards or whatever. Can I ask you a question? Because you mentioned earlier you said, what is like the American? identity now and you mentioned Christianity, like, what else do you see as core tenets of, like, the American identity? Because I was just thinking, like, a couple weeks ago, it was even that long ago, where everybody was talking about the World Cup and people from all over the world were coming to America and they were loving things about America, which basically boiled down to like Buckees and American consumerism, right? But it was Americans who

are star for anybody not hating them, were excited about the idea that people found things about America that they like. I'm just curious what you think of as other core tenets of the American identity. What I like to believe would be if an American, let's, all right, I have a little fascination with wolves. Okay. So if the American itself was a wolf and it was looking at a dog, like a domesticated dog, and it had a collar on and it had a master, I picture the American as the wolf, the one who is willing to go without the guaranteed meal every day and without being owned

would rather just go hungry and find its own way rather than live a fat happy a fat happy life being domesticated. Yeah. That's what I would like to like it to be. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on to this point, right?

So me and my girlfriend were talking about this the other day and we were talking about like why America's better than other countries, why the people of America are better, right? And when the country was founded, particularly, the people that were likely to leave Europe and come to the United States had a certain mindset and a certain outlook on their own lives and their own capabilities. Yeah. Right?

Because if you get on a boat for five weeks or whatever it takes to get across the ocean, when you're not guaranteed to get there, right, you have to have a certain amount of belief in your own agency. So all the people that came to the to basically to the colonies to the new You know the new country and all the people that came here basically up until the 60s There were all people that believed in their own agency Yeah you didn't accidentally get to America you came to America because you wanted to make something of yourself You were the kind of person that believed you made things happen in the world when you look at modern times and the people that are brought in you know whether

it be as however, right, if they're here because they came illegally or what have you, if they got some program the government gave out, those people are not people that believe that they make things happen in their lives. They believe that things happen to them. So the reason that America is the best country in the world and has been basically the indispensable country for at least the first 200, 225 years of its existence was because, the people that are in America have a certain outlook on life. And of course, they're not every single person that lived in America was the same. But they were the descendants of people that said, I can get on that boat and I can go to America and I can make something

of myself. I have the opportunity to do that. I have the ability to do that. I believe in myself. And you see it in how crazy and awesome and daring and exceptional Americans have been like that matters that's what makes america and that's what makes the people of america different from the whole rest of the world the fact that they would say i can go there and i can make something happen as opposed to the people that believe that things happen to them and you see it all over the place you see it with people in society now people that are like oh you know my life my lot in life is so bad and all this happened to me and this happened to me and this happened to me and this having all these bad things and all this stuff happened to me. And then there are people that said,

no, I went and I did this. I did this. I did this. I did this. The distinction really boils down to people that believe they have agency and people that believe they don't have agency. Honestly, that's exactly what you laid out. It's just a different metaphor. Well, what's interesting is, you know, there's a book, you know, like what you guys are hitting on is absolutely correct. This is, there's two things when you ask, what is America? What is this idea of like American culture or something? What we're hitting on is two things. What is the culture of America? you know, you would probably say it's this sort of Anglo-Protisan identity. This is an Anglo-Protisan identity. This was you found at the founding that was 90% of the country. So the closer you get to that,

the more America, it's going to feel the further way you get more. But as far as what you guys are hitting on, which is the ethos of America, right? What is the driving force? What's the engine room in the United States? It's the frontier. This is what you're hitting on. It's the frontier. And that didn't happen by accident. It's not like, because Britain set up a lot of settler colonies. It's Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Why aren't they conducting themselves like the Americans do? Well, there's two things going on. One is you look in the north. There was the Puritans. They had this hyper-Calvinism that existed, that pre-eminated in the North. And what came, what lasted out of that, you know, out of the Puritan culture was this idea

that I am destined to do this by God. This idea that everything has been predestined, that God has put me here for a very specific reason, and what's over those hills is mine because God said so. And then secondarily is, to your point, the stock that came here, which was, you know, wherever you came from, you came here because you said, I want to just go to that frontier. You know, that video of the penguin charging towards the mountain. That was the sort of the ethos of a lot of, you know, early settlers and continued into the 19th century. The evidence for this is, well, who populated the frontier during the colonial era? Well, it was the Scots-Irish.

Well, where did the Scots-Irish come from? Well, they came from what is today Northern Ireland? Well, what made the Scots-Irish unique? Well, they were a different group that were, you know, brought to Ireland and they were fighting with the native population there, the Irish, you know, the Irish people in Ireland. So they already kind of had this understanding of being on the frontier. They had this understanding of kind of being somewhere that you came to, right? That you weren't just spawned on the ground here. You came here and you carved out your civilization in a place that previously didn't resemble it.

And that is ultimately what defines the frontier. That's exactly what happened in the United States and who was on the frontier, the Scotch, Irish. And this continued all the way into the Wild Western movies. If you like think about all the famous pioneers and then you think about these famous characters and these Wild West stories, they typically have names that come from, again, the borderlands in Europe. of Northern Ireland, of Scotland. So that's kind of ultimately the perfect storm that came about in the United States, which basically you had the Anglo-Protestant culture,

which has been demonstrated to create fantastic systems, legal codes, et cetera, has demonstrated by Australia, even their former colonies, but Australia, Canada, New Zealand. And then you supercharged that with this hyper-Calvinism that came from the Puritans and this frontier spirit that just seemingly only America truly ever captured. And that's what drove us to the moon. I mean, we didn't stop. We finally ran out of space and we said, let's go up there.

We actually go to the moon? Yes, we did. Yeah. Well, yeah, so it's just, I think it's like, it's, it's, it's not enough to just posit that America's unique because, you know, we're entrepreneurial. There's a specific, no, it's a specific ethos in the United States that came about because of historical events, but the specific kind of people that came here that these three factors that I outlined all combined and created the United States. It's not, it's not, it's not, my point is an entrepreneur. Sure, I know what you mean, but I'm just saying this is how most people they say, well, Americans, what makes us different from Canadians, for example? We have a lot of the same people.

What is it? It must be we're more entrepreneurial. And it's like, well, no, there's a specific, again, this perfect storm that was created in the 13 colonies and on the frontier that led to where we are now. And a lot of that ethos is still carried into the modern day. Well, yeah, I mean, your grandparents and your great grandparents and stuff like that, that actually does make a difference in the person that you are. And it's why the left can't recapture the idea of like celebrating America. They try. Like like you, I still see sometimes when I go out, I see, um, leftist political signs that have

like a flag. They say pro-America anti-Trump. But everybody knows that even if you get rid of Donald Trump when it comes down to it, they have this postmodern idea of what America is and they refuse to be proud of their past or their history because they have the original sin of slavery. That's one aspect of it. And the rest of it has been watered. world. Well, it's been, and it's been watered down by culture so much where they, you know, there have

been articles written and infographics created about why American exceptionalism is a bad idea and why we actually need to quash that because it's a sign of white supremacy, just like individualism and all of those things where it's like you could have the most liberal values in the world. And as long as you love where you're from here, you'll never be truly accepted there because I still believe in a lot of ways I still have a lot of traditionally liberal values when you said earlier when we were talking about a post-racial society there's so many millennials where that still resonates with them because that was the culture they grew up in but as long as your not is the first thing that I noticed when I traveled

right was like the amount of people who from America first of all talk shit about America sorry for swimming I know but but also you know people who thought you should just accept that people are going to dog on you and I was just all always confused as to why you could be born into a place of immense, you know, not wealth necessarily like you were born wealthy, but to be born into American middle class still means that you essentially hit the lottery. Yeah. Even being born into lower middle class in America, you have hit the lottery.

The poorest American is still better off than 99% of the world. And the idea that there were people who held the same liberal concepts and values that I did, but hated where they were from, meant that I was never going to traditional. fit in with them the way that it would anywhere else. And what you're talking about is the idea that you would go out every day and risk a world where you're not going to know where your next meal is going to come from, where you're going to take a chance in yourself rather than just take the safest route forward. That idea has been chipped away at in Western society, in America especially, right?

Part of the reason why it's been chipped away at is because the people that have been coming to America since the 60s largely don't share that kind of ethos. They don't share the belief. that they happen to the world as opposed to the world happening to them. And I think that's absolutely right. In addition to that, the evidence at the core of the American identity is sort of the frontier, so to speak, and that sort of attitudes that sort of emanate out of that is the fact that when, you know, think of like Erling Holland, the soccer player in the World Cup,

he came here and out of all the different sort of avatars of America that he could have chose to, you know, kind of larp as, he wore a cowboy hat and he had cowboy boots and this sort of thing. And this is the same thing. Anyone comes to the country when they think of what's the most distinctly American characteristic, it's the cowboy hat. Now, what percentage of Americans do you think wear a cowboy hat on a daily basis?

It's probably less than 1%. So, like, there's a lot of people in this country. Probably less than 1%. You're from Texas, so you should know. Well, you know, but in actuality is, it's a very rare thing to see. If you see someone with the cowboy hat, you're like, oh, that's cool.

Like, you must be a cowboy. But for some reason, people from all around the world associate the cowboy hat with the United States. Is it just because it's a uniquely interesting character? Well, no, it's because they have identified that the cowboy really is the avatar of the United States insofar as he is the frontiersman. He is the guy that is just trudging into the wilderness

and making it his own. He's setting up fences and he's setting up homes and this sort of thing. And so that's why left-wing people fail to ever truly capture the American hearts and minds and fail to truly capture the American ethos is because their understanding of America is to your point. The world happens to me and I have to react accordingly, typically in government policy and or city centers,

which, yes, we've always had cities in the United States. Philadelphia was the second largest city in the entirety of the British Empire at the founding. But even Americans who lived in Philadelphia, Teddy Roosevelt's a great example. Teddy Roosevelt was a New Yorker, but we associate him with the West. We associate him with the great outdoors and that sort of thing. Because he, among with most urbanites until very recently, did understand that the engine room of the United States was the frontier. We're going to jump to this story here. And once I read the piece from the BBC, we're going to toss it to tape because he's got some thoughts.

on this from the BBC and whitcomb was hit on head 21 times with a hammer prosecutors say so this is a british politician that was meant that was murdered in her own home um and whitcomb was hit on the head with a hammer 21 times at her home as she ate lunch in an attack that was caught on camera prosecutors have told west westminster magistrate's court prosecutor cashief malik said the man charged with her murder joshua carrie arrived at her house on july in a red vauxhall corsa and entered through the front door. Carrie, who prosecutors say was in the property for two minutes and was wearing black gloves, then allegedly hit Whitcomb repeatedly with a hammer in her kitchen, tipped her from a chair, and took her wallet before driving off. The 28-year-old from South Yorkshire also later appeared at the

Old Bailey and was a remanded in custody. At the old Bailey hearing, Prosecutor Alistair said the attack on Whitcomb had been carried out with a ferocity of violence. Malik told the court that Whitcomb did not attend a pre-arranged online interview with Channel 5's Matt Alwood show that had been scheduled for just before 1,300 British Standard Time on 8 July. The show's production team tried to contact Whitcomb, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So, Tate, can you go ahead and tell our viewers a little bit about who Eddie Wickham was and how this is relevant to conditions in the U.S. now? Yeah, as far as who she was, I mean, this is very quickly.

She was formerly an elected official in Britain. She's very well known there. If you turn on television, you'll probably have seen her in the last year. She was actually scheduled to do a television hit the morning when her body was discovered. So she's been this very prominent Christian conservative activists in Britain for a long time. Again, she formerly held office. I've been kind of struggling to think of an analog in the United States. The closest I could maybe think of would maybe be Sarah Palin.

And so far as someone that says, I remember when she was in office, but now I know her as a commentator. That would be kind of the equivalent, you know, the social conservatism, the Christianity, etc. But the two things that are interesting about her is, first of all, again, that she, it wouldn't be hyper, purply to draw some comparisons to the Charlie Kirk situation and so far as prominent commentator. Secondarily, what's interesting about her is that she was kind of enemy number one of the LGBT people in Britain. But when LGBT people were thinking about, you know, who is, whose existence and words is an existential threat to my identity to my existence, it would be Anne Whitacom being the avatar of that traditional conservative Christian. Not JK Rowling? No, because.

because J.K. Rowling is still functionally left wing. She just happens to be on the other side of the trans issue, where Anne Whitacom was across the board a very conventional Christian conservative. So this is why I said it's not hyperbole to draw comparisons to the Charlie Kirk assassination insofar as, and I don't mean this in any negativity towards Charlie and or Anne. But in order to be someone that would decide to go and kill these people, you would have to be, you would have to be radicalized to such an insane degree. to actually decide to do this because these are not radical dissident figures. These are mainstream figures who, I contest are strictly conservative, strictly Christian. It's not like they were moderates. I hate when people said truly Kirk was a moderate. He wasn't a moderate. He just wasn't a dissident radical, nor is Anne Whitticum. But again, they viewed these people as existential threats.

Their very existence was a threat to them. Is there evidence that this was politically motivated? So what's interesting, this is why this is becoming a bit scandalous has been the British police's response to this. So this occurred in Devin, a very safe part of the, the country. The killer came from 300 miles away, which in American terms is like, you know, the thousand miles and 1500, you know, miles. But what's interesting is the British police have drip-fed evidence from from what's happened here. They've drip-fed evidence and drip-fed events to the British people, I think, because they're trying to prevent the outrage that, you

know, occurred in the United States when Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And with Charlie Kirk, it was obvious right away that it was politically. He literally got sniped. Where with Ann Whitacom, at first, the police came out and said she's died in her home. And she's an old lady. So everyone's like, oh, that's sad. But, you know, it happens. These are old, you know, they fall down or whatever. So initially, when I saw the news, when everyone saw the news, keep in mind, this is a very prominent figure in the UK. Everyone in the UK knows who she is. And it's actually, she's very charming. So I think even a lot of people on the left, you know, kind of have this soft spot for her. But everyone in the UK knew her. And they're like, oh, that's sad.

You know, she's passed away. I remember she's been everywhere. Then the police came out and they said, okay, no, it was actually, we suspect there was foul play, but it was actually a burglary gone wrong. And then this is when everyone's alarm bells started going off, as they said, how did you go from fell in her home and died to burglary gone wrong? So it was reported that she fell. So initially, again, with the evidence that was drip fed, they were leading the public to believe that she had just died. You know, she fell and hit her head. I think is what the official narrative was. Then it turned to burglary gone wrong. And then three days later, the story breaks that the counterterrorism unit has taken over.

the case. So I think everyone at that moment, if you didn't suspect it was politically motivated before, at that point said, why would counterterrorism get involved in a burglary gone wrong? And then the BBC, as you talked about, then reported that the suspect had been arrested. We saw a picture of him right away, and it was political, if you know, physiognomy. And then secondarily, the news came out that she was bashed in the head 21 times with a hammer, which, you know, if you're a police officer and you're reporting to a scene, I think you would know the difference between someone falling down and then her head being caved under the hammer. Secondarily, you would know the difference between a burglary gone wrong and being overhead, hit with the

hammer. The suspect did steal her purse or her wallet. It doesn't really say what specifically he took, but it was like her, you know, bag carrying money or whatever. But again, going all the way down to Devin to go into the home of a very, very prominent conservative Christian activist and murdering while she was eating lunch. She was having her lunch. Brutely, too. This wasn't, it wasn't a situation where he was just like, you know, I'm going to kill this person. It was... It was the kind of crime where people say that it was...

You know, they're calling it a vicious... Ferocious of violence. You know, it was a vicious, vicious attack. And, you know, you hit someone in the head with a hammer. Like, that's probably going to kill them if you hit them once or twice. 21 times is literally going to... You know, it was a gruesome, gruesome scene. And because of the incompetence...

I don't even know if... I think it's actually they're highly competent. They're actively trying to ensure that there's not much outrage over the story. I think the crime of that is that we can't come out as commentators and say, this was another example of leftist violence. We need a crackdown, et cetera, because they control all the evidence. They've monopolies. So until this trial is done, we can't on good authority, you know, legally come out and say,

this was clearly an example of leftist violence. We can say that's the case, but that's what they wanted. You can't say that in the UK. people can say that in the U.S. Yeah, I mean, in theory, but people get sued for this kind of stuff all the time. So this is what's so interesting is that, again, they've intentionally, I don't think they're incompetent, they're highly competent. They understand that if they let the actual, what actually happened, which they already

know, the people in the police department already know what happened, if they laid out the facts and said, yeah, it was a leftist that came and killed a prominent Christian conservative, Charlie Kirk 2.0. Britain has a Charlie Kirk moment. They understand that Fras, who's surging in the polls, can capitalize on this, and they don't want, that's a disaster for him. Anne Whitacom was a member of the Reform U.K. party. She was friends with Farage.

Farage clearly was deeply disturbed by what happened, obviously. So again, this is just super inconvenient for a government, for a system that is playing defense right now for what we've been saying as conservatives, as right-wingerers in the UK and the United States. What we've been saying, what we've been saying, we're afraid of this. This is why we want to go in a different direction. That that manifested. That's like a nightmare scenario for them.

So that's why the information here is being fed, why the BBC is almost. reluctantly reporting this. And I think it's pretty obvious what happened here. And the question, I guess, would be what's going to happen? Well, the guy's going to get thrown in jail, and that's probably it. What do they know about the suspect, Matt, I'm sorry, what is his name, Joshua Carey? There's two things that have been suspected. The first one is a little bit more innocuous than the second thing. The first thing is that he had pictures or posters of reform headquarters, prominent figures on his wall in his house, which is very strange behavior. His neighbors said that he was very withdrawn. He was, you know, very kind of skittish and standoffish and

antisocial. An in-cell, some might say. Perhaps, yeah. And then secondarily, the information about him that is suspected is that it appears that he was on the roles and or a donor of your party, which is this upstart far-left party in the United Kingdom, which was started by a literal Islamist and Jeremy Corbyn, who was by proxy and Islamist. So he was part of not quite Antifa-level leftism, but certainly past DSA leftism, I think would be fair to say. That is sort of what's suspected he was a part of just based off of what people have been able to dig up. Again, this will all come out in the trial because the government there has just kept a lid on everything.

I think that this is why people believe that there's like a worldwide conspiracy through media, like there's an agenda through media, is because it almost seems like no matter what country it is, if it's a Western country and the media's reporting on it, there's always going to be a bias one way. And I mean, you can look at the stories that we covered tonight, right, was ICE officer, you know, shoots protester, and they're always upfront about it and they're making links that aren't necessarily. there, but they want to paint it in this particular way. But then you have a very prominent figure in Britain be brutally murdered in her own house. And it's the way it's laid out from the media is, it's not obvious that they, I mean,

it's obvious that they're trying to defend it as opposed to just lay it out there. Yeah, they want every reasonable doubt to be given immediately and for the duration until it's reluctance. I mean, that would be the word you would use here, is they understand. the BBC understands they have to report this. One, because they knew, they all knew her. And I know people personally that were friendly with her that knew her personally. And they've all said she's the most lovely friendly woman in the world.

And one of them said, and I'm not just saying that because she's in the news. Like I would have told you that a week ago. She's one of the friendliest lovely. So all these people in the media know her. They probably have a relationship with her. So the fact that they understand they have to report it, but what you're hitting on is the reluctance to actually disclose what actually went down because it would be so politically inconvenient for them.

Remember when the photo came out of Trump and Butler and they were like, Trump fell over on stage? Yeah. Yeah. Firecrackers won over. Yeah. That's what it's reluctance where again if if and I mean it's the most moot point in the world where I mean it's almost like cliche at this point. But it's true is that again if a situation like this happened. I mean, think about the Paul Pelosi thing and this is what this guy actually did is what they described happened to Paul Pelosi is actually what happened.

And Whitacom. Neither here. It's wall to wall coverage. You know, they immediately have no. hesitation, this is clearly a political attack. And if heaven forbid there was ever a similar Charlie Kirk style thing that would happen. And again, heaven for it, I really genuinely don't want that. That would be terrible. And everyone would condemn it as they should. And the left wing media would make sure you never hear the end of it. They would run on it. I mean, Joe Biden ran on Charlottesville.

I mean, that just tells you all I need to know. If they can get their hands on any politically convenient situation like this, they run it into the ground where it happens to the right all the time. And that's my biggest black pill. Whenever we talk about this stuff, I'm like, it won't matter because they'll report on it, like you say, reluctantly. And then eventually it'll get buried and they'll stop covering it in a day or two. And it disappears from the news cycle. And as soon as it disappears from the cultural discussion, it's out of the minds of the people that you could actually sway the opinions of, the ones who haven't been radicalized to either side yet. They're the ones who need to see the evidence of violence coming from other people because they need to be awoken to the idea that this is happening.

And you can run from it. You can pretend like it's not. Or in a lot of ways, you can just bury your head in the sand because you're not watching. Because a lot of people aren't, right? They go to work. Yeah. They raise their kids. They're taking care of their family.

They've got a lot going on. Maybe they pay attention to the news a little bit more during the presidential cycle. Maybe not. Most of the time, probably not. And they know that the most nefarious way of preventing people from learning about the stuff isn't by covering it even in the most salacious of ways or trying to bend the narrative. It's just simply not covering it after. the initial story.

To Tate's point, like the slow drip really takes the edge off of it, right? To drip, to put out a little bit of information about it, then a little bit, because then that also gives them cover.

They can say when it actually gets to trial, well, we talked about it. We have this. And then if you end up getting into an argument, they'll pull up the different stories that came out over the course of six months as, you know, from when the event actually happened,

to when the person was arrested, to when the trial started. And it's, but it's not something, it's not, It's not distributed the way that if it was politically convenient for them, would have been. And the right in Britain is not hesitant to demonstrate at all when there is a situation like this. We've seen this countless times whenever there's a high profile incident like this, like the Henry Novak stabbing a few months ago, the demonstrations immediately. So the right in the United Kingdom does have a unique ability compared to the United States to mobilize quickly to demonstrate, et cetera.

It takes a lot for conservatives the United States to actually demonstrate in large numbers. for, and that's like a whole other conversation. Well, they're like a state. Right. Well, yeah, so it's like a whole different conversation. But I guess the question is here with what you're saying, your black pill does, what's happening here? Is there currently straws accumulating on a camel's back right now when you have

Henry Novak stabbing? I mean, you know, we could go through all the situations that have happened in the kingdom. Are there currently straws amassing on the camel's back? Or is the camel standing in the wind right now? And every time a straw falls on his back, it gets blown away immediately. That would be the kind of the imperative question. Are these kind of things, is there a ledger in the heads of British Patriots right now saying, okay, like, this is getting to the point where enough is enough? Or to your point, is everything moving so quickly, are people to kind of, I don't want to say self-absorbed necessarily as a derogative?

It's just kind of the reality of the world we live in, that they kind of just forget how angry they were in that moment. I mean, after the Henry Novak stabbing, everyone was really angry in the United States, after the Charlie Kirk assassination, after the arena's Rootska murder. Everyone was really angry. Do people still possess that same level of anger? Maybe some people say they do, but I really do. don't know. I really don't know. And so that's kind of the question. I think this is actually leading to the radicalization. I almost feel like news stories like this, in the way that the media's run in general, is to appease boomers. Yeah. And like once the boomers are gone, it's, I mean, the radicalization, not just in America, but just in the West in general, it's going to get exponentially worse rapidly because most millennials that I know would be able to just look at a story like this and go,

oh yeah, they're definitely covering it up. Like they're able to identify that at least. But a lot of this, what they're doing, it's almost like they're just buying time. Yeah. Because everybody knows that the radicalization is coming. And at least I feel like young people do. Well, it's like when you have a jury trial and they try and like the person is guilty, but the defense is to push it out as long as you possibly can, push the trial date back, hope people forget about what happened. So when they pick a jury selection, people have no idea and don't care as much. There's not this outrage surrounding the case anymore. Yeah, and I think we're selections, they're supposed to not know before they go in. Yeah, probably the wrong choice.

They do this as far as the media goes. And I think one thing that we're seeing here we've seen in the United States is we're seeing where democracy's strength is. And so far as it doesn't matter how radical the population gets, right? Like I would say the median Republican is, and I'm not saying they're necessarily misguided here, is convinced that there's pedophiles running the government, that there's a satanic cabal, they're covering up UFOs, that everything is trying to kill them at all times. The left believes even like far crazier things than that. I mean, they believe that like literally every police officer is killing 10,000 black people a day or whatever. So everyone in the country is very radicalized. Everyone is thinking that everything's trying to kill them at all times,

but nothing really tangentially changes besides electing slightly more radical figures. In the case of Donald Trump, I would say he's the most decisive figure that's ever been elected. But we're seeing democracy's strength of containing revolution. And the question is, I guess what I'm trying to get at is it doesn't really matter how radicalize boomers get, or even at this point, Gen Xers get because the fighting is going to be done by young people. If there's a revolution, it's going to be done by young people. And young people in the system that we've created right now are the least able to actually conduct themselves in this revolution because they already feel under the gun anyway. They're not going to risk

sticking their head out of the of the foxhole and getting shot. Weirdly. Oh, go ahead. Well, I'm just going to say, so basically, if we go back to my original analogy about the wolf and the domesticated dogs is that we're, even if you are that wolf, you're still in a dog park in the city. Exactly. Like, there's, there's not much, you'll just be the outsider and you'll be, you'll be cast out. And it's like, you know, there's. Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to get it. And I, and I, I think it's a perfect analogy. And what I'm trying to get at is actually, no, you kind of do have to vote your way out of this. It's like what no one, it's almost like taking the toy away from the child because people

will get online and they'll larp all day. I'm going to have enough. I'm going to go out and do something about it. Really? Because COVID happened and like all these terrible things are happening. And everyone's just kind of getting used to it. The boiling frog analogy perfectly applies here. The reality is, we got to live in reality here.

If we're like serious about impacting politics and Donald Trump understands this perfectly, is you kind of just have to vote your way out of it. And it's not sexy. It doesn't sell on YouTube. But that's how political change has happened thus far. We haven't had any serious revolutions in this country in a very long time. Donald Trump has been seemingly the first person that's at least shaking things up. Social media ends up taking the edge off.

It's the dopamine hit they get from talking about all of the revolution that they want to start. Yeah, it siphons off that energy. It's like when you talk about you want to do something so much, it kind of destroys your will to want to do it because you keep trying to talk. You keep talking about it and not actually doing it. Well, that's the thing is, like, the human being, when they talk about something, they get the same dopamine hit that they get when they do something, which is part of the reason why, like, when you hear people that are saying they want to make a change in their life, whatever, stop talking about it. Don't tell people. Don't talk about it. Go do something that actually moves you towards the goal that you have.

Right? Like people that want to quit smoking and I used to be one of them like, man, I got to quit. I want to quit. Man, I want to quit. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If you really want to quit, you just put cigarettes down and you stop smoking. That's exactly how you quit. I got to quit drinking.

I got to quit drinking. Well, then don't drink that drink. Well, I meet these people in D.C. and other power vectors around the world or power centers around the world. And like the most influential people you've never heard. And this is like, I mean, it's a trope. But it's true is that the most influential people you've never heard of. They don't really have much of a social media presence or like their posting is pretty

unimpressive, I suppose. But they wield an incredible amount of influence. And it's not always because they're well. A lot of people are just really effective, shrewd, backroom kind of people. And the reality is those are the people that are going to impose their well in society because they're not online larping all day. They're just slowly inching the football down. Like watch a game of rugby.

It's not, you know, they're not scoring every single time. It's just slowly advancing back and forth. They're like football. You know, it's not a touchdown in every single play. It's just slowly advancing the ball up to field a few yards at a time. Instead of attempting a Hail Mary every single play, you're going to get picked off and lose the game. To your point, that's something that I, tend to talk to or tend to relate to callers a lot, right?

Callers come in with this, this fire and all this vim and vinegar and they're, they're like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And there's nothing in blah, blah, blah. I don't want to vote for Republicans because they, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, well, did you, you know, did you work to vote in, did you work to get someone that you liked elected in the primaries? Yeah. And then it's like, they're deflated because they have all this energy and they're

because they read something today or the national elections coming up, soon and they realized it but like the time to actually exercise the little amount of political power you have was a year and a half ago or a year ago when you were when you should have been out there knocking on doors for the guy that's primaring the guy that you hate yeah you know literally and to like you said this is going to be decided by voting it has to you have to vote your way out of it and so get involved in the political process and again to your point it's not sexy It's not pretty, but Scott Pressler made real tangible changes in Pennsylvania. One guy who moved to Pennsylvania and registered thousands and thousands of Republicans to vote,

and that actually makes a difference. Yeah, and we're seeing that democracy, you know, the system that's been sort of imposed on us in many ways in many ways is so flexible. Like it can get way worse than it is right now. Like this is a people think. Some people, they will acknowledge that. It's true when I'm calling up the larping that's going on. And they'll say, well, that's true. So we just have the wait for this all to collapse.

And then we'll emerge. And I'm like, dude, I've been to South Africa. That's a democracy. It's flawed, et cetera. But that country should have collapsed a really long time ago. And it still hasn't. I think the reality and it's unfortunate, but the situation we're in is that Fukuyama was on to something.

That liberal democracy really is kind of this albatross. It's an immovable force. So, okay, I could say, that. and like wait and it's like, okay, when this collapses, my ideology will rise from the ashes. There's eight other people at the table with vastly different views who are saying the same thing. You're going to go at it with all the, like, it's just, it's nonsensical. It's like, dude, you got to participate in like, what's viable now, what actual options do you have and then pick the most viable option that you have?

I think a lot of people have felt disenfranchised. I mean, in a way, I've kind of become one of those people because, I mean, 2020 kind of changed my view on the world. and I decided that I was going to start getting involved. Yeah. Because a lot of men that I respected and looked up to, bent the knee, took the jab, followed the mandates, and basically helped enforce it on others. And that scared me.

Yeah. And then, you know, I saw what Joe Biden was doing, started advocating for Donald Trump, and I believe that he was going to, you know, focus on the overstepping wannabe tyrants that, you know, overstep their bounds back in 2020 and are continuing to do so in places like Washington State right now. You know, like, we don't really have a voice in Washington State. Yeah. No significant Republican has won anything of significant since we switched to universal

mail-in ballots back in 2011. It's just been Democrats sweep after sweep, after sweep, after sweep. And I thought a lot more attention was going to be focused on, you know, the states and ensuring elections and things that nature. But instead, like, I go on social. for me, like, I see what's happening in my local charter, and it sucks because we're being outnumbered. And then I go online and I see, um, I'll talk about Middle East. Yeah. It's like, I, I don't care about the Middle East at all. I want to withdraw everything from that. I was told no more wars. But instead, you know, my work changed their rules because gas prices went up. So I had to buy a commuter car. And then I eventually left the job because of the, the ridiculous rules that

imposed on me. It's like the things that were happening in Donald Trump's first term, even though that he was, uh, you know, held back if you want to say, um, it seemed that it was going in the right direction. And this time around, it doesn't, at least from my point of view, it doesn't feel like that anymore. It feels like there's strongholds being built and, uh, Donald Trump, Donald Trump is preoccupied, uh, with wars in the Middle East. And it's like, And so the people that that have been out there, and, you know, I'm not saying I made a significant impact on the election in any way. But I mean, I advocated for Donald Trump. And I believed what he said. Yeah. You know, I really thought that there were going to be significant changes that this was our, this was our peaceful revolution that we were going to be able to have. Cut out the waste. And instead, what I'm getting is, you know, people that that are around me that have owned businesses their entire lives are now being taxed out of their, out of their dreams. home that they built with their own hands, you know, because of just the insane taxes being passed, you know, in Washington State. And then, you know, the price of fuel and that costs,

everything else goes up because of that. And it's like, who am I supposed to be advocating for? And the national politics, it's harder to get people. I mean, it's easier to get people to vote for, but it's harder to actually make any changes that are going to be significant. But the conclusion that I've come to is that you have to embody the values you wish to see in this world. Get married, stay married, have kids, and be involved in your school. Yeah. And your local charter. And I mean, it starts there.

And, you know, we have a lot of people online that always say, you know, like you're saying, they get all riled up. And then, you know, they're being incredibly promiscuous. And they're just, they're not, they're not dedicating their life to one woman and having kids and building a legacy with them. It's that American culture that we kind of long for. If we continue pretending to fight about national politics or like whether or not we shouldn't be in Iran right now, it's like all that stuff is literally just giving them more power and taking away your autonomy. We're becoming more domesticated the more we talk about these overseas wars.

I'm not in, you know, I don't know how to stop it. I don't know how to tell people, you know, that their focus needs to be here. And it's like you can't actually change what's going on over there. And I know that it's good to voice your opinion and things like that because it can help sway, you know, with the technology we have. It can help sway some things. But overall, you know, if you're not embodying the values that you wish to see in this world, then we will lose our country. Yeah, I mean, I think you're hitting on something that is really essential. It's not really discussed as much.

much, you know, people discuss this like topic at large, but like a specific thing you're hitting on is missteps from the Trump admin sting far more for people that live in blue states, for conservatives live in blue states. Because if you live in a blue state and you happen to love the state you live in, at least what it used to be, it feels a lot more existential, where if you're in a red state, you're like, oh, Trump screwed up, but like we're, we're good. Like, you know, this is all, like everything's generally run out or right around me. So I think for blue staters, missteps like, I think Iran was a terrible call, really does sting. I guess like, my, like on the other side of that argument, what I would contest is we're not going to really

get like a Napoleon in the current system that we have. Like to your point, we are kind of domesticated. Like the system has been set up in a way that it's very rigid. Like it isn't possible to really have these, you know, Russian Revolution moments or French Revolution moments kind of by intention. And so the difficult thing is, while yes, many people are extremely frustrated with President Trump to the point where they don't even want to, you know, vote for the Republican Party or that sort of thing. And it's like, I actually totally understand that impulse. I'm not one of these people that, like, completely dismisses that. I guess my issue is, like, what other show is there in town? Because, you know, Trump has gotten us to this point where I do think we're at least seeing

a slimmer of victory now where it's like, okay, I could still see how we could win, where I think people forget what it was like during Biden and people really forget what it was like under Obama where it felt like Hillary Clinton was going to win and then it was like raps. Like people were like arranging second passports. Like things were getting crazy. Same thing in the Biden, the Biden winner, when I was like, Trump, I didn't think he was going to come back. You know, we were just going to get stuck with like a neocon or something on the Republican ticket. And again, it would just be kind of game over, especially during COVID. So I'm like, I share the same frustrations with Trump, especially in Iran.

I mean, I think Iran's particularly enraging and just a completely unforest blunder. But I guess what I'm saying is I think he's still our most viable political vehicle for our ideas. And so far as, again, I don't think there's any other shows in town. And I do think the things that the Trump administration has done right are very decisive insofar as breaking up USAID, you know, the increase in immigrant. We want to see four more deportations, obviously, but at least that we're getting them funding and getting the supplies and setting the foundation, the infrastructure that would be needed for mass deportations. I mean, breaking up DEI, like a slew of policies the Trump administration has introduced. It's just, it's not sexy. Like it's not Napoleon.

Very hard to get people to continue to talk about the wins when people want to focus more on the things that are going wrong. Well, and but to steal man, like what people that are really frustrated with Trump are saying is they were expecting a Caesar and what they're getting is, you know, a really good Republican. So, you know, I understand why people are really fresh. And especially if you live in a blue state because it's like, dude, it's like we kind of ran out of time already. Like I came from New York. Like New York, they actually kind of ran out of time like 10 years ago. So the existentialness really ramps up if you live in a blue state. Well, and not just that.

Like thinking about my children's future. Mm-hmm. 2016 is when Trump entered office and the national debt was let's see January of 2017 it was maybe 19 trillion dollars yeah and now we're almost at 40 trillion yeah and Trump has been in office for five and a half out of those 10 years yeah so the majority of the time he's been in office and what I see is that regardless of of what I feel is a win right now we're still robbing wealth from our children. Yeah.

And there's no way around it. And I don't know how to, I don't know how to correct that as of yet. But I mean, yeah, we do get some wins here and there. But those wins are coming at the expense of the wealth of our children. Well, the national debt is an interesting one because, you know, the only ways to fix the national debt situation, I totally agree. The only solutions for the national debt, I should say, are completely politically unviable because over half of our spending is, you know, Medicare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

You even threaten to touch Social Security. You're done. Politically, you're done. It's a bokeyman even if you don't say it. Exactly. Dude, like Democrats will literally hit Republicans over the head with this all the time because they understand that the elderly, in many ways are one-issue voters, a lot of them, they will claim they weren't, but they are, is that as soon as they come after, you know, your Social Security or your Medicaid, whatever, you name it, they get really animated. So like the ultimate way to really chip away our debt is we shouldn't be spending half of our budget on this. This is insane. The military

budget, I think, could be shrunk a little bit, but I would say back down to like $800 billion, which is still a good amount of spending. But as far as like what's taking, you know, what is continuing this debt cycle? What is causing us to spend more than we're taking in? It is these massive welfare systems that we have. And

people will hit on like low income welfare. And it's like that's a problem. But the main problem because no one wants to talk about it is social security, is Medicare. And to your point, Like it's a political non-starter because the most reliable voting block in the United States is elderly people as old people. And they're the ones that have, you know, they'll swear up and down, oh, well, I paid into this and I get this money because this is my money that I'm getting back. When the average person gets like something like, you know, 10 times the amount of money that they ever put in from Social Security. And so the idea that, I mean, that's why I think that so many people on both the left and the right,

like they've stopped thinking about fiscal responsibility because it's just something that you hear politicians talk about to get to get you to vote right even Donald Trump I feel like that was something he must be even pushing like in his first term talked about balancing the budget I mean every president says that but they can't they're that's politically it's so but the point that I'm making is is even on the right now you've got people that are like you know they're like they think well we shouldn't have social programs for immigrants, but we should definitely have social programs for Americans or do something for Americans. And it stopped being a situation where there's economically conservative people in America. Like you've got a lot of people that are on the right that say, well, there should be programs for Americans because Americans are hurting. And it's true Americans, you know, there are people out there that are, you know, low income that are that have been in the country, that have had families that have been in the country for generations. But there's no longer an appetite to vote for people that say,

oh, we've got to do something about the budget. We've got to do something about the spending. It is a, it is political kryptonite. And in 23, I think it is. That's when it goes insolvent, so to speak, which just means they're going to start funding it through other sources. Yeah.

It'll be taxpayers. Yeah, it's going to be taxes. Everyone's taxes are going to go up by 5 to 10% and to manage that bill. And the system that we're living in is so unbelievably indefensible. And so far as we're transferring wealth from the young, from the capable to the old incapable. From the broke to the rich too.

Completely. Well, yeah, to some degree, yeah. And so it's just completely indefensible. And this is what we touched on at pre-show is one of the most, you know, controversial subjects in concerted media right now. Is this why I see property tax, the idea of property tax abolition really is just another form of wealth transfer from the young to the old. And the way I would sort of lay this out is if you're not elderly and you're paying property taxes and you're advocating for the abolition of property taxes, I understand that. What I'm hitting on here is the main beneficiary. areas of property tax abolition will be the elderly.

Like there's no doubt about it. It will be the elderly because it's the last tax that they really have to pay. The big beautiful bill really cut down social security taxes. So the last real tax that they have to pay is property tax. And what's going to happen when you abolish property taxes? Are these, as we've hit on, the government's incapable of balancing a budget, if they cut property taxes, do you think all these governments, these local governments, the state government's going to be like, oh, we got rid of this revenue source.

Let's trim everything on. Let's use austerity measures. No, what's going to end up happening is they're going to, pass a cocktail, you know, a slew of taxes, which will directly hit working-age adults, which will directly hit the young. And this is what we're seeing. You know, we saw in Hillsborough County, which is the Tampa Bay, you know, Tampa Bay, they released a document sort of saying, here's what we're going to do, because Florida is looking like they're going to abolish property tax. 88% of property taxes in Hillsborough County fund the Sheriff's Department, fund the fire department,

fund the schools, and fund the electoral office, which I think we would all agree are four offices that to varying degrees we support, at least we want to see in our communities. 88% of the taxes. So Hillsborough County is saying, okay, well, how do we fund this? Should we practice austerity? Should we cut funding for schools? Or should we maybe lean up the fire department or something or maybe cut some of these other programs, like maybe these like buses?

No, they introduce new taxes. And those taxes, there's a tax on parks. So now if you want to go to a park in Hillsborough County, you're going to be charged a separate tax to fund those parks. You're going to pay, you're going to have a higher sales tax. And what's going to end up happening is when someone goes to purchase a home, they're going to have all the lost property tax revenue front-loaded on the initial purchase of your home. So you're still going to be paying for young people that are trying to enter the housing market. Your closing costs just went up 20%, 30%, because the county can no longer depend on you for property tax revenue.

So they got to get it from somewhere. I guess what I'm trying to say is the money's got to come from somewhere. And so what's going to happen is this going to be another wealth transfer from the young primarily to the old. Yeah. All right. We're going to jump to this last story. From Time magazine, community backlash to AI data centers is growing across the U.S. When Laura Beth moved to Couta County, Georgia in 2023, she was drawn to her new home's rural location.

It was far from any major roads or highways and had a sprawling open land behind it. Our last home, the surrounding area, was becoming very overdeveloped. We had a distribution center, less than a mile from our house. And it was just kind of this urban encroachment, she said. We knew about the land behind us and thought the worst thing it could be was a subject. division because who in their right mind would want to build anything out here then at the start of twenty twenty five she saw an article announcing that a new data center would be coming to her hometown as she read it a realization dawned on her a hyper-scale data center spanning more than four point nine

million square feet had been proposed and was expected to run right through her backyard i didn't know who to reach out to who to talk to give me some help or more information she says so she decided to start a facebook facebook group called stop project sale to connect with her neighborhood and with her neighbors and discuss the proposed plan more than 8,000 people have now joined the group and have been organizing petition signing installing yard signs and mounting a legal fight against catoa county and atlas development the company behind the project there are a lot of people that are very very afraid of data centers so i understand if you've got a if you've got a data center going up like right in your or you know your your suburban neighborhood that can be off putting but overall the fear that i hear from

people about data centers. They're like, oh, they're, they're going to take up all the water and they're going to, they're going to charge your electricity costs are going to go up. And if you do some research with an open mind, because a lot of people that are against data centers are against data centers on an emotional level, right? They're like, oh, AI is bad and these data centers are bad. And so you can't convince them. They're not going to be convinced. But if you do some research with an open mind, the idea that data centers, use of water is just totally wrong. Like it's it's a closed system usually.

So there's no extra water. The idea that a data center is that people have this conception of data centers as if they're just dumping you know chemical water into the into the the local river or whatever. And that's just not the case. The same thing with with power like power power that data centers use. Generally they you don't see a massive increase in your your municipal. power cost or whatever.

So, where are you going to say something? No, I see, where does the misnomer come from? Where does the misconception come from about the water? Because that's the number one argument that I hear against it. I'm not sure where people got the idea that they use, you know, they contaminate the water, but the way that people kind of articulate it when I hear people. I thought it wasn't just contaminated. Like, they use a lot of fresh.

The argument is that like it increases your water bill, basically. Yeah, and that doesn't happen either. It just doesn't happen. Right. And when you say use water. It's as if like they take the water and then it goes away and nobody gets it ever again like it just it it's almost like the you know breaking up the the chemical composition What were the stories that were coming out was they're like they thought the the poison lettuce was because All the fresh waters going to the data centers and yeah they were using

Suid people like makes the water really hot like heats up the water that it uses but when you heat up water just turns to steam and then goes into the you know it evaporates and water doesn't like disappear that's that's that's the thing It just breaks down. You know, the idea that people have that, like, oh, the water is going to get used up and we're not going to have any water to drink. It's like, that's not how, like, how it works. Like water that gets heated, you know, boils and gets evaporated. Yeah, I understand, like, the opposition of data centers and, like, suburbs. Like, I live in Northern Virginia and there's data centers everywhere. And I think they're horrific.

They do make noise. There's people that are data centered proponents and they're like, what do you? That's the airport. I'm like, dude, no, like I live by, I drive by them and I can hear them. Like, they're annoying, they're loud. And I do think the main attack vector on data centers that I'm sympathetic to is the idea that they're overbuilding them. And so far as we're actually, we're building far more than the actual like need is for them right now. I think that's probably true. You're seeing tech companies, because they have to publish their, you know, their quarterly earnings and there's an

entire balance sheet. Companies like alphabet, companies like meta, dude, they're draining their coffers on these data centers. So they're really making a big bet on data centers. And I think that might be a mistake because if it is true what a lot of economists suspect that there is going to be an AI bubble that pops inevitably, then we're going to have a lot of unused data centers. And that's going to be a big problem. But insofar as the opposition to the data center in and of itself, again, I kind of understand, but it's one of those things where I think if you kind of maybe kind of read into it and have a, you know, be a bit open to maybe the idea that these could be potentially beneficial. You would be a bit surprised insofar as, I think, the main thing about them that I think is interesting is that they provide a massive revenue injection to counties that desperately need them.

I mean, it was in Washington. I was reading an article at Washington. Quincy County, I think, or Quincy was in a county. I think Grant County was the name of the county. And it's a very rural county, a very impoverished county. Microsoft in like 06 built a data center there. and it massively boosted the revenue for the county. They were able to get a much-needed source of revenue

because most people were moving out of the county and businesses were moving out and that sort of thing. And the assessed land value of the homes went up like 1,200 percent, like an insane amount because, A, the data center, even though it doesn't generate as many jobs as people think it might, it does attract very high-paying jobs, and those people demand more luxury amenities from their homes and that sort of thing.

And in addition to that, the county was able to now use the generated income to put it back into the infrastructure, put it back into schools, police, et cetera. Do you think that there's a bubble that's going to burst? Personally, I don't. Yeah, I mean, I kind of go back and forth because I think the use case for AI is overstated. Like, I think the DOOMers and also the optimists are both overstating the long-term trajectory of AI.

I think the ceiling is kind of coming into view of what it's capable of. And it's not the LLMs that we should be worried about. It's just like, it's actual ability to process data at volume. I think that is ultimately what we're seeing the ceiling for. And that means that it's going to, again, progress technology and sort of, you know, in many ways change our world. But I don't know if it's going to be this dynamic, you know, this paradigm change or like people say it's going to be.

But I also don't think that it's necessarily overvalued insofar as the ability to process large amounts of data very quickly worth its weight in gold. There's data management companies you never heard of that are making a killing because they are able to produce like Salesforce. Oh, Salesforce. You know, who's heard of Salesforce until like three years ago? They're one of the biggest companies in America. What do they do?

They'd like literally make spreadsheets basically. It's a micromanagement system. Yeah, but it's data management and data management, CRMs, et cetera. Those are worth their weight in gold. So I do think the value of these AI companies might be there, but insofar as the use case for AI, if people are putting money into the, into the, into AI, expecting it to really become this like, you know, all-encompassing paradigm changing technology. that's where the bubble may burst.

That's where people, that's where they think the value is going to be. That's where they might just sell out and dump their shares. I think that when it comes to practical usage for AI, I think that it's probably smart enough now for the average user. Like, Siri was a massive disappointment for people. Yeah, series sucked. It was always, Siri's going to do this. Series is going to do that.

I think that now, agentic AI in phones, I think the next generation of iPhone with the, with the incorporation of chat GPT inside of it. It's going to make you able to tell your phone to do things and it'll actually do it. Right? Because you can do that now with with Claude or what have you. Type, type in something, Claude, do this for me or whatever. And it'll do it.

And it actually is functional. And there are programs where you can have, if you give the AI access to your computer, to your desktop, it can open up, you know, open up browsers, go to websites, do things, book stuff for you. you give it a credit card, it can go ahead and pay for things for you, you can do all that stuff. And that's going to be, I think the reason why people haven't adopted it, they say that AI has jagged edges, right? If you look at the things that AI is capable of and how much people are actually using it,

I think the missing thing is the killer app, quote unquote, right? Like, so everyone that has a phone, when you can have a phone and just say, do this, and it does it, and your grandmother can do that, right? Your boomer grandmother can say, you can say, oh, granny, you can just say, blah, blah, blah, do this. And it does it. I think that that's when people are going to realize, oh, wow, AI actually is capable. It can do all these things. And it does make my life easier.

And then as for the ability to, you know, have AI in like robots, you see a lot of people talking about robots and a lot of companies are building robots and stuff. Once the AI is able to, you know, navigate the real world. Because right now, you know, everyone knows I got a Tesla and it does the full self-driving thing. And if I'm like very rarely do I drive anymore, I just get in, I type in the address and it does it all for me. So if a car can do that, which is a limited number of inputs, right? You can go forward, backward, right, left. You have to worry about cars. That's a lot of variables.

But that's not the same as being able to function in the real world, right? There's almost an unlimited number. So once you get an AI and a robot that can actually walk around the real world, and doesn't fall over all the time. It doesn't ruin your clothes when it's doing your laundry or whatever. And I honestly think that we're probably a year or two away from that where they can function in society, maybe two years. Once that happens.

And I've made this prediction on the show before. You're going to see robots that are going to be, you know, $30,000 and it's going to be a six-year loan or five-year loan. And it's going to be at 7, 8, 9 percent for the loan, just like a car and people are going to say do I want to get a second car to go and take me to my job or what have you or do I want to get a robot that can do a bunch of things around the house and save me time and I think that people are really going to start you know getting into that I think young people get it for it will be first but you'll see a lot of people getting into that and then as time progresses a little bit you'll see a lot of millennials getting end up when they get old they'll get you know assisted care by robots because there's a lot of millennials that don't have

kids. These things, I think, are well within the realistic scope of what AI capable robots are going to be able to do. So I don't think that it's a bubble. I think there's some bottlenecks, you know, but I don't think that that it's actually a bubble. I think that the ability to process information and intelligence is the most valuable thing human beings have ever discovered. I think that information, that the ability to, well, actually, intelligence is the most valuable thing on the planet. Yeah. Right.

And if you can artificially produce intelligence that makes people's lives easier, then I think that there is basically an unlimited desire for that. I can tell that you might have a different perspective. Well, so, like, when you bring this stuff up, the, the problems that I foresee isn't the fact that we're going to have data centers and we're going to have to worry about water. I don't foresee that as being the problem. The problem's going to be convincing people that real life, well, okay, there's two separate things. Convincing people that real life is better for you and your family long term than the virtual life that you can build, that's going to be really difficult.

because the tempt having trying to convince people to resist the temptations of AI is going to be nearly impossible and then two uh when you say when you just tell your phone you know I had a pipe burst in my house and I need a plumber hire me the best plumber for the most reasonable rate that's a selection and that to me reads credit score like social credit score that you're going to be auto-selected out if you're a controversial person by these AI groups or this kind of AI is that you are going to be, and it's in a way, it's this way now with how we use algorithms. You can have a phenomenal podcast and, you know, nobody hears it. you can have great thoughts and nobody will hear it because, you know, it's, it's very, very difficult to break through that.

Once it gets complete control of almost every industry, you're going to have businesses that thrive that are selected to thrive. I understand the concern, but I think that we're seeing the, we're seeing the solution kind of, it's there if you look, right? So people complain about GROC or they'll complain about chat GBT or they'll complain about Claude. Specifically, you hear a lot of people that talk about like chat GPT and Claude and they're like, oh, well, they're woke. They give you certain, they give you pre-recorded answers or they only give you answers that are politically correct.

And I think the answer to what your or the solution to what your concern is is multiple different competing AIs, right? So you go to GROC and you don't really get the same. same kind of woke answers that you do. And also, there are different ways to set up an AI agent. So any AI that you want to use to do things, that's an agent, right? That's, it's agentic. I have an AI, the agent that, you know, I told it about myself and I told it about the things that I expect from it.

And it, it does the things that I ask. Like, I ask if I, the other night we were talking about the, the represented from Delaware, the trans woman. What's his, what's the, oh, I forgot. Sarah McBride. Sarah McBride is the, is the, and I said, is Sarah McBride a man? And the answer was biologically male, born a male, trans female. So it was accurate.

And it wasn't like, no, Sarah McBride's a woman because you have to accept her worldview or whatever. So the ability to have an AI that doesn't do things like you said, like, oh, you know, worry about social credit scores. That is being hashed out right now. And that's one of the things that, you know, whether or not you're a fan of Elon Musk, that's one of the things that Grock, he's trying to make sure that Grock doesn't do. And, you know, the people that work in Anthropic, right, they're all very, very left-leaning, very, very woke. And Claude is a reflection of that. kind of thing with with chat gpt but if you go to if you go with the chinese open models right like kmi k it's not the same kind of thing so it depends on which a i you go with and you're going to have a

choice you're going to have you're going to say i want this in my i want that in my aia and that's only going to become more as people demand more because one of the things that markets have always done is offered people selection and the more options you have the less you have the less you're you're going to be, you know, be a pigeonholed into one specific thing. So I understand what you're saying because the possibility is there. I mean, that's kind of what that's what goes on in China. Like the AI models that China gets are not the same ones that they put out to the rest of the world. You know, that is what happens in China.

But as long as there's a market where you have competing AIs, there's going to be people that are going to say, hey, I don't want this from an AI. I want an AI that does this, does that. Well, I think, you did make it, you made a really interesting point. which was I don't know if people will be able to resist. And I think we kind of touched on earlier with some of previous conversations that seemingly people cannot resist the urge to smooth out their life in so far as to remove potential obstacles or friction, right, friction.

And I think what you're hitting on is really important there because that would be maybe my one fear with AI because while anecdotally I have seen Zoomers specifically almost like I'm a very, I'm a tech optimist, but the way I actually, my relationship with technology is almost very like Luddite. Like my phone's really one of the only technologies I have in my home. I like I prefer my car to have no gizmos or gadgets whatsoever. But I don't know how many, I don't know if that's going to be,

because I know anecdotally a lot of other people that are ditching their smartphones for dumb phones and that sort of thing. I'm wondering what you think. Do you think there would be a potential reversion? Like do you think maybe even Gen Alpha might just say, hang on, let's just go back? Or do you think it's kind of inevitable that people just adopt these technologies en masse? I kind of hope that there's going to be a separate economy

for people that don't necessarily want to live in that robot world. Yeah. You know, like the divide between city and rural right now. Like, there's so many jobs out there that as of now, I can't envision a robot doing anywhere in the near future. Especially at the fingers and... Yeah, and not only that, going out, assessing, you know, a property. Like, a lot of the AI stuff works really well in,

in the city, you know, at distribution warehouses, things that nature. But like, the job that I had for many years was, like, roadside repair for, for blowouts and tires. And, and, uh, it's, it's a unique job that, that I don't understand how, uh, and maybe I'm just ignorant, but I don't understand how a robot would be capable of doing, you know, a quarter of the jobs even that, that I had. And so, um, it's almost like we're going to have to have separate societies in a way. Because there's, there's just going to be the technology people that live in the cities. And then there's going to be the rural people. And hopefully that will, the rural people are going to be able to preserve the American spirit. Because a lot of this stuff with the AI technology and having it be

capable of doing everything for you has, I mean, that idea has bred, you know, planned obsolescence. into almost everything and replacing instead of repairing and maintaining something, which the American spirit was supposed to be, you know, you, you know, like you, I guess the refrigerator's the best, you know, example that I can give is that they used to make them to where it was where you could repair. Yeah. And then it would last 50 years. Now you buy a $3,500 dollar refrigerator and the water stops working in a year. And then, you know, in two years, the seal breaks and and your warranties out right before that yeah and and then it's more expensive to repair it than it is to replace it it's it's insane because they have to have their tech guy come out

and fix it and and so like I don't want to live in that world yeah that's a great point like and I'm not I'm not sure what I would want to give like I'm not sure how much I have to give up but I'm willing to do it if I if I can have that separate society that's a good we're gonna go to super chat so smash the like button share the show with your friends tell everybody you know head on over to timcast.com, join our Discord, and head on over to rumble.com, become a member so you can watch the after show, which is coming in just a few minutes. But right now, we're going to read your super chats. Let's see. Hitman Zarelli says rogue AI degenerate culture, war zone cities, L.A., Chicago, Seattle, New York, cyber enhanced people in the future. I think cyberpunk 2077 is our future. I mean, that's what we're just kind of touching on. But I'm not as blackpilled as. as a lot of people are. I think that,

uh, I do think that your point about, you know, there are some jobs that robots aren't going to do for, be able to do for a while. I mean, right now, there aren't really any jobs that humanoid robots can do, right?

Like, they're still in development. No, there's the teacher that they're going to, that they're introducing to the school on the reservation. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So, okay, so they're, they're just starting now. Um, but, you know, I,

I think that eventually, you're going to have robots as assistance out on the job to go change tires or to go help you know get people out of a ditch or whatever um and and whether or not they completely replace people in every job i don't think that that's probably going to happen but i do think that there's going to be a lot of people that are going to have they'll go and and go to a job and and they'll be a human being with the hands almost solved there's so much there's so many jobs that require such unique dexterity that it feels like that's almost that's almost there was there was just a hand that came out last week that i saw videos for

and they're like screwing in light bulbs. It's got the, like the human hand has 27 degrees of mobility, and I think this had like 25. So it's something, all of those problems, all the things that we think robots aren't dexterous enough, robots can't do this, robots can't do that. I think that all of those are solvable problems. Elon Musk likes to say the only no is physics, right?

So if human beings can do it, you can figure out how to get a robot to do it. Are they sending teachers in a reservation? There is a school Did you see the This article? Yeah, there's a school that has a pilot program

where Rehobotics has basically their alternative version of a sex doll that has been made into a teacher and it's a closed system kids can't access the internet And it's on reservation It's on like a specific school And they got the native patriot

Here is the perfect guy to ask? Why did they have to make it a sex doll? Well, they I don't know what reservation it's on. I can't remember, but I did see that. And it's a way to replace women. Oh, man. It really is.

I mean, it's not taking the teaching job, but it's like going to tag you. The wife is supposed to be the mother. The wife is supposed to teach, nurture, and help raise the children. And now we're not just going to have the state do it. We're going to have AI do it. I saw Waymo crash. They're replacing women. Yeah.

It's the same. It's the same. doll they use only it's with a different system on the inside it's very right but why did they have to well like thrust m thrust mct punch thrust mctrum punch says he did just have claw disprove the jacobin conjecture and advance the field of mathematics definitely seems like there's potential in a i people will say that that i isn't capable of creative thought because it's it's only uh it learns from the internet so it can only do things that human beings have have done. And so that's kind of where

breakthroughs happen is like in human beings because they can think creatively. But I don't think that that's actually the case. Babies don't really think creatively. You know? And AI is in its baby stage right now. Yeah. So there will be a point where it flips. Yeah. But wouldn't solving a math formula mean that it because no one's denying it's just math. Yeah, no one's denying it. No, no computing capabilities. We're just denying its ability to have like the Amago Day.

No, but that's that's the thing that the, the particular like the, the, the, the, the Jacobin conjuncture, it's an advancement. It's one of those those kind of math problems that human beings haven't been able to solve yet. But that's like no one's no one's completed chess, but that would be a computing issue, not a creative issue. I don't know enough about mathematics to be able to answer your question properly, to be honest with you. I'm still firmly, I'm firm that I've seen the ceiling of AI. Force name change says, I'm an agnostic theist. I believe in God, but I recognize that there's no way to prove he exists.

God wants it this way, knowing ends faith, your face will be tested, not your knowledge. I mean, that's fair enough, you know. Well, I mean, I think that's one of the more common rebuttals to Christianity is, well, why would God, you know, it's like the, what's it the watchmaker? Like, you know, you make the watch and just let it go and let it cook. But, I mean, I don't know. I think because of the, we're kind of out of time, but because of the fact that humans do possess this, like, desire for spirituality, that possess this desire to understand, where we came from. That's one of the fundamental questions of humanity is why are we here? I think that that is evidence that there is a God that is seeking to know us and vice versa.

Because if we possess that, it's likely that our maker also possesses that. Because Chad GBT couldn't really care less. It's not sitting around reading history books, trying to figure out where it came from. It's just here to answer questions because it's a computer. But human beings seem to possess this desire for a mutual relationship with God. And then I think that I'm pretty firm on. And then now you come to the question of, okay, what is that God, who is that God? And I believe it was Christ. And I do believe he was resurrected, which provides the evidence that he was God manifest. All right, guys. Head on over to Rumble. We're going to do the Rumble after show in just a second.

Native Patriot. Thank you for joining us. Where can people find you? You can find me at Law Native Patriot on X. Shout out to my wife, Lady Patriot. I know she's watching. So I appreciate that. And the co-created the Patriots Prer Network, Eddie at the Patriots Pray on X, other than that, you can find me on YouTube on the Can't Be Bought podcast. Let's go. Guys, if you want to follow me, I'm on Instagram and on X at Brett Dasevik on both those platforms. But check out PCC.

We are live five days a week, Monday through Friday, 3 p.m. Eastern, noon Pacific. Phil will be on tomorrow. And then on Friday, we've got a special three-hour episode, 2 to 5 p.m. We celebrate every 100 episodes. You have to always take advantage of life and appreciate it while it's going on. we celebrate that so I hope you guys will come and join us over there thank you so much for having me yeah you can follow me on x and instagram at real tape brown and also shout out to lady patriot we love all patriots and this and no super chats about patriots entering the world usually we get a few we were kind of

limited on time i hope that i didn't miss one i'm sure there was some other patriots born and i'd shout out to them as well it's my fault i didn't look closely enough we were kind of limited on time but i'm sure we may have had a few we definitely had enough the other night that we probably are good for a week Anyway, you can follow me at Carter Banks and at Carter Banks official Everywhere else. YouTube at Trash House Records. Some of my new song still up there. But yeah, let's get into the after show.

Thank you all for coming and let's continue the convo. All right. I am Phil it Remains on X and you can check out my Patreon at Philat Remain. You can check out the band at Apple Music, Amazon, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime and we will see you all in the Rumble after show.