Timcast IRL - IT HAS BEGUN, Subpoenas Filed Over GRAND CONSPIRACY Against Trump

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Rudyard Lynch and Kyla Turner to discuss the James Comey Subpoena, Rudyard debates a liberal on democracy, The Pentagon demands another $200 billion amid Iran War, a US Territory becomes a hotspot for birth tourism, an Insane Theory suggests Trump is the anti-Christ, and Hollywood is cooked.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join -    / @timcastirl   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Rudyard Lynch  @WhatifAltHist  (everywhere) Kyla Turner @notsoErudite_ (instagram) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! IT HAS BEGUN, Subpoenas Filed Over GRAND CONSPIRACY Against Trump | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

We got them, boys. It's all over. We've proven everything. James Comey has been subpoenaed in the grand conspiracy against Trump. So far, 130 subpoenas have been issued, and that proves it. It doesn't. It's a subpoena, meaning they're going to investigate. Maybe there will be an actual indictment for once, but I don't want to be blackpilled. I just don't know that we're actually going to get any real criminal charges. I mean, the best it seems that Trump administration has been able to do is accused. certain Democrats of like mortgage fraud for having houses in the wrong location, which they

shouldn't do, but it's certainly not evidence of a grand conspiracy against Trump. So I'm interested to see, interested to see where this goes. It is big news. So we'll talk about that. Plus, the Pentagon is requesting $200 billion from Congress to keep funding this war, which is absolutely crazy. And, well, I guess, what are you guys doing? I'm not doing anything. Hardian. I'm messing with the computer over here. Anyway, so back to the news. I'm just jamming on the guitar. What about you, man? Ian's just jamming on the guitar. The intro is all ruined. The Metaverse ended, and it's really funny because there's some guy who's like I spent millions of dollars in the Metaverse. Dance falling apart. And then we have an AI movie. Because you know we love talking about AI movies, and you're going to want to hear this. It's a movie about, I'm going to say it. Do it. Impossibly fat milkers. Impossibly fat milkers. That is what the AI movie.

is about and it's hilarious but it's actually a good jumping off point to talk about how far AI has come because it's actually aside from the goofy nature of the video it's remarkably well generated it's pretty crazy so we will get into all of that my friends but before we do head over to tax network USA my friends we got a great sponsor it is tnusa.com slash tim do you guys owe back taxes or have unfiled returns have you filed every year but you still keep owen did you retire and suddenly get it with a tax bill you didn't expect, your balance is not going to go down, penalties are going to grow, interest will compound. And many of you are about to owe again for this upcoming tax year with no plan in place. Stop what you're doing and call Tax Network USA. The IRS is not waiting.

The IRS is enforcing collections through wage garnishments, bank levies, and property seizures. They can even file for you without your consent. This is where Tax Network USA comes in with over 15 years in the business. There hasn't been a tax case. They haven't seen or resolved. They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfought returns once in for all. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. And they can do the same for you, but you got to call now. They're offering a free investigation call with the IRS. After that, they put a clear case plan in place to resolve your tax problem and get you back on track. So call 1-866-686-1535. That is

1-866-6-8-6-8-6-15-35 or visit tax network, T-N-U-S-A.com slash Tim. Check that one out. Don't forget my friends to also smash that like button. Share the show with everyone, you know. Joining us to not talk about this and so much more, we have Rudyard Lynch. Thank you so much for having me. Grab your microphone, brother. We can't hear you.

Thank you so much for having me. It's really a... Who are you? What do you? What do you do? I run the YouTube channel, What If Alt Hist in History 101. And you discuss history. I talk about history, anthropology, politics, and the intersection of all of those things. Right on. Should be interesting. Kyla is back.

Hi. You can find me a not so erudite everywhere. And you're a, what do you do? I do political commentary, mostly debate. She's here to yell at us because she's a lib. Yes. That's what she's doing. Of course, Phil and Ian are here, but we don't need introductions for the people you know and love.

Let's jump to the news from Axios.com. We got James Comey subpoenaed an alleged grand conspiracy against Trump. Former FBI director James Comey has been subpoenaed in the wide-ranging grand conspiracy case against the ex-officials who investigated and prosecuted President Trump. Two soars with knowledge of the situation tell Axios. The investigation has produced more than 130 subpoenas since cranking up last year. The officials, including Comey, have all decried the investigation as political persecution and lawfare. The Trump administration's grand conspiracy theory posits that

Democratic officials bent the rules, broke the law, and lied under oath to investigate, prosecute, and otherwise undermine Trump from his election in 2016 through his federal indictments in 2023. The Comey subpoena issued last week relates to his alleged role in the drafting of a January 2017 intelligence community assessment concerning Russia's election interference that favored Trump. The assessment referenced the now widely discredited steel dossier, whose inclusion ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility. of a key judgment, according to a trade craft review, completed in June under Trump's current CIA director, John Radcliffe. Radcliffe then referred Comey and former CIA director John Brennan for

prosecution. Well, all I can say, folks, is this proves it once and for all. It is now beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will just assert it as fact. Great. It would be nice. It would be great if we could do something like that, but I, I don't, I don't mean it's correct. Well, we definitely shouldn't because the rule of law matters. I don't say that it's going to have proven guilty. Comey, you're in a until we find out. Well, if this was the standard of due process, then like every single lawyer that we were talking about yesterday is, like, beyond guilty compared to Comey.

Agreed. They're all guilty. Lock them all up. Lock them all up, right? But, like, obviously, like, due process matters, and it's good that we have due process because it protects, as a liberal, I want due process so that when my side, but I don't really have a team, but we want due process

because we want to ensure that people who have vested interests against us can't weaponize systems. And I think that there's genuinely, concern that the DOJ is being weaponized against Trump enemies. Yeah, I think it was weaponized against Trump. I think it's been... Sure, both of those instances, if that was the case, if these are the case, both of these things are bad, right? I don't believe in due process anymore.

Like, it's like the tooth fairy to me now. Like, you can say it exists and we understand the concept, like, yes, when I go to bed after my teeth fall out, hopefully not at 40 years old, that would suck. But I put it under my pillow and then money's there, like something did happen. And then I'm told it was the tooth fairy. That's how I feel about due process, right? Something does happen most of the time, but when it actually matters, there's no due process, because the left makes the same exact argument I'm making now.

You've got that dude in California who raped that one chick, and they said he had affluenza. Was it, that's what it is? Affluenza from raping that chick. Yeah. So he didn't, there was no functional due process there. He was too rich to know what he was doing wrong. The Avalized. It's crazy.

It's crazy. So he said he suffered from affluenza because he was too rich to understand what he was wrong. So that's from the left. The left has made that argument. I think it's fair to say both the left and the right agree that the legal system is just a function of who wants to exercise power against their enemies. I think that these going behind the backs of the backs of people and like spying on opponents has been the norm through history, even though they will tell you we have due process. And I'm wondering, Rudyard, I really want to get your take on this because since the internet feels like people like Donald Trump actually have a chance at bucking the system, did this kind of thing ever happen in the past? So I have a few different takes here.

The first of which is we have to be very careful about eroding rule of law because that's been the English-speaking world's great advantage. And if we erode rule of law, it's going to have very negative downstream effects on everything between the economy, between politics. Because rule of law is the set of rules you use to establish all social interaction. And if that goes away, you won't make companies because someone will steal the company you make. I have another thing. The second thing is the left has been weaponizing this already, and there's been a huge issue with conservative judges and with conservatives making the argument that you're opposed to saying, oh, we can't do this, blank, blank, blank. The left has already done a weaponization of the political process to an insane degree. And when conservatives push against stuff where it should be illegal to discriminate against white men under civil rights law, it happens on a mass degree.

but conservative judges don't stand against it. Conservative judges don't stand against the rampant abuse in the family court system against men. They don't stand against the rampant biases against white men, where the left has been doing this to an insane degree, and even defensively, the right does not protect itself. Well, so to your point about how we want to keep the rule of law, I would agree, but when it's gone, it's gone. I want to keep my car nice and clean,

but if a bunch of vandals come and smash it with crowbars, doesn't think I can do about it. So to point on the couch thing you guys were talking about, he wasn't under affluenza, he was under the influence of intoxication, Ethan Couch. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The argument was that he shouldn't get the harshest penalty because he had, quote, unquote, affluenza.

It's a nonsense term that meant he was so rich he didn't understand right from wrong. Yeah. So he did actually end up getting charged. He did. Yeah, he had 10 years probation. he shouldn't get the harshest of penalties for what he did. Wasn't it like there was a passed out woman and he was raping her and then some guys caught her or something?

This was like a Me Too era. But this isn't the left, right? This is his defense attorney argued this. The left was upset that he did not go to prison in the most harshest of penalties because the court system failed us. Sure, yeah. Again, I don't know. Are you conservative? Texas.

Well, he's from Texas, not California. So the left's narrative isn't working here. But also in this case, he was intoxicated and under the influence of drugs. and he hit people. Yeah, which is all bad, right? Agreed. But I think it's... Progressives were upset at the time of this case, because they wanted a very harsh

penalty against him. The judge gave him a light sentence citing what she called affluenza. I see his defense attorney citing affluence. I can't find the judge citing that as the reason why she gave him. But ten years probation is... Neither here nor there. I mean, it's an old story we were lightly referencing where people on the... Progressives were upset about it.

Sure, I just want to be clear. But to the point back to Redyard, like I was saying, I have a nice car. I try to protect it, right? I'll park it in my garage. Then one day while I'm sleeping, a bunch of, you know, whoever, Antifa comes, and firebombs the garage. It's gone. So you talk about the rule of long we want to maintain it, but at the same time, you say that the left has been destroying it and eroding it. I mean, at a certain point, they've destroyed it. Yeah, that's, it's, you oftentimes have to balance to opposing things and figure out where between these two is the reasonable conclusion. And I understand what you're saying where, I mean, Russiagate was a lie. And it's crazy there's been no prosecution for this staggering lie because there was no actual evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia or that the Russians tilted the course of the election. This was just a story the left made up.

And slander is incorrect, especially slander on that scale. And you can't let that go back. And I think another thing is we have laws against treason. and we have seen mass treason among the population. And I would need to actually, I'm not a lawyer. Do you mean like codified legal treason? Which I would say this. The actual law is when you're providing material resources to an enemy at a time of war

or aid in comfort, whatever, it's specific. Sedition is general undermining of the government in the United States. Yes. And there is treason. because this happened when Trump said this is like, you know, sedition punishable by death, that is when the military seeks to undermine. So there is a special sedition there. I would argue that many of the people you may be referring to, you could perhaps argue treason

because they are adherent to say China or whatever. But we are at war with China despite being adversaries. Iran now is working it's interesting because you've got a lot of people that are accusing Tucker Carlson of treason directly for communicating with Iran before the U.S. as the U.S. was preparing strikes against them. But as I would say for the general leftist, it's seditious conspiracy. You're correct. I got the words wrong. I mean, what I'd say in general is there's been a complete and utter abuse of the rule of law so far.

And it's been done predominantly by the left across a variety of different fields with everything stretching from the national level to the social level to the family level. and this has been justified by the court system. And so you have to be careful that if you remove the institution of law, we're going to devolve into being a third world dictatorship. I think we are. Right?

So Trump won the popular vote. He got a plurality with, I think it was like 49.8%. The American people expect something to be done. But he's being obstructed by judges every step of the way. And then there's this tit for tat back and forth where it goes to like three appeals

and then finally he wins. there was a recent ruling with the RFK Jr. where we wanted to change the rules on vaccine safety, and then once again, a judge blocked them. And you famously have this judge in D.C. that just says literally no to everything. There was that particularly important court case where these judges were arguing that any district, actually the left was arguing that any district court judge can overturn anything Trump does. And then the Trump administration argued this is insane because at the time they had a appeal granted allowing this immigration practice. I forgot the specific executive order. As soon as it was granted, progressive groups filed a lawsuit in another federal jurisdiction,

which put a stay on it so they can't both be true at the same time. I think it's fair to say that while I agree with you, the left is absolutely just saying by any means necessary and the right is saying slow down their Democrats. The left is breaking rule of law. What they're doing is not, it's not justifiable and it's not fair. And the English common law was established in the 12th century under a certain context with a certain aim in charge. And this was not the end point of the context or the aim that we were trying to reach. And you have to parallel the left for where they're at. And it's quite, I'm trying to articulate something complicated where in Christ,

periods like this, you set precedents that you can't go back. And so if you compare the English Civil War to the French Revolution, in the English Civil War, you had a political crisis. And at the end of it, England became a democracy with rule of law. And in France, it spiraled into being a military dictatorship. And these are very different outcomes. And you have to be careful about not establishing precedents that future generations can look to. Because if you go to Latin America, there's a lot of countries in Latin America, like Argentina that's, Argentina is more white than America. It is a temperate climate. And Argentina is poor because they don't have rule of law,

where if you can't establish a company and assume that a social superior is not going to steal your company, you can't have a capitalist economy. So let me ask you this question. What is wrong with a military dictatorship? So there's multiple tiers, 95 plus percent of regime. You. and history are authoritarian. And authoritarian is one strong man on top who runs everything. There's tiers, though, where some of them are enlightened. And when you look at authors like Aristotle, they were talking the benefits of monarchy.

And I'm not a monarchist. But monarchy is you have a long-term incentive for the leader to care about the population. And that works a lot better than something like the Soviet Union. Well, let me ask you, I wanted to ask you specifically about what you mentioned what's going on today. You compared that to, say, British or the French. So my question is more so, what would be bad about the United States becoming a military dictatorship?

The military would be, you could have a situation where the military is corrupt. It shuts down capitalism. It shuts down freedom. It shuts down the functioning of a society. And the good things we take for granted die. and those things are fundamentally dependent on freedom. What if a military dictatorship emerged in the United States that was based entirely upon traditional American conservatism?

And the military by force said, we're not going to allow leftism anymore. We're not going to allow the courts to supersede the will of the people. And they just, through military rigidity, enforced the right cultural worldview. That's why I said there's a huge Overton window for authoritarianism because you're trusting the leader a lot. If you looked at Emperor Augustus, who was the first Roman dictator, he was one of the greatest statesmen in history. So when Rome

did the transition from democracy to monarchy, they had one of the best rulers ever. And things governed very well until Tiberius and Caligula showed up. And then it got a lot worse. And with monarchies or authoritarianism, you're trusting the, and the reason that a lot of the older authors preferred monarchies to military dictatorships is that the monarch has an incentive to pass things on to their children. So the monarch has a multi-generational incentive, so they're less likely to hurt things like freedom or the free market. Because I put rule of law above democracy, because if you're a society with rule of law, it means you have functional freedom, It means you have, you can have capitalism because keep in mind.

So, but let me ask you, would you, how would you feel if there was a military dictatorship that enforced the things you wanted to exist? Everyone wants the things they forced. Everyone wants the things that they believe to be enforced. So would you be happy if Donald Trump became a supreme dictator and used the military to enforce laws, but it was everything you wanted in society? I would not be happy with that. What I will say is that the reason you could not have Timcast in any other Western country because they've had left-wing authoritarianism remove the rule of law and personal freedoms where once you start pulling that away, you very quickly end up in a society where you lose a lot.

And it's one of those things where I put property rights and rule of law above everything else in my framework. But so I guess my ultimate point is when you look at the history of the United States, there are varying degrees of cultural enforcement across the board. Obviously not military dictatorship, but until you get to Abraham Lincoln, I suppose, when things got pretty serious at the Civil War. But their blasphemy, for instance, was illegal up until like the early 1800s. My view largely is that if everybody in this country was morally homogenous, they'd be completely happy. Let's say everybody in this country, 100% of people were Christian theocrats.

They'd have no problem with a member of Congress proposing a bill of a commandment law. But Christian theocracies fell at the hands oftentimes of Christianity because the idea that people will stay like wholly, like unified in the perfect way insofar as that people will be happy. just doesn't happen, right? Agreed. Like the United States today used to be morally homogenous to a great degree, and then it started fracturing, I would argue that since the Civil War, like the bifurcation actually

started around the time the country was formed because Thomas Jefferson wanted to actually complain about slavery in the Declaration of Independence, but they were concerned that South Carolina and Georgia would not join the effort if they included that grievance. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so there was a general bit

of, I'll call it acrimony. But started to bubble up in the 1820s when there was a there was a perception in the 1820s that a civil war could actually happen in the United States though it didn't and then it did happen you know in 1861 since since then you've had this clash between two polarized world views in this country my point ultimately is if you have a group of people that believe the exact same thing the things they argue about are are the minutia you know in the 90s the minutia though right sure and and and it can it can spin well wild out of control. But in the 90s, Democrats and Republicans lived together, got married, and their arguments were over like how much in taxes versus like how long a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. And it was like the Republicans were like, I think 16 weeks is too long. And Democrats are like, it's got to be 18 weeks. That was just the political. Now. That was the political overton window, though. There were still these ideas. I guess what I'm saying is that when you look at the moral worldview of Democrats and Republicans,

the majority of the country, in like 1994, they overwhelmingly, overlapped and so they were they were pretty okay with like i mean like certainly we had protests for the iraq and afghanistan war but still people generally were like well you know nine 11 right they rallied around georgia w bush even after 2000 ultimately my point is this just to simplify no one would care about a military dictatorship that was enforcing exactly what their world view was only only the dissenters would so if you had fools only only don't care about that. I would say...

Everyone is a fool. Well, I don't think everyone's a fool. I think, like, the, one of the things that I love about, like, America and, like, American tradition, like, Greek philosophy is that, like, we're built on a tradition of people thinking beyond just their own skin and preferences. This is why you're probably familiar with Rawls

and, like, the veil of ignorance, right? So it's great. It's this great kind of political philosophy where it says, you should imagine a world where you can't know what body, gender, et cetera, you'll be born into. This literally... This literally sounds like an argument against universal enfranchisement because the average person doesn't

doesn't conceive of the world like that. And as much as you're, as much as you're like, this is what it ought to be. And I agree, this is not the reality of the world that we live in. So I agree that it's not the reality of the world we live in to some degree, but I think that like. To a large degree. Well, sure. And I think that that's a sad thing.

I think the fact that we've like lost the connection to the things that matter beyond just our own skin that we've failed to. to understand that principles matter fundamentally and deeply and to hold to these principles, to understand why we said everyone has to be equal before the law, even if I hate that guy. And why that matters is a failing of our society. And it doesn't matter what side. But don't we have to deal with the world as it is. We have to meet the population and meet the world where it is. We can't be like, well, you know, it should be this and it should be that. There's this saying in psychology where we say, if you meet people, if your expectations for people are exactly,

where they are, all they'll do is be exactly what they are. Whereas if you look at people and you say, I know you can do better, I know that we can collect and do and unify, they might not get up here, but they're probably going to get here. Let me ask you a question, right? Like, murder is wrong, obviously. Generally, except for like self-defense, blah, blah, blah, well, that's not murder. Self-defense isn't murder. Murder is the intentional of killing another person without warrant. Okay. And so, if you walked up to a person and just shot him and they died, we'd find that it to be murder and Rudyardall, this is for you too. Let's say that you live in a small village in the countryside and the year is 1,300 ever and you're French. So you're all like,

you know, white, brown hair, blue-eyed people or whatever. Whatever they look like in France and they're sitting there going, ha-ha-ha-ha, and inventing croissants. And then you get people who are clearly distinct from you and they show up and you say, well, we don't just kill people. We're a little apprehensive. And then you meet and you talk and the guy pulls a knife and just stabs your village elder to death and then throws fire in your village and then flees. Sounds like the Romans. So then the next day, a similar person shows up. Do you just say, no, no, no, no, no, we must stand by our principles. We do not attack. We do not, you know. Or when a similar person shows in the same garb with the same physical appearance,

carrying a torch, do you say one more move and you die? I would say that both of these philosophies were silly to begin with. I don't think that the philosophy of like generosity means naivete. I asked you a specific scenario to get to to tell me what you thought I'm telling you why the scenario already is flawed I think that the principle that they had initially probably was uninformed and uncomplexed and it does have to be outdated outsiders but it doesn't have to be updated to an extreme opposite side which is often what people do they go from one side and then they flop to the other side and the reality is that the truth is a lot more times in the middle of what is a of a proper dialectic of wisdom let's just back to the question the

your your proposition that is the village should not allow anyone to peacefully greet them out of fear that there could be an act of violence against them? No, of course not. How would you take that away from what I just said? You said that there, you said the initial response they had was probably flawed. Right, but I said, don't just do the opposite also, which is. Because it might be a defector that's... If a guy throws a torch at your village and burns on your house and kills one of your people and then flees, and then a person who looks just like them wearing the same clothes,

the same flag, whatever, shuzzle of the next day, do you treat them the same or do you adapt your... You should adapt, but my, my... caution to people is that when they think adapt, they want to go to the opposite extreme end. When in reality, oftentimes wisdom falls between the middle of two dialectics. Sure, sure, sure. So just, what do you do? I would probably be cautious, probably have arms and weapons ready in case he whips out his torch to start stabbing and murdering and burning things, right? But inquire him. Ask why he's there. See what his intention is in the village, right? You could even treat him cautiously say he gives you

all of the perfect answers that makes you go like, oh, he's actually a defector from that village. He's got into. What if he throws the torch at your village and burns another building down and runs? Well, hopefully you've got guys ready and he's far enough away that we agree on me. He does. And then the next day,

a similar looking guy in the same clothes shows up with a torch. Do you shoot it with an arrow? No. You let him throw the torch again. No, you do neither. Well, yeah, like, why are you being walking white on this?

Like, the reality is that like, I'm just giving you a simple scenario, like, what do you do? It's a scenario that has happened over and over again in this country. And I'm saying the scenario of human nature is to go to black and white thinking immediately. And what I'm saying to people is that black and white thinking is

just as destructive. What if that next guy showing up with the torch is just about to show up and bring blacksmith and like ironworks to your village and like revolutionize your technology? I'm going to answer both of you. I said that I liked freedom and property rights. And I didn't say how that's enforced. So in many cases, monarchies or authoritarian regimes provide more freedom and property rights than democracies. And democracies supercharged the character of whatever people they're in. So of the top 1% of societies, they are predominantly, among the top 1% they're predominantly democracies.

That includes Athens, Rome, Rome, America, the Netherlands. And democracies can also supercharge negative characteristics. Yeah, they're not good because they're democracies. They're good because they were good. examples of democracy's supercharging negative characteristics are the Latin sphere in the Middle East. France was better under a monarchy than it was under a democracy. So was Brazil. So was Greece.

A bunch of lower trust societies. Same thing with in the Middle East democracies have performed better. In the Middle East democracies vote in the preferences of the majority group. So in America made Iraq a democracy. the majority Shia voted in to oppress the minority Sunni, and then they sided with America's rival Iran. Yeah, but it's not just sure, but the issue is like, this is why when we look at democracies,

there are different systems that work better, right? Like there are certain, like, I'm sure you probably oppose like direct democracy, right? Like the Greeks did, because it doesn't work very well. It leaves too lot of tyranny, right? There's the tyranny of majority to be feared in democracy. It's also slower. I'm going to respond to your point as well. But democracies, the point of all these systems

is to build counters to the major failings, right? In the case of a democracy, you have to be afraid of the majority, the tyranny of majority. And so you have to build into the system checks and balances to prevent against the tyranny majority as much as possible. You're appealing to wishy-washy concepts where if there's an external threat, you have to assess it for what it is based on context. And you pick the highest quality person to do the assessing of context. And the thing with John Rawls is it's not an accurate depiction of the human

condition to randomly pick what individual you would be because that's not how this works. Individuals have their own genetics and groups have different genetics and people are rewarded for the choices they make. And so that's not a refutation of Rawls. I'm not done. I'm not done. Sure, but you're saying that Rawls doesn't work because there's no baked into genetics, but that's not the point at the hypothetical.

You need to let me finish the argument. So Rawls operates under an underlying Christian assumption that there's indeterminate souls that you shove into a population. That's not what happens. A population is made up of individuals with different traits that make choices. And so you can't say if I were to randomly pick a certain population,

what would I be? Because there's nothing random. An individual is the aggregation of all of the choices that went through them. And so you can't say, if I were to be born in a blank society, because the society is informed by the contextual decisions

of everyone involved up to that point. it strips context from the entire human condition. So instead of- This is like saying trolley problems strip context because they like engage in hypotheticals. Instead of saying Rawls, just make the argument of, just articulate the argument.

Sure, yeah. The veil of ignorance is this thought experiment in the way that trolley problems are thought experiments, which is designed to help you decide which principles you want in your society. So if you imagine a society where you can't know who you will be in that society, what are some of the principles you hope are there?

rule of law right and like fair treatment before justice would be one that we would all be for because i don't ever want to be in the minority group that just gets treated poorly by the justice system because i happen to be in that minority group so how would you define society the way that we i don't know the way that we usually do a collection of people with like somewhat unified cultural values probably bordered by a nation state that like unifies together that's a that's a great definition i would argue that by that definition which i agree with there is several distinct societies that exist within the united states and And each and every one of these societies is willing to use violence and lawfare against those who would threaten their moral worldview.

What does this have to do with the veil of ignorance? So you're saying in a society, like, who would you want to be? What rules do you want? And I would say, yes, that works wonderfully in a collection of individuals with a shared moral worldview and probably a national border. But what happens when that society is up against another society overlapping on its territories with a completely different worldview? Well, this is part of how you can engage in the veil of ignorance is going, well, I don't know who I am in this society, but how do I want that. society theoretically to engage in foreign policy. Well, one of them, I would say is, I want my government to protect me as a citizen of whatever this nation state is, because I don't want

other nation states coming in, stomping me and killing me and taking the land. This is more so, like, an example that I'll use that's probably the least egregious would be open air fish markets in New York City. I think they're absolutely disgusting, and they shouldn't be allowed. Because they smell. It's not just that. It's the rotting fish and flesh that slaps off. And it just, yeah, it's all over the street. And then it's just rotting for days. And when you go to lower side it's just everywhere you go go to houston the people who right the people who live there that's their society they are largely chinese and southeast asian they don't care about open air fish markets but the people of new york have started to move away because they don't like it

and this has created an entrenched enclave enclaves are bad and i i believe like like um having a group of people that form their own subdivision that have their own rules is going to create animosity and violence because you will create two distinct moral worldviews at odds of each other Now, the reason I cite this example is because it's one of the least egregious meaning. The people of New York don't really care all that much about the open air fish markets. They just move away. They stopped living in the area. More Chinese people moved in.

And now the area is dominated by Chinese. But you could take a look at this and bring it to its most egregious. And that is like Chicago crime and shooting violence. Sure. So you have areas where there may be a middle class black family and gang bangers will come into that territory. or just young black men who are violent for whatever reason they may be, and they will create crime. This will cause the higher income people to flee and then just dramatically impoverished the area and create more crime and violence throughout the area.

So then the argument we would make is what rules do we want? Well, our principles would suggest that you are innocent until proven guilty, and you should not be searched or have objects seized without something that warrants it. Probably reason. And probable cause. And so what happened in New York is they said, This neighborhood is where most of the shootings and violence happens. So this is where we're going to stop and frisk people.

It also coincided with being a black neighborhood. The progressives then said, why are the majority of stop and frisks black? And the government, which these are Democrat appointed police, said, that's just where the crime is. Then they said, no more stop and frisk. You need to stop because you're doing it to black people. So you have two distinct moral worldviews. You can't do this only to black people, but it's just the neighbor where the crime happens. Yeah. Your principles are meaningless in this regard because both groups are going to assert power over the other to make their world happen.

Well, this is where democracy can be beautiful or bad, right? And so the thing you're posing, right, say you say, I don't want to have enclaves in a society. And my counter to that would basically say, I think with the size of nation states, it's almost unavoidable. Even just think about the way that geography shapes a culture, right? If you've got a nation that's mountainous and full of pine trees, and it's also in a nation. with beaches and fishing and it's also in a nation with, you know, insert different geographies, right? The people in the culture that are going to emerge from these, even just geographies alone, are probably going to have some of the different values. They're going to have things where they want to prioritize fishing industry more, but it's possible that the lumber industry is like having issues and they want more advocacy. And so they'll always have these competing interests. And I think the beauty of a democracy that's functioning well is that it takes two things

where actually there might be reasonable concern, right? Let me let me ask you a question. Can I finish my thought and then I'll let you ask a question? This is a long, long point. Hey, you went for five minutes. I'll get used to it, buddy. Okay. You've been doing this to me for five years.

If you can succinctly make the point. Okay, the beauty of a dialectic of a democracy is you can take two opposing values and what the idea is to find a compromise within both where ideally you find the best pieces of each and you're So here's why I'm interrupting. Yeah. I feel like that is a root that is rudimentary. We understand that completely. It's not the point that I'm making. So I'll give you a better example.

Dearborn Michigan has several instances of female genital mutilation among young girls. That is explicitly illegal in the United States. But in that community, it happens because there's no law enforcement that will stop it. You are not going to get a white cop to go into a Muslim community and say, stop doing this because they'll say it's our community. In fact, they even have their own de facto versions of police. And they likely won't report it either. That's probably pretty a issue too.

So what is the solution then? Should the overarching government dispatch some white people who are non-Muslims to take over their government to force them at gunpoint to stop? Yeah, I mean, this is the great federalist question as to what extent should the- Now that's a violation of the principles of the locals who voted that in. True, but it might be for superseding like cultural values that we value more. This is the constant tension that happens with the federalism, like, you know, Amendment number 10. Go ahead, sorry.

So I'm going to say a few things. First of all is, thank you, you're not stating Rawls's full argument where if you, for the argument that Rawls gave, you could also apply that to Aristotle, because Aristotle was saying, what is the abstract concept of good that we can use? And Aristotle said there's three different political systems, which are useful under different contexts that have their own issues. Rawls is also operating under the principle of equality, which is demonstratively false. Equality has been continually disproven by the science, as well as there are genetic differences between populations. That's disproven among all of the academic community. And so when you're looking at the Rawls, he's automatically jumping to socialism is good because equality is good.

This is all operating under the assumption that enlightenment morality is correct. Rawls is incredibly critical of socialism. He rejected egalitarianism. So it depends on your definition of socialism because the socialists play a game where there's multiple definitions of socialism used at any given time. So you can pick one or the other based on context. Rawls is responding to the Marx idea of the flattening of... Yeah.

Which is still a meaning of the word socialist. I want to move on to the next big story, but I do want to just conclude by saying I completely agree with Kylo. I think we should exert force over Muslims who refuse to adhere to our traditional values. That is not my position at all, but I would love to flesh it out with you, but sort of my position. It's like 50% of my position. Well, I think that, again, we're going to go on in the next. Oh, I want to clarify their argument before we move on.

The point is, when there are people who enter our society who have a religious practice that is an affront to our moral worldview, we will exert force against them to make them stop. Yes, to an extent. The thing with the force to an extent. That's why I said 50%. No, but not to an extent. Like, we will use force up to whatever means or whatever amount of force necessary to get them to stop. So it's not to an extent.

It's literally not to. She's saying we'll tolerate some of their religious beliefs. Like I want religious freedom as well, right? And so this is like the constant. This is why I'm saying there's this tension all the time between like individual rights of freedom of religion, but also state values of things like we don't need to make children. Sorry to interrupt, but we really do. I want to stress one more thing. I got to stress one more thing.

This argument still only. work so long as you maintain the monopoly on violence. And if you- Like the state. Yeah. You, your moral worldview, not the state. If you as a society with a moral worldview have the monopoly on violence, you can stop, say female general mutilation.

But if there is a new cultural worldview that has emerged, a new moral worldview, let's call it leftist, that tolerates and supports what Muslims are doing, they will take from you your monopoly on violence, and then you get to the, then you get to civil war. So a lot of leftists get into this weird tension with, like, Islam, because they're very pro-feited. I don't want to have an argument about less than Islam. My point was, if there is, if you have a monopoly on violence, you can assert your authority. If there are two distinct factions with equal use of force, you get civil war. I agree with that. The issue is, I guess I'm just correcting the leftist idea that they just want FGM. They don't just want FGM. In fact, they acknowledge this tension you're outlining exists regardless of the party side that you're pointing to.

My ultimate point as we move on, again, sorry, is that your principles only apply to the people who agree with you. And that is universal to all moral groups. End of story. Sure. Yeah, we live in a society. True. Yes, like, you might believe in the right to keep him bear arms, but you're not going to give an Islamic terrorist a gun and be like you have a right to bear arms. Sure.

It's why I like the liberal principles where we said, well, we should have a couple of basic rules that we all apply to because other things we shouldn't impose. So when you have two distinct. moral worldviews operating in one country and I would say more than that you are not going to abide them the same rights as you would someone of your society sure because I would say free speech is better than compelled or controlled speech yeah like I would say if someone is an advocate for the destruction of my country I will not defend their right to speak uh... I will not defend the right to even bear arms either if a man comes this country screaming al-hu Akbar and starts throwing bricks at cops I'm not gonna say he has a right

to keep him bear arms I'm saying absolutely not he has a right for assault right that's that's already barred out but he might not right to talk about it is If someone expresses clear ideological sympathies for ISIS, we will not give them a gun. Possibly with ISIS. I think that's the case in America. But I think that there's like good statutory reason if you're like a terrorist sympathizer or whatever. But like in general. Right. My point is. But we don't want to say people who we just disagree with can't have rights.

Domestic terrorism doesn't exist in the United States because of the First Amendment. So that's why Trump, his declaration was actually just a statement he made and not anything actually informal. He would have to do an international declaration. This means, and I'll say it again, if someone is Antifa and says this country should burn, I will not defend their right to keep in bear arms. These are people who have expressed a violent intent, and we have seen in the past them use a violent intent. And that's a more egregious example. Let's jump to the next story, otherwise we'll keep talking. This is from the Washington Post.

The Pentagon seeks more than $200 billion in budget request for Iran war. Somewhat as officials do not think the Defense Department's request is a realistic shot of being approved in Congress. one senior administration official says. Additionally, we've got more updates as more Marines are being deployed to the Middle East. And of course, Donald Trump has said Israel was angry and bombed the South Pars gas field in Iran. Gas oil, crude oil is now to $119 per barrel. And gas is expected to go up. I've seen reports, correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read too much into this,

that China is now cutting off fertilizer exports. China? China. And guys, I know the Republicans are going to say, stick with the plan. But as of right now, I don't want to be pessimistic. Let's just say, holy crap, this is bad. How about what plan? I've heard Phil loves China, actually.

So I'd love to hear it. Phil's a communist communicator about China. China is an adversary. I will say the $200 billion, the request for $200 billion, if I understand correctly, it's to replace stocks they've already used. So it's not technically to continue funding the war. Not that it's not a slush fund anyways, essentially at the Pentagon, but it is to replace the stuff they've already used

because you don't want to have your stockpiles of weapons. Agreed, agree. But the point is, the point is, guys, we spend several hundred billion on Israel for the past 50, 60 years. We spend 250 billion on Ukraine in the past four years, and now they want another 200 billion. I understand we spent like what? What's the budget pretty like $7 trillion?

I don't know. I have no idea. It's some psychotic number like this. My point is we are looking at, they're discussing removing sanctions on Iranian oil at sea because they, is it $7 trillion? It's $8.38 billion. So this would up to $1 trillion.

Trillion you mean. Billion, billion. 838.7 billion. But that's a lot. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Really?

Yeah. Wow. This is even worse than I thought. So this ups it to one trillion if they get it. It aims to. It aims to cover sustained military operations, replenish depleted munitions, and accelerate weapons production

in mid-intent strikes over the past three weeks. I mean, look. Look, look. I get it. I don't like the Ayatollah. I don't like his son. I don't like their government. I don't like them constantly being a thorn in the side of all the countries in the region. They're trying to just sell oil. I am not a Greta Toonberg. Bring the oil on baby drill, baby drill.

Let's have some capitalism. I'm not nobody. Greta Toonberg doesn't even care anymore. She's demanding oil get sent to Cuba. She didn't even care about climate change. She's just a county. The point is, the Iranian government sucks miserably. But as we already discussed, Eric Prince, he was quoted as saying, the problem with Iran is a roll of the dice, you don't know if you can succeed.

This is not, I'll quote Charlie Kirk in June. I think it was June 17th. He said, this is a developed nation of 90 plus million people that you cannot just easily go in and topple. You cannot just ideologically change like some smaller countries. This is a serious war. Now, again, I think it's fair to point out, after Trump launched those strikes on the bunkers, a day after Charlie Kirk did say, I stand with my president and I want him to win. And I can respect that. I feel the same way. I want to win. I do things ill-advised, but I think we have to just be realistic. And I'm saying optimistic. But let's at least recognize a $200 billion budget request. Oil at $120 bucks, this is not good news. This is not good news. This is, not good news for anybody. I would implore the Republicans to pay attention to this because if

you ignore it or poo-poo it, you're going to lose the midterms worse than you may already be. I'm in a real like crossroads in my own soul about this because we're all in. We put our, as Alex Jones said, we put our dick in the light socket. So here we are electrocuting and we're all the way in, baby. There's no going back.

I don't know, I mean, obviously we could leave, but then they'll attack us for 20 years. It's like, what do we do? Destroy. Do we level this country to the ground? Kill 100 million people, however many, million. that people got to go. There's 90 million. Or do we, or do we, do we yell to stop the war? Because I feel like I'm on board with this motion of American hegemony, free speech,

property rights all over the planet. If we stop this thing, I think the whole system will crumble. So, but I don't want to kill a million Iranians. I do want the country to be called Persia, though, so it's less confusing about Iran, Iran. Well, I mean, so it's been, it's been Iran for a long, long time. I know that it was Persia, it's the Persian, it was Persian, like back in the Persian Empire and stuff, but it has actually been called Iran for a long, long time. The, the term Aryan comes from the word Iran because they were, they were like with the caucuses,

I guess the region is similar. But I don't have so much of a problem with the request for the money because of the fact that it is to re, to restock the depleted munitions, right? So I, I, you can have your problem. with the with the war you can have your concerns you can you can address all of the real actual tangible problems that this is causing but to say that you know the this the returning to whatever baseline level our munitions are or should be I think that that's something that we should do because the idea of allowing the United States to not have the overwhelming military power that we do have allowing that to be

degraded is far more of a problem for the U.S. than to say, oh, we're not going to spend $200 billion. How do you guys feel about Trump in general, like promising peace, promising no wars, promising to end wars, and dragging you guys into Iran? Like, does that bother you? Were you for Trump's promise of peace? Like, how do you square this? I view, uh, I view Trump on foreign policy as generally better than every other president in my lifetime. And, uh, despite him being so hawkish on, he's been hawkish on around the whole time. Well, he's hawkish everywhere, right? He like, he pretends, he pretends deterrence is like doveish policy, right?

Like he'll, like, threaten to bond people. Actually, I respect the hawkishness. It's a question of, are you going to actually go in? I think my view of getting involved in Iran was skepticism, but hope. Venezuela was the same thing. And I think Venezuela played out very well. Wow. For who?

For us. Not for the Venezuelans. Actually, no. Venezuela seized our oil assets. We had a treaty with them, okay? We shook hands with Venezuela and said, we're going to build oil. They said, you got it, brother, and we were all sharing in money, and they were the wealthiest country in South America. Then they elected a Democratic socialist who came in and stole our oil assets, and our country did nothing about that.

So I, again, say the Venezuela operation, skepticism, but then when Trump goes in, takes out Maduro and just brings them to New York, which will be weird if he's found not guilty. I don't know that'll play out. But then we get our oil assets back. I'm like, well, that's what I call justice. Now, as for Iran, this is a bigger question over the straight of four moves. I don't think they did. Didn't they steal their own national? Didn't they nationalize Venezuelan companies?

These were American multi-billion dollar investments to build oil infrastructure in Venezuela. And we had treaties with them to do it. And it was an estimated $10 billion in assets stolen. Sure. You do not get to invite me onto your property. This is private American dollars, right? Does the American government owe private companies military protection if a government that they went into trade with buys out the company that they wanted to. Especially when they're giving the oil to our enemies.

If Walmart has... I don't care if it's true or not, it's an opinion on morality. Think about the principle here. Like, let's take it out of Venezuela. If say Walmart has a close relationship with China, there's a Chinese private company that they're working with, and as a result of the Communist Party, China goes, we're actually taking all these assets

and they take like $10 billion worth of Walmart principles. Should America go in there and take private company assets? We should spend taxpayer dollars to take private company assets back? Why? So first and foremost, the question about China would actually be, a question of can we be militarily successful in doing so. In terms of what Venezuela stole, we had a treaty with them, which was at the governmental level, which we do have a treaty with China on trade. So if they're violent and it's not just private assets that are being violated,

Venezuela stole $10 billion plus in assets. We did nothing about it. All we did this time was discombobulate, take their leader out, and take back our oil industry from them, which we agreed to build with them. They broke the rules. they stabbed us in the back. The question I got is when if the Chinese buy a bunch of farmland in the United States, and then the Americans are like, actually, this is our land, and they seize it from these private Chinese companies that did everything legally. Are we in the right?

And I would say yes, because it's American sovereign territory. So are Venezuelans in the right taking their sovereign territory back? It's different because it's Venezuela. That's the problem is you justify, I mean, it's a justification of Monkey Tail. You've got to do the strongest, hardest, brutalist winning tactic to survive. There are, the first thing I would say is you are absolutely correct and that I will always be biased for my society and my way of life and what I think is right. And I think that if I enter an agreement with another country to build oil assets and they share in those profits and then they take them from me, that is a violation of our moral agreement. Then if you start privately buying up under my nose through our legal system, farmland near our military bases for what you can surveil them, I'm going to tell you to knock it the F off.

Yeah, I'm going to take that land back. The, like, the product that they're actually talking about matters, too, right? Like, oil is definitely a geopolitical tool, right? Like, it's literally civilization juice. So it's farland. So what the Chinese have justification? We've already addressed it. Oil and food.

They're most important. The farmland they're buying is near our military bases for which they're surveilling our military. I agree. But they're doing illegally. That's different. Let's say if that's not what they're doing. Well, let's say in the hypothetical, that's what they're doing. Hold on.

In the hypothetical, it's more analogous to this situation. Well, that's not, because I'm assuming you're not saying that America was actually making it military assets secretly. And I think it was actually private companies, oil drilling. So say it's private Chinese companies, as private as it can be, that own and buy farmland on our growing soybeans in Canadian, in Canadian, in American land. Venezuela is one of the least defensible regimes you can pick because the Venezuelan government alienated even their own people where Maduro needed to use Cuban mercil. in order to establish his power, where Maduro was a democratically elected politician who installed himself as dictator. He was profoundly unpopular, so he used Cuban mercenaries to install himself in power.

But nobody's defending Venezuela here. Nobody likes Venezuela. I didn't defend Venezuela at all. I'm going to say it for the third time. If I have an agreement to produce oil in your country and we share in the profits, and you have a problem with that, negotiate the treaty, severate or otherwise. Which they did negotiate and pay out a million dollars. Let me finish. Don't steal it. If you are buying land in our country that is a threat to our national security, you are a threat to our national security as per our assessment. There is a moral distinction between these two things.

I will still add on top of that, we are the United States and we are always going to operate at our behest and not for the benefit of anybody else. So if that means we in good faith negotiate a contract with Venezuela to build oil and they steal it, we take it back. That's not an accurate way of describing what happened. If China buys land in our country and we deem it so we will seize it from them, we do, because we are America working for our interests. Sure, but then the principle that you're not mad about isn't that they're stealing from it. It's just that it's America. It's just that's all the principle is.

And what I'm saying is that's probably not good foreign policy. For example, in the Venezuela thing as far as I'm looking, Chevron took a billion dollar payout because they agreed to dip. And they stayed actually as minority partners with Venezuela for a long time. The issue is that the two other oil barons, didn't want to take the deal and then in that case it got seized. And then they went through courts to try to get their assets back, which they were not, which they were not successful.

And now the taxpayer is paying so that Mobile can have their assets back? Yes. The American taxpayer. I'm not sure I'm for spending taxpayer money. What is the point of the public of the public coffers, if not to defend the public from foreign adversaries? I would say in this case, it would be, okay, what's in the good of the public? making sure we have oil.

Let me ask you a simpler question. A guy is on his dingy fishing off the coast of Florida when pirates show up. Why should the private taxpayer have the Coast Guard go and save him from some other country's pirates? That's literally the function of the military. Are companies individuals? What does that have to do with what I'm talking about?

Well, you're comparing a company to an individual on his boat. What does that have to do with the moral point I made? It's having their live and safety threatened by pirates is not the same thing as mobile. They want to steal his boat to the Coast Guard stop them? It's his individual property. Right? In this case... Should the Coast Guard stop?

It's a company's property. It's called an Exxon tanker. Yeah, there's an Exxon tanker and a bunch of pirates rate it. Should the Coast Guard stop the pirates? Probably the pirates, yeah. What's the difference? The difference is that we're negotiating now. They're Venezuelan pirates.

It's a nation state that we have to negotiate with, and we can't just go to war with everyone who bucks with us. So we let Venezuela seize our tankers? I think we... That's silly. Well, when they happened, we had massive sanctions. I believe large NATO sanctions were put against Venezuela. Nobody, as you've said, nobody likes Venezuela.

I don't like Venezuela. Let's go back to the original question about... argument, you're arguing against America's interests, which should be the opposite of the American government. You're not using rational consistency. You're arguing against the interests of American power in each individual context. I'm not actually, because theoretically, if the American government is for American success, the thing at question here isn't mobile. We don't owe mobile anything as a company. We owe Americans. Does mobile pay taxes? No, but they do pay taxes, but we could negotiate a new trade deal with somebody else to increase our, uh, or buy of oil from somebody

else. They pay taxes partly for the public defense. Instead of spending money to go blow up Venezuela, we could have negotiated contracts with other oil suppliers to get cheaper oil. These companies pay taxes, which includes money for public defense for which they're entitled. To some extent. And I will add on top of this that Venezuela seized our oil assets to distribute oil to our adversaries. Yeah, that did happen as well, which is why we engaged in sanctions. But the idea is that the boot comes down. This is the issue. In foreign policy, when people fuck you over, you don't just immediately go to might. We didn't. It was 20 years ago. Why?

Why not? It was 2009. War is expensive, bad for economy, and kills lots of people. That's why. This was 17 years ago. And they tried the legal method and none of it worked. And Trump said, okay, get our oil back. Sure.

17 years later, it's not a short amount of time. Yeah, and one of the issues is we didn't really get our oil back. Most of the tankers that we seized from them, we've sold off to Saudi Arabia, which only apparently the Trump admin can actually have access to the $500 million. So the American taxpayers didn't even make back the money that we spent to bailo. We also cut off Cuba. But I want to go back to the original question. So we can round this one out and jump to the next stories that we have.

And it was a question about how do we feel about Donald Trump? And I will say I'm a big fan of the Abraham Accords. When Donald Trump crossed the DMZ with Kim Jong-un, I was welling up. I was nearly in tears. I mean, that was an incredible moment for the Koreas. And Donald Trump crossed into the DMZ without security. They could have killed them, they could have captured them, they could have done a lot of things.

And you can say it was free, but it was a tremendous step towards peace. step towards peace, and I'd like to see more of that, so I tremendously respect it. Donald Trump's at the timeline for getting out of Afghanistan. None of this, of course, is perfect. But Donald Trump has been infinitely better on foreign policy than any president of my lifetime. The Afghanistan poll up was horrific. That was Joe Biden. It was not, you just the pull-up policy was decided. The timeline was set by Trump. It was not just Biden. The problem is that when things happen over multiple presidencies, it's typically both administrations. It was Joe Biden. It was not just Joe Biden. Trump had like established a timeline to,

to pull out and Joe Biden went ahead and said, we're not gonna do that, I'm gonna just do it now. He changed a timeline to 9-11 to make a scene and then he surrendered the military. He abandoned the surrender military equipment. Billions of dollars of night vision. I'm not a fan of the way that we pulled out of Afghanistan at all. What I'm actually pointing to is a partisan blame

of just one president when, like for example, when we look at economies. Trump wasn't there when they pulled out of Afghanistan. What do you mean? Trump began the pull out of it. Which we all want, right? You agree with? Not the way we did it.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Not the way Biden did, let's go back in time. Do you support at the time when Trump said, we're going to get out of Afghanistan? Is that a good thing? I'm not sure. You think we should have stayed in Afghanistan? Possibly, yeah.

Okay, yeah, I don't. I think that's morally abhorrent and psychotic. Why? Because we spent 20 years nation building trying to turn Afghanistan until South Korea. Wait, how is it possible that overthrowing a nation state sovereignty is cool and based,

but trying to establish democracy within a country, which I agree wasn't done very well in Afghanistan, is somehow morally abhorrent? That first one seems to be something you've made up. Venezuela, you're for Venezuela, which is an invasion of a nation state and killing it. I'm for taking back our assets that were taken from us. And taking their elected official. For a criminal trial.

I don't care that we don't like him. You're for it. How is this not morally questionable? But in the case of Afghanistan, there's no question here. Let me explain it as simply and monosolobically as possible. Sure. Afghanistan is 20 years of nation building. Venezuela was several days.

Okay. Why did the nation building? building fail. Because you cannot make Afghanis gay communists. No. The reason that it failed is in large property, it was too expensive. So the, no, because we nation built in Japan. Because it takes 60 years. We basically well. We based in Greece. In South Korea. That implies that all society is the same. I don't think they're the same. And the Afghans couldn't do jumping jacks. You need, you need at least three generations, which we did get in the Koreas and in Japan. You need to establish education, you need to let girls go to school, and you need to establish a middle class,

which does take a long time. And they were an active conflict the whole time in Afghanistan. It wasn't working, and they should have gotten out of long. More importantly, we never worked with local experts of Afghanistan. We didn't work with the people on the ground. We worked to the Hazaras. We worked with the northern tribes. We built up an entire northern coalition. And to pull back, you support the continuation of the occupation of Afghanistan. I did not. Hold on. No, no, no, no. I did not say I said, I don't know. So, you're not say, I don't know. So your That's an argument that allows a lot of plausible deniability. No, it says I don't know my answer to that.

Well, you can, but you can't put words in my mouth of what I haven't said. Afghanistan, Venezuela, I'm going to say Burma, but I meant to Rawan. I did not say. So in each place, you are positionally against American foreign policy. You're not operating under a unified moral code. Nope, my unified moral code. You're against the, you're against the American foreign policy, and you're picking whatever the opposition of. the opposition of it is.

Respectfully, you couldn't engage in a hypothetical. So I'm not sure how I did. I write an alternate history show for seven years. Of course I can't. My consistent, well, you didn't. Yes, I did. I ran one for seven years. You said, Rawls isn't true because, you know, genes.

Guys, enough with Rawls. Rawls couldn't engage in a hypothetical because he couldn't project his views on to reality. Like this. Here I'll tell you my consistent threat. My consistent threat is I would like to see worldwide liberal democracies emerge. That's what I would like to see. Why? Because I think liberal democracies tend not to go to war with each other.

They lift people out of poverty best. They establish a good middle class. They establish education. And they decrease poverty, death, et cetera. It's not my religion. That's not my religion. The idea that every society can be a liberal democracy is, is totally outside of the realm of possibility. Like genes, like some people are genetically incapable of having a liberal democracy.

Just from custom. No, just because of customs. Yeah. I have a question. I have a question in this regard, like Liberia, for instance. I don't know enough about Liberia specifically. We repatriated former slaves and then established an American constitutional liberal democracy, and it devolved into cannibalism and tribal warfare. Because why?

I don't know. Well, the issue is for you to say, nobody can, nobody can. I don't think nobody can. Sorry, certain cultures can't. Certain cultures can't. My argument would be not all the liberal democracies have to look the same. When I say liberal democracy, I don't mean superheroes that are gay. What I mean is free speech, due process, like strong institutions and balance of power.

So your argument about free speech, like there's a lot of societies that totally reject free speech out of hand. Yeah, and they're wrong. Well, I mean, so they're wrong. But the point that I'm making is those societies choose to be that way. They choose to not be liberal democracy. Well, they shouldn't have the choice. And we can't make other societies have our values. Well, I think we can convince them to have our values.

I want to get to this next story, which is actually relevant to the conversation. I'll say one last thing on this, in that I think there's a realignment that's going to happen. The progressives that lost in Illinois lost largely to APEC backed candidates, which many people consider to be a shift. Plus, we're seeing the media purchases by pro-Israel, pro-Zionist individuals. I tweeted this earlier. I think that we're going to see a political realignment where one party becomes interventionist and one party becomes anti-interventionist. I'm not entirely sure if the Democrats will be the anti- or pro-interventionist, considering they're very critical of Trump right now. but it is shifting.

And with APEC backing these candidates, Democrats may actually end up in the, we should go into these countries. And then with Tucker, Candace, and Megan being loud right-wing voices, the Republican may become staunchly anti-intervention, which shifts the dynamic from woke versus anti-woke into war and pro-war, which is exactly what we were seeing with Obama versus McCain

after the Bush era, where Obama played the I'm against the war, and McCain was like, well, sometimes you need it. So again, I think the point you're making about why we may have needed, may have, I'm not saying we should have, may have needed to stay in Afghanistan, is a point made by many neoliberals, more moderate Democrats about nation building. But let's jump to this story real important, that sometimes you need to do evil to create order in life. And sometimes you need to create chaos to produce good because totalitarian systems that have too much. So this is an instance

of going into Venezuela doing something predominantly evil to create order in the realm. Okay, we're going to have to always have that debate. We're going to jump to the story. We got this from the New York Post. U.S. territory turned tropical maternity ward has produced thousands of American babies for parents living in China. Amazing.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a U.S. territory northeast of Guam in the Pacific Ocean. It's been flooded with so-called birth tourists since 2009 when then President Barack Obama introduced a visa waiver program for Chinese nationals. What a scumbag. I say, strip them all of their citizenship.

Absolutely. No more birthright citizenship and they can't come back. Yeah, I mean. Kyle's gone. Okay, everyone agrees. Yeah, probably to be honest with you. She's going to be like, no, China should be allowed to be president of the United States. It's just that's civilizational suicide.

I mean, the idea, the fact that there are, that there is evidence that there are thousands and thousands of people that are going there just to have children, particularly from China, right? China is absolutely an adversary. They're not a partner. They're not, they're not some. They're not even rivals there and adversary. And the idea that they should be allowed to be American citizens just because they're born there, then brought back to China to be raised as Chinese people. I can't stand liberals, man.

Because they're just like, they're going to stand around while the, like, these Chinese people doing birth tourism are literally saying in 20 years, you will start seizing power and assets from the American people. And the American liberals are like, they're going to be standing there as the Chinese guy goes like, I have every right to take your stuff because I am American. And they're going to go, guess you're right. Yeah, I mean, they're going to be used as a vector of attack against the United States. Is it just that people don't, I'm asking you too, rather, I mean, you study this stuff,

that people just don't have that outside perspective of the system. They get, they get in it. They get emotionally involved with like, yeah, we're accepting of people. But like, is it just that, like, dumb first order thinking? So James Burnham has the best narrative about this. He wrote a book in 1961 called The Suicide of the West. And the thesis of the book was that liberal, do not have a morally consistent code.

They just support whatever degrades the West fast enough. And so in 1961, he said that this would cause the collapse the suicide of Western civilization, because the liberals don't have a consistent code. They would just push for these various policies that would degrade the character of Western civilization. And then people would give concessions to moderate liberals, which would then pass to radical Marxists. And so he said radical Marxists would take over the institutions, which is what we've seen. And these people, I agree with you, Tim, these people have no, this is why I brought up roles in the Enlightenment. These people have no concept that there are others who do not share their values, who will use violence against them.

And if someone was willing to use violence and will not share your values, you have to pair that with violence. I often notice people are very like laissez-faire about, you know, about whatever, bringing new people in, changing the system. They're kind of open to it until it affects them directly. They get mugged. And then they're like, like Anna Kasparian, you know, she's completely flipped after she got attacked by some dude outside her house. I don't know that she's completely flipped, but she's definitely. Once it affects you, and so to get, make sure that people don't have to face it and have that traumatic realignment that you can maybe educate them ahead of time and get them to kind of see what mass migration can do, you know, see how societies can be destroyed with mass migration is used as a weapon. But like to get people to realize it without really experiencing it, I don't know.

know, I don't know how. I played a lot of Crusader Kings. You know, watch countries get flipped with cultural, you know, the culture just takes it and then people vote for their own demise. I'm like, that's how I learned, but sorry. Yeah, you'd have to establish cultural traditions to, uh, because this is something a lot of tribal societies do, where they have rights of passage that force people to grow up through these various rituals that make them comprehend the horror of the world. Because industrial civilization has protected us from the brutality of the human. condition. And so people are just not aware of how bad things can get. And that's why we're having mouse utopia. And so like horror movies and stuff, is that part of why people like

them is because it helps them see into what it could be? Yeah, people like horror movies is like a reset button. And it's because people physiologically process reality. And so if someone physiologically does not understand something, they're going to have trouble understanding it in abstract intellectually and so but like we don't this is so I think you guys are like true about something right which is that like by and large people are our culmination of their experiences and that's about it right what you're talking about like Anna Casparian right what you're talking about like the morally lucky individual who just happens to grow up with the whatever morals you prefer and loves them

because they grew up with them right but I also think that we can experience and observe things and think of things and develop a sense of self outside of these experiences it just takes significant work right? In the case of learning math, it's really hard to experience high levels math, Euclidean geometry. However, if you engage in it at high levels over and over as like a rigorous mental practice in the way that you could do with philosophy, right? You can actually come to observe and understand these things and have it kind of phenomenologically affect how you engage with the world. Well, let's go back to the original question, which is there's an island where

Chinese people are flying, giving birth, and then leaving, so that those babies will have standing to be president and be American citizens. Should we put a stop to that? Uh, yeah, probably. Should we, should we, should we end birthright citizenship? Uh, I think it's complicated because it's a very American tradition, right? Um, there's a really, there's a really good debate, um, between two of my friends. I don't know if I could shout out other creators. I think you've had both of them on them. Peaceco and Ryan Mulholly when they were at word war debate talked about this. And I think both of them had really good arguments. Ryan being saying birth, means an implied patriotism because obviously the founding fathers didn't know about like planes,

right? So if you were born here, you're probably invested because you're not going to leave very easily. Right. And Piscoe kind of addressed that, well, birthright citizenship is about the individual. It's not about their parents. And that matters. So I think there's really good arguments on either side. No. It's silly that someone from China can fly here specifically to give birth and then like fly here a week before birth, give birth and then fly back a week later. I agree. But there might be a way to like policy carve out in such way that people can't abuse it like that. But we still protect the birthright citizenship.

Yes, some way to do that work. Because I think the Piscoe points out really aptly, I forget which amendment it is and I'm going to butcher his arguments. I'm very sorry, Piscoe, I think, the 14th, yeah. But the jurisdiction of the state it's talking about is the child. It's not the parents. And a child is not responsible for their parents, their parents' sins, their parents' heritage,

any of these sort of things, especially in the... That's not what jurisdiction thereof was a, like, if you look at the debates on the 14th Amendment. American law idea, the idea is that you can come here and be born here and that makes you American. And yes, there are people abusing it. But the question might be, is there a way to prevent the abuse while maintaining the principle of what this is? The 14th Amendment was specifically for post-Civil War addressing the issue of slaves. And the point of if you were born here, you were a slave was past tense, not future.

The idea was all of the slaves who were born here are citizens. That's what they were saying. there was a debate on this in which the guy said well no one's going to construe this to mean that foreigners diplomats or their children would have just fly here and yeah yeah and that was back when we didn't have planes and people were like traveling three months so it was actually debated and then it was a what was it uh Wong Kim what was it to Wong v Kim or whatever I can't remember the name of the president where they were like no no no no anybody born here at this point forward will be a citizen despite that not being despite that not being the intention of the 14th Amendment. There was never a moral argument behind it. It was just practicality. Only really nations in the new worlds do birthright. Birthright citizenship is just nations in the new world with a handful of exceptions

because these were countries with high demographic turnover. If you went to the founding fathers and made that moral argument, they just wouldn't have a concept for that. Sure, but the principle that's emerging is the same. What's the principle? What's the moral principle? The principle here would be that you are not held and bound by like the actions or identity of what your parents were.

Why is that good? I think that that's good because, for example, being held accountable for the sins or like history of your parents is something that was often done in older world orders that I think was harmful. I don't think that I should be culpable for the behaviors, the actions,

the viewpoints or the identity of my parents. I completely agree. Like, if someone illegally enters my home and then gives birth, that kids are just live in my house now, I am not responsible for the crime they committed. What if it's a really cute baby? No, baby's gotta go,

but reality also exists. We fundamentally exist in a world of distinct countries that have their own histories, and the reality is not that we are fundamentally bored, because the baby boomers are going to pass on a crap ton of debt to my generation, Gen Z. By this logic, and you can't, you can say, of course, it would be nice if we got rid of the debt. I am going to be stuck with this debt. I am going to be forced the generational inheritance the baby boomers gave me, and I cannot do anything about this. This is the fundamental reality of the human condition, and I believe, even creating politics around fundamental realities, not around abstract principles, and then

enforcing them on reality whether or not they make sense. So if your parents are a thief, should everyone look at you skeptically for the next like 15 to 40 years of your life because your parent was a thief? It might be in your genes. This was something that the Western tradition had established. We had already thought this through where Christianity and the Greco-Roman tradition said that the individual should be judged for their actions. But this was something that was thought through at the time.

It wasn't just, it wasn't a post-ad hoc rationalization for a legal structure, where we established a legal structure because it was convenient at the time. It was not a moral principle. You know, I think we form society based off of literal reality like you're saying, but also off of abstract concepts like our rights are given to us by God. Whoa, man, reality is complicated. And my theory is that it's like the masculine and the feminine, the ideal and the material match up together. And so there's a dynamic between them where the ideal can pull a little bit and the material can pull a little bit and it's a negotiation between the two So do you think right now right? That's actually to my point, right? What you're saying is what I'm saying, right? I agree that for example, the national debt that the boomers created is something that my generation and your generation are going to have to deal with But at the same time I might be able to say the way that I identify as an individual the things that I carry into this world as far as like maybe things like opportunity and circumstance shouldn't be nearly as neatly tied to my parents. I think that that's a very old world idea that I don't

like but if your parents there's these tension between these two things if your parents literally birthed you here then your whole world and they would revolve around the fact that they did that only if you lived here would have if you were born here so so it totally depends on what you lived here that you're saying it's your your your identity shouldn't be anything to do with your parents but your parents decided where you were not nothing to do with your parents the idea is that you shouldn't have to inherit their actions right but you become a citizen of the country they choose to birth you in to some ex well they do but we don't right? My dad being in, he's not any of these things, but say my dad is an alcoholic and a thief

that doesn't mean that I am accountable for the time that he stole from somebody. This is why, like, land's rights can get really messy. And we often say in the case of like, is that stolen land or not? We go, well, maybe my ancestors, ancestors, ancestors, but for how long do we have to pay for that, right? Yeah. No 40 acres and a mule. I shouldn't have to pay for that. By that logic, white people should not be held to the actions of their ancestors because we should not inherit the costs of our ancestors. Wait a minute. And also on top of it, I said that the development

of these moral codes is a conflict between the material and the ideal. What you're basically saying is that if the ideal is a man and the material is the woman, the man should just totally dominate the woman without reference to the material realities. That's not what I'm saying. Wait, wait, hold on. I want to change my opinion because I just,

I just realized something. That you're a Democrat. No. I did it. I win. I just thought I was a quarter Korean, but then I found out that I'm actually 5% Japanese now I'm in favor of the sins of the father because this means the government

United States government has got to give me reparations because I'm Japanese so pay up you have to prove that they stole stuff from you too no I think the Japanese had to submit receipts of being like hey but also part of why they got paid back is because it was actually within the same do you guys think that we're out of balance with like okay so like whatever you're saying about the politics based on the harsh reality and politics based on the philosophy that we've because I think we've become so into philosophy with post, thank you, Roger, yeah, talk me in, that we become, like, in postmodernism that we're so philosophical, heavy that we've lost sight with just brute reality at points. We're radically delusional. I think that's just obvious.

Our moral code is no frame for reality. Yep. Okay, I'll be right back. Thanks. I agree with that. I agree with the internet. It's easy to become something you're not to play in fantasy. And since the end of the Cold War, we've just been carte blanche.

We haven't had repercussions. How about we go nuclear and jump to this next story? Donald Trump is the Antichrist. Now that I've sufficiently made many of you angry, and I'll say that I'm joking, there is something interesting because we've got this tweet from Drew Tang, which says, remember when me and Donnie darkened and Sovereign Bra

went on Timcast in December of 2023 and quoted this exact verse to him saying it would happen to Trump? And then the FBI had the episode taken off YouTube. Oh, that's right. The episode was taken off of YouTube. And Leonardo Joni, you know what you love? her, she posted this, what do we think of this? And it shows Trump with his ear bleeding. I saw that one of the heads of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery, but the fatal wound was healed.

The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast, Revelation. Now, what's really interesting about this is that when I saw this tweet, I recalled sitting down with these individuals, and they literally explained to me that Donald Trump would be injured on the right side of his body in some capacity, because that was a, if he was the Antichrist, that was a symbol of the Antichrist. And so when I saw this, I was like, no, wait a minute, because they did say it on the show. So I asked Grock, and it said, the idea the Antichrist will be injured on the right side comes primarily from interpretations of biblical prophecy. Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock, a sword shall be against his arm and against his right eye. His arm shall completely whither, and his right eye shall be totally blinded.

well, in all seriousness, Trump is not completely blinded, but the bullet did hit his right ear. And what they said on the show was that Trump would be injured somewhere on the right side of his face, not necessarily his eye. And then, ladies and gentlemen, hammer drop time. Nasty bruise on Trump's hand breaks through layers of makeup. The president showed it off to Irish leader on St. Patrick's Day. So this is the story the left has been playing like crazy. Trump's right arm, his right hand, has been consistently bruised for going on months now. Which, again, I am not saying is the Antichrist, but a lot of these people who believe...

Men wearing makeup is pretty anti-Christ behavior when he thinks about it. Well, he's trying to cover up that his right arm is... I don't know why he's wearing it. It's bruised. I'm kidding by the way. It's perhaps withering. Damn. I just think that was interesting.

I don't know. If the Antichrist is here, my personal take is that people can behave in a Christ-like manner or in an anti-Christ-like behavior. And if they're super famous and powerful and you start being sinful, then you're exhibiting antichrist-like behaviors and you'll be like one of those antichrist people. Can we- That's my personal take. But now let's just pretend there is a guy that is the antichrist. That means the second coming is arriving.

He doesn't know enough. Which is what the argument is about the war in Israel. And Netanyahu is saying the messianic era will come, but it won't be next Thursday. And then you've got people pointing to Donald Trump. You've got the efforts to breed the red heifer. I am not saying it's it's prophecy, but I am suggesting that people want it to be. Rudyard, were you going to say something? Oh, Trump doesn't know enough esoteric religious lore to be the Antichrist.

So did he first say that he was gravely wounded in the case he literally wasn't gravely wounded? He had his ear necked. He was shot in the head. He wasn't, he literally wasn't gravely wounded. That was the miracle is that despite having somebody shooting at his head. So people have, eventually. People have predicted the book of Revelations 50 times and is yet to have happened. That is a 0% track record.

Sure, but once it does, then they'll be right. Then we're all dead. So the antichrist is deeply knowledgeable in religion? Is that what you were saying? So if someone were to be the antichrist, they'd have a wide variety of esoteric lore in order to found the anti-religion against Christ. And so you could assess their actions and their behaviors based off their knowledge of religious lore.

Could it be business? He's hiding his power level, okay? He does have the religious lore, but he can't show people yet because he can't have to know. Could his knowledge of religious lore be his knowledge of business? No. The dollar is now what people worship? They're not transferable.

Are you sure? Because people seem to worship money. I'm pretty sure. I mean, money's God on earth. Is it not? No, that's not how the mystic lore goes. Okay. It is now. So it's going to be like a priest. They say it's going to be a priest. If he is making weird esoteric remarks and he drops these things inside his content that demonstrates that he knows more than he says than you'll know. What would be an example of a weird esoteric remark?

So I'm trying to figure out. He's trying to figure out if you're the antichrist, by the way. Don't tell him. Don't tell him. I'm not. So, um, that's what the antichrist would say. When someone, when people, different mystics have different code words they use to demonstrate the religious tradition they're operating in.

As you can look at the code words they're operating under to figure out what their level is. So hermetics do that. Gnostics do it. Platonists do it. Oh, okay. So his, his philosophy, not one, not a Gnostic, not a platist, but what is he? A secular businessman?

Yeah, he is. That's his philosophy. So yeah, is he speaking in code? No. Are you sure? I'm pretty sure. We just don't know the code. I'm pretty sure.

This guy knows everything. Well, I mean, if he doesn't know, if we don't know the code, then no one knows the code. I mean, is he's going to know the code? Phil, is something happening that we don't know about? I mean, if we don't know. I don't know, dude. I can't even joke about it. If there was an antichrist on earth right now, who the fuck else would it be than Donald Trump?

It would have to be that guy. What? Well, Peter Thiel thinks it's great at Dumburg. It would be the Weir, yeah. Or like, yeah. Or like, Elon Musk. It's just a really real... Is Grettoenberg?

know enough esoteric religious lore to be the antigris. I think it was in Ross's interview with Peter Thiel. He was like, oh, yeah, it's Greta, it's Greta, it's Greta, it's Greta. She's the Antichrist. I can't remember his reason. Peter Thiel is having a meeting, I guess, or this week at the Vatican or something like that. Let me see what I can pull up.

Don, I don't think you're the antichrist, by the way. I already said my philosophy. I think all of us can exhibit the behavior and become it. So don't say stuff like I hate my enemies. Worship pain on your enemies, because that's wrath. That is a sin. in. What if Carl Marx was? What if Karl Marx was the Antichrist?

Because he established a religion based upon material things. And he was also a Jew. And then it was an anti-church founded upon envy rather than love. Then what would happen in the story leading to Christ's return? So some people think that the book, so I'm not a book of revelations guy. That's not my thing. But some people think that Book of Revelations takes course over centuries. And you're compressing a complex historic event.

like the fall of Rome into a singular chapter. The post-talk update their theory to match whatever's happened in the timeline for their preference. So the response, the antidote to communism would be the return of Christ. In this story, Christ of return and solved. Marx's issue. In the 70s, maybe we're in heaven now?

No. This is hell. It's just one way of looking at reality. Would it be absolutely wild if, like, in two years, like literally Jesus just came back? It would be pretty wild. Jesus is my homie. That would be cool.

Dancing with us right now. Jesus' spirit is within the Christian community. Oh yeah, no, no, here's a question, though. When he comes back, does he, like, descend from the heavens, or is he already here and then, like, reveals himself? He's inside you. What I would guess... Quaker says inside you.

What I would guess is that he would embody... He would embody the spirit within his action than people wouldn't notice. That's what I'm talking about... Subversive, dude. So nobody would know he was here or... Wait, why would he not notice? Jesus is... But the return...

You know, you know, it's gonna be really funny? When, like, it happens and there's, like, the rapture happens. but then all the Orthodox people are still here and they think they're right, but they're not. Yeah, all those Eobros, all those Eobros down bad. The schism really, the schism really meant something. It's crazy. For centuries leading up to Christ, in the Jewish community,

they would constantly talk about the rise of their Messiah, and the Messiah was about to come, and the Messiah would defeat the Romans, and then they didn't figure out it was Christ. Well, did he defeat? I mean, I guess so, hold on. So when he comes back, who are the Romans? Like, he's going to go.

He's going to go to Italy and, like, defeat the Roman Catholicism? This is why I said I wasn't a book of revelations guy, because I don't think I can actually figure this out. So when Christ returns, he defeats the Romans? So there was a, Christ emerged from a Jewish messianic tradition that stemmed back for centuries leading up to him. In this tradition, they thought that their Messiah would arise and then defeat the Roman Empire because Israel was a Roman colony. Yeah. And that's why they don't like Jesus, the Christian Jesus, because he wasn't political against the Romans. That's exactly right, actually.

Oh, look at that, Eobros. Jesus wasn't political. Interesting. No, Jesus wasn't political. He believed in God. And so Jesus emerged and he said, we should love each other. We should accept the Roman colonization

because the kingdom of heaven lies within. And they killed him for that. They were looking for the Messiah, but then he didn't have the message they wanted that they launch a war against the Romans. You know, the White House is Roman. It's Roman architecture. They even have it as white pillars unpainted.

Because the Roman architecture, all the paint washed off. These idiot Americans came and they rebuild it without paint. So what is this return of Christ going to come over, throw the vestiges of the Roman Empire? That's the guise of the American oligarchy and reset the system to a republic again? Everyone used Roman architecture at the point. But they forgot to paint the stuff.

The Roman statues weren't white back in the day. That's what they get wrong. Yeah, they were all crazy rainbows. Yeah. They were woke. And then so the Jews will be freed from the tyranny of the American Empire, the British Empire. And then the ones that have strayed and have forgotten what God is will return to God. They need to rebuild the temple and then the prophecy can be fulfilled.

No, no, and the red heifers. Oh, yeah. They gotta get the cow. Genetic engineering. They're trying to, which is crazy. They're trying to manufacture the end of times. I think this whole Jesus. I like this reality.

I don't want this reality to end. Yeah, it's good. Well, it's, you know, one of my simulation theories is that we're just an AI-generated television entertainment show for the progenitors. So they made this, think about it this way. Instead of making a show, like we view a show, you create, you get an AI to auto-generate the stories, and it's like a real-time present thing. You can just turn on and watch and then be like, I love the Trump show. Like we just watch President Trump be crazy, you know?

This AI is an absolute sexual freak. But it's not AI. It's just for sure, bro. There's got to be a lot of porn for people to watch. Whoa, man, what if reality is a dream? That's the only fans makes money. What if reality is a dream by the gods in order to simulate. different realities to figure out what does and does it works that they can

repurpose this in the tree of life yeah and it's not AI it's I that's why we think of us we call ourselves I it's intelligence it's not our official this we got to jump to this next story so we can explain to you my friends you need to understand just how powerful AI has become all I wouldn't describe this as family friendly maybe you don't want your kids watching it how you make But it's very funny. Take a look at this AI-generated trailer for a movie that you wish existed. Three years after a string of brutal, unsolved murders of local co-eds with impossibly fat milkers.

The women of Delta Delta D will be headed to the new space station as part of NASA's project buff. Scary, the Titty Killer just disappeared. We're going to be 250 miles up. The only person watching us get changed is going to be a 60-year-old man at Cape Sinaivel. You know, I heard in space your boots actually get bigger. Why exactly are they sending a shuttle full of sorority girls to space? Son, the only thing bigger than the NASA budget after this is going to be the strain on those girls' sweaters. This is like the plot of a movie written by a 12-year-old boy.

This is the first time I felt safe since the Titty Killer. I don't think it's him, do you? Who else would go all the way to space? Take a physics test. The boys down here tell me you're flat as a board. If that's right, you're basically invisible to them. You might be our only hope. This is crazy!

Do you guys remember when we reviewed Capital of Conformity? Yeah. Uh, amazing. Let me contrast this for you guys. Capital of conformity, because this was a couple years ago. I was giving it up. And real quick, I'll only play like two seconds for you. You.

Oh man. Yes. So good. Do you dread waking up in the morning? Are you feeling helpless in your society? Perhaps even a bit lost? Well, look no further. At the capital we offer an escape.

A new beginning, a lifetime of unending joy. We have an abundance of attraction so captivating. You'll wonder how you ever lived without them. I recommend, if you guys have not seen Capital of Conformity from Ozzy Alter, you must watch it. And I will tell you what's really sad about this. this short film, it's two minutes and 42 seconds, and it's brilliantly done. But the limitations of AI video made this movie feel like a nightmare. The faces are all melting together, people are walking in weird ways.

It feels like you're in a nightmare, and it works perfectly. But as AI gets better, it loses that. So now we just have the Titty Killer, which is really, really good, and it's crazy that we've gotten to this point in AI. generation. Apparently, C-Dance 3, China's new AI video model in, it's not released yet, but these are the leaks. In 30 seconds, it can render a 17-minute short film.

Just, I mean, just think about how psychotic that is. When this comes out, you're going to type in short film about Titty Killer 5, and it will make a full movie for you. And then, depending on your proclivities, it might be worse than just Titty Killer. Well, I just got to say, we've seen it three times, so I feel like I know what some People's search history will be in this robot.

Titty killer, I don't want to win to die. I want him to play games with each other like board games. I want Tiddy Candy Land in outer space. You know, I didn't expect that to open up learning more about you, but that's fair enough. But we didn't play it. We, it's incorrect, we played it two and a half times because I didn't see the beginning the first time when he says this. Three years after a string of brutal unsolved murders of local co-eds with impossibly fat milkers. The important part of the important point.

The important plot lawyer there, yeah. Dude, the movies that people are going to make are going to melt your eyeballs. This is already good. They're going to do retro where they're like, give me AI a version of it, but AI 2025 March 17th version. It's just like we make 8-bit video games still? Yeah, it is worth noting, or it is worth pointing out that it was a very, very short amount of time where you could get that, I guess, surreal quality in AI videos where it was,

where it was like almost like uncanny valley like it was just creepy like the everyone's familiar with the the Will Smith eating spaghetti and how that was almost a nightmare in and of itself like it was just so creepy looking and obviously that's gone nowadays and I'm not even sure if you could

get an AI to produce that quality anymore I actually to be honest with you I imagine eventually it will be able to do that you know they'll be able to say look make it as if this but you can't get you can't just prompt it to do something that's that I don't know if I want to say the texture is is a certain way I don't know if that's the right way to articulate it but it was the capital of conformity was super creepy yeah I recommend it it was the imperfection that was so creepy I asked Roseanne if now's the time to stop making movies and to start just focus on AI because the effort and she and Jake her son were like no now's the time no way dude look at this I mean, look, if you want to make a movie, you just do this. That's what you could.

This is crazy. I mean, aside from the fact that it's funny while you're on set, literally while you're not shooting, you could be making another movie in your laptop. I'm wondering who made this. Yeah, we should shout these guys out. What were you saying, Carter? Oh, I was saying maybe Roseanne meant that now's the time to make it because there won't be any more time after this gets so good. Could be. So like, maybe you should, if you're going to do it, do it now.

And show the world like, hey, human art's still good, even though this is great. Oh my God. Wait, there's... Wait. Is there a part two? There's actually a bunch of these? Good. Are there four?

Oh, there's actually one through four. Let's watch all of them. So this is Titty Killer in space. I get it. I was trying to... I'm trying to figure out who made this, but apparently there's a one through four as well that you can watch. I hope one's underground in the sewer system of New York. Is that hot for you?

You know what movie was great, Chud. I didn't see it. Cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers. That's correct. That's correct. Shud. Chud. You know what we need to do.

We need a nuclear war. What? Yeah, we need a nuclear war to wipe out all of our digital infrastructure so that we're forced to go back to an era of the 90s Where we had blockbuster video that sucked though No, it took so long Do stuff that's right now the best culture came from 90s to like 2010s all of it Yeah, 1994 was the year 1994 was the peak of humanity

It was the shit 94 was the bomb 97 was the no no 94 is the greatest year of humanity Everybody agrees That's when that's when that's born were kicking off. I mean, it was a great year. All of the albums you go from the 90s came out in 94. All of the big 90s albums. It was born in January, so I was the best year.

And you know that the Spathing the Monkins was 93. Signy's Dream was before that, I believe. Ian Miller won the gold medal on Big Ben, the coolest horse in the world, 1994. What happened? Nothing. Nothing. They only seemed cool in retrospect.

It's like that nostalgia. It being there was boring as fuck. Anything from 90s to 2015 just like was was, I don't know, bro, Gen Z. Look, they dress better than we ever did, but they don't have any, like, they don't have goth or punk or emo. Live, style, soccer, 94, Bush, 16 stone,

94, the cranberries, 94. Cranberries. What's what we got, Tori Amos, some of, you know, whatever. The Toadis, it was 94. Yeah. We have, Neil Young, I mean, that's fine. Soul coughing, 94.

They were all great. Dinosaurs Jr., 94. It really go back to 91, 91 and 94. Let's see what else we got. kicking it. Smashing pumpkins, of course, 94. You've got bad religion in 94. You've got, what is it?

There's a bunch of songs I'm not doing. It's what we were from like Mr. Big to Nirvana, you know, that transition. Stuntable Pilots, Purple, Veruc Assault. So the 90s, I grew up in the 90s. I grew up in the 90s. The offspring, I can tell you. They suck now, but we'll give him that one. Ian, why do you get the 90s so much?

R.m. It was just boring. It was just boring. I'm an information guy. I like to learn, and it took so long to learn anything before the It was awful. You'd go to the... You'd have to look up books if you could even find the book.

If you didn't even know what you're looking for, so it's like you'd go to card catalogs at the library. I'm like, I gotta be home by six o'clock. Music was incredibly like good in the 90s. I agree with that. It was extremely good. I listened to it two plus hours a day every day, literally. Radio, I tape songs off the radio. I just laid in bed.

All I did was like read and listen to music. That was my ride bikes or video games. But it's... Uh, it just couldn't have primus nowadays. Primus. Primus is phenomenal. Oh, wow. Do you know that Pink Floyd had a number one album in 94?

The wall? No, that didn't come out. No, it was the division bell. Yeah, division bell was pretty good. Tom Petty, dude, Tom Petty's greatest hits was great. Toto's greatest hits, past the present. The Lion King was the number one album for like three months. I mean, you two, automatic for the people, R.M.

Groundbreaking. But so, okay, I agree with that. But that doesn't make up. The final season of Star for the next generation? Good. But you had to wait until like Thursday. day at 8 p.m. to watch. TV was golden like it was so much better when we had

to wait and we didn't know. When you were like you'd pick up the phone and you'd call your friend's house and you'd be like, is Billy home and she'd be like, I don't know where he is but guess I'm not going to see him. But that sucked because then you just sit around all night. No, I'd go to the park. You'd go to the park and see if they were there with and then they were and you were like everybody would hang out

in the same places because that's how you found each other. You look for all the bikes. Look for all the bikes. Yeah, but then you get beat up if they were the wrong kids. I mean, oh well, yeah. Did you get beat up when you were a kid? Not a lot. But enough to learn that humans are vicious animals. Really?

Still traumatize, I'm sorry. It happened. It was because I was too smart. I would always raise my hand in class. I got it started picking on me. I mean, just, he's so smart in the show. Sometimes we all just want to eat. I didn't realize that they were getting annoyed.

Rudyard's been just wincing and just growling the whole time. I'd raise my hand. Obvious easy answer. They're just repeating. Repeat what we already told you? I'd answer. Okay, next question. They ask, no one, I'd raise my hand again.

And they just look over me at the room. Like, anyone? Anyone? Okay, Ian, I'd answer again. Third time, they do it again. No one to answer? I'd do it again. Eventually, the kids turned on me like they thought I was trying to be too good or something. You should have told them that you were just better than they are. I didn't know that at the time, though. All right, we're going to go to your Rumble Rance and Super Chats to smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life, including your neighbor and their dog.

You can follow me on Instagram at Timcast, of course. That uncensored show will be coming up at rumble.com slash Timcast, I-R-L. But let's see what you guys have to say. Pinochet says rule of law, lo, lo, There is no incentive to follow laws anymore, not to mention the laws and systems politicians skirt and ignore. There will never be justice in this country again. But he's Pinochet. Not never again.

Well, his name is actually Pinochet's helicopter tours. Of course he'd say that he's Pinochet. Justice will come again, but only with moral homogeneity. And I think every society goes through this where you have a moral homogeneity and then it ebbs and flows. And then there's a clash. this is weren't you saying Rugger that like life is

is built upon opposition it is yeah the duality of there must be opposition to our worldview for it to be challenged and evolve yeah that's true

otherwise we just sit around like dodo birds you know just be all fat what's the best way to bring about homo genius um so

that's what the liberal economic order wants they want global homogeny they want global homosexuality homosexuality No, they want to be global homogenization.

If you want homogeneity, you can either have everyone mate together or you can segment into smaller populations. Well, they're trying that first one. Yeah. And I don't want a purely homogenous country because you look at Scandinavia. Iceland. They're all cousins. Yeah, that's true. But also they're hyperconformist societies.

and in a place as big as in America, we're not all going to be homogenous. The question is what groups are fighting each other? Yeah, but they're happy to be conformist. I don't think they are. They have a super high suicide rate. Well, that's because of the weather, though. Also, all liberals and love the gays,

so you guys might not like that society, that world order. That's right. I got no issue with the gays. Just, you know, do your thing somewhere else, you know what I mean? Just like, let me black out in peace. Like another country. Might be willing to trans, the kids. The only issue I have with the trans is the kids, you know?

No kids. Look, they're a very liberal, progressive society. He liberals is not the right word for that, though. You know what I mean? Which? Like, it's not liberal to cut off a kid's, you know, who-hoo. No, I would say that's progressive. Yeah.

So you said they were liberal, and I'm like, well, you know. Well, I value liberalism more than progressivism. I have sensitivities to certain progressive values, but. I don't even understand how, like, the trans-up is progressivism. Is it like eugenics? Progressivism is like, it's like a really loose label for essentially, like, pushing dominantly for areas where the, like, high levels of minorities have been, like, disproportionately disaffectionately. I don't know. I like the progressives of the early 1900s were eugenicists. Is it a right word? Mm-hmm. They were into eugenics. I don't know if I would agree that the

progressives were. I would say that was more main. That was not the progressives. No, not the progressives. No, not the progressives. Eugenics was mainstream, more than it was progressive. Eugenics was not a mainstream opinion. It was an opinion pushed by small elites. But the term progressive, it's had a wildly different meaning from a century ago than today. It used to be, Woodrow Wilson was the was a progressive. This is a fact. This is a fact. by the way. Yeah, Thomas Soul talks about it. Woodrow Wilson was super racist. He was also pro-centralized state and pro-ugenics. And what happened is the Marxists took over over time. And with FDR, you saw a shifting of the term progressive. And the term liberal got co-opted by leftists under FDR as well.

Sure. It's just like such a, this is such a boring, uninteresting talking point. It's like, we're people of the past into bad things sometimes. I find the entire left's platform boring, because it's inaccurate. Good one. Really got him with that one, right? Yeah, I did. Changing of definitions. Good job.

Autism bullying at its finest. Right? So like when we, well, if you want to engage with the actual ideas here, right? Like, okay, yeah, eugenics was popular. So it was like phrenology, right? And then these fell out of favor.

Although a certain level of soft eugenics has almost been held universally even to this date, right? We just don't want to call eugenics, right? Like most people are okay, for example, with like making sure that we try to reduce over time rare diseases that cause immense suffering, right?

Like people are broad. okay with these ideas. And so obviously I'm not a supporter of eugenics, but I think like saying, like it was just a left idea. It's like, okay, I could just say, conservatives just always really love slavery and just love slavery. It's just like it's an unsophisticated, uninteresting way in way to engage with the ideas because it requires typifying an entire like half of political thought that has a massive amount of history that's unsatisfying. It would be the same as if I did that to the conservative side, which I typically aim not to do. You would say a different thing in a different context. In a different

context where you're talking about. So in a different context where you're talking about what traits do you want to further inside the population? Because you accept these principles, and I'm not a big eugenics guy. I don't support it. I believe in a mating free market. So you're willing to accept the principles that are bad, like horrible illnesses. But what principles are positive? What are the positive genetic traits you'd select for? There aren't positive genetic traits that I would like to select for. There are traits that make people more successful. There are traits that make people more intelligent. Yeah, but I don't want any level of state level pressure to be selecting for that.

I think that would be bad. You're willing to talk about it at the extremes, but you don't have a logically consistent code for what you're willing to accept. Have you never heard of the word pluralism? But what does pluralism mean? Pluralism means that you have irreducible moral values that often end up competing against one another. This is what most democracies are built on. For example, you've got like Hobbs and Locke that are talking about privacy versus freedom, right? Privacy matters and freedom matters.

And the actual answer is in different circumstances, you might have to prioritize security, such as at the border, whereas we might prioritize freedom, such as people can't just come into your house without a warrant and take things or arrest you, right? So we have these trade-offs all the time. This is what pluralism is. It's a very accepted standard thing. What's the line between that and just making things up based off context for what sounds good? Well, typically you would utilize philosophy to build a rational reason as to why certain values might matter more here. This is what, like, what do you mean? Do you think Hobbs and Locke just didn't really engage in philosophy?

be there just some silly billy guys who just like had preferences. Hobbs and Locke would be radically right wing by the current context. That's not what I ask you again. Do you think Hobbs and locks were silly little guys that just couldn't draw through line? I'm asking it your moral philosophy. I asked you about Hobbs and Locke. Can you not answer it? Were they silly little guys?

It's a comparison. I'm making an analogy of your logic. Hobbs was operating under a radical modern monarchist perspective and Locke was operating under a liberal perspective. They both ground themselves in the Greco-Roman and the Western and the Abrahamic tradition. Sure. That's not the modern left. The modern left is not operating

on a similar level of rationality as those things. Of course, they are. Most of the modern left is broadly built of like Rawls and utilitarianism. No, they're not. That's not true. And here's the issue, right? I can engage with conservatives

and actually take their concept. Seriously, I think some of the things that you've said have been insightful and interesting and should be engaged with, and I've disagreed with some things. The problem is that what you're doing instead is I think I even heard you before saying, I don't even talk to anybody on the left anymore.

plugging your ears and not engaging with opposition that actually has substantive ideas, especially if such a large population on the amount, find some of these ideas valuable, it's just intellectual naivety and baby behavior. We got to grab more checks. I can engage with you in the way that you should engage with me in what I'm actually saying. Answer my question, is Hobbs and Locke silly because they were engaging in a pluralistic question of what is the tension between these two irreducible values that they had? So the reason I reached that conclusion is because I've spent hundreds of hours or thousands of hours talking to leftists and I've read thousands of pages in the history of the left.

But you don't know me. And I came to the conclusion, I've seen your argument so far. And I came to the conclusion that the left is not rationally consistent and they're not morally consistent. And so you're not going to reach. The right is anti-war, but they love Trump. They're Christian values, but they have a sex pest in there. Sure, I can do this to the right too. That's my point is that it's a straw man.

Sure. I believe you, I believe you that you have talked to a bunch of really dumb... But the right is a composition, a coalition of disaffected liberals, libertarians, and conservatives because the left is not consistent. The left is a pro... Because the left is not consistent, moderates who are rational or driven out. Neither is the right because the right has to have a big tent. This is why pluralism happens.

I am saying there is a... When you refer to the right, you're talking about a coalition in modern times, which includes disaffected liberals, moderates, and libertarians. True. They left the left because the left was morally and logically inconsistent. I'll give you an example. My favorite example. Probably the number one reason why they left the left wasn't just logic inconsistency.

It was abhorrent left behavior and censorship, right? The way that the left treated people. I would argue a lot of weird beliefs. Like what is a woman? It's a performance. I've already answered this question before. This is exactly the point. No, this is the word game.

We know what a woman is. What's a chair? What's a chair? A chair? is an object with four legs used for a human being to sit on. Is a stool with three legs not a chair? It is a chair indeed. Oh, okay.

But it didn't match your definition. Well, because a stool is a subset of an object for what you can sit up. Yeah, we're doing the category of arms. So you're doing a performance that no one believes is real. Hold on. I'm the only one just willing to engage in the actual philosophy of the question here, right? Rather than just doing some like silly conservative. No, no, I'm willing.

I just don't want to interrupt. No, the point is. You know that he's always willing, right? Human beings use words to convey ideas. Sometimes we have a mismatch in the death. definition of words between cultures. Everybody understands what is meant when someone says what is a woman. That's why I say a performance.

If you said to me, what do you mean when you say a performance? I say, by and large, when we say a woman, we mostly mean a person that has tits that looks like a woman that typically dresses like a woman and acts like a woman, right? According to our society. Yes, it is. No. Yes, because you didn't check my genitalia. You didn't check my dentatia.

That is the made up definition. You looked at my breasts. You look at the way that I'm fend presenting, that I have long hair and that I talk femininely. And I've talked about tampons and whatever else. I've talked about. Again, I appreciate that. You might be a dude, but come on. So like, you're not, I agree. I agree that this is the issue with categories. No one uses the word to mean performance and you know it and you are lying to say otherwise. I'm not because you are. I'm not because the gender movement just absolutely said, actually let's separate woman from female.

A female is a biological. The only people who make the argument that the word woman means performance are progressive hoity-to-dy-toy individuals who pretend like they're smarter than other people. This is the way language has always worked, right? Yes, it absolutely is. and definitions have absolutely shifted in utilization and what we mean that to use all the time. This is why depression can be a clinical term and depression can also be a mood. The moderates leave. I agree. I agree.

Well, it does, it does something that's really interesting, which is that it creates basically a very simple thing. It causes a major question. It makes somebody look silly if they don't have an immediately satisfying answer. But what it also is doing is it's employing a categorical error and utilizing that to say, see how simple this is? And I would agree, yeah, 99% of the time, this is true. We get it.

Sure, but the issue is that, again, we have these fringe instances where it doesn't fall into it, which is why we utilized other language to talk about things like gender. The plus two equals five. Two plus two equals five. No, I would say I disagree. But except the mainstream left did. And they also could not define woman,

despite the fact that everyone on the planet can. And then moderates were like, these people are nuts. The core assumption of the left is, sort of. The core assumption of the left is social constructionism. You can use social categories to create reality and that the people in power through using social categories can fundamentally alter reality. My core assumptions of reality, if you want to look at Aristotle or Plato, Aristotle said that material things exist and that material things are reflections of higher things, but you should assess the material things first. Plato thought that the world we live in is a reflection of higher divine forms. Western civilization has used these two different theories based on context to assess for different layers of reality.

And so the West has alternating between these two core theories. And these were the acceptable ones for how to structure reality. We got to grab, we got to grab Chats. We got to grab. What's money? Money is typically a universal trade medium that represents debt for exchange between individuals for something of value. Can we shift and change what money actually means? And have we?

What do you mean? Well, in the past, for example, we used a lot of. like loan sticks and then we shifted to gold for example inflation and money is always just in the universal intermediary of value exchange sorry and money has always been the intermediary for value exchange sure but the way that we've observed and viewed money the way that we've engaged with money modern monetary theory the fact that technology exists does not change the fact that a woman is an adult human feeling well the issue is that when technology exists we discover that a lot of fundamental axioms that we held about the world are more complex and fractal than we realized I'm just going to

say this again, you do recognize that like 95% of people on the planet disagree with what you're saying. Absolutely, but the issue is, hold on, at a quantum level, for example, 99% of the population would disagree if I say, if I'm not looking at the moon, if nobody observes it, does it exist? Everyone would say, yeah, of course it exists. Well, at a quantum level, no, it doesn't. That's not true. Yes, it is true. Project permanent is a prior by maybe at one year.

This is like the major quantum conversation that happened between Einstein and what's the, You fundamentally misunderstand the double-slit experiment. Can we read more super check now? This is not about the double-slit experiment at all. I don't even know why you're bringing it up. He doesn't birds and birds. Thank you. Yes, it is about particle way of duality.

Yes, okay. We'll change the definition of the term currency. Troninger's cat and all that stuff. We get it. All right, let's see what we got here. Timothy Robinson says, always good to see you, Rudyard Hiss, 102's age of the last men was insightful.

Could I impose on you for a book suggestion of Cold War history? The best Cold War history is John Lillif. Gattis is one. He's, I'm trying to think of any other ones. Dan Carlin's got a great podcast too. Right on. Cody,

Cody Allen says, What's your favorite death cab song, Tim? Shemannis question. I like the earlier albums. President of What is one of my favorites. I used to play it all the time on the guitar. TV Trace is pretty good. And then I would just say,

like the thing about all their albums is every single song was good. Title and registration has always been a big favorite. favorite of mine, I could play that one. And then of course, transatlanticism, tiny vessels, so good, and we looked like giants. We looked like giants may actually be one of my, be my favorite. It's a tough call. What about fall?

You know, I like transatlanticism or the New Year, actually. The New Year, because when I was in, like, when that song came out, all of the hipster indie kids, like we'd have a party on New Year's, and every everybody would play the new year as soon as the new year hit because we were so cool. But then I'll also give you shout to the Postal Service because that was good to it. Who I will follow you into the dark is that death cab? Yes. I love that song man See but that's that's what it was overplayed like oh gee stuff bro. Oh my you're gonna be a hipster man someday you will die. That song's so good. Don't get us.

I'll be right but to be fair like soul meets body is okay. Cricket teeth I really do like I I really just love like president of what I just I've been Gibbard is a master lyricist. He knows how to do it. I haven't listened to Beth Gevin a long time, though. They had a new song come out the other day. Oh, wow, good for them. All right, let's go. Minor Zircon says, this chick is a communist. I thought we figured that out yesterday when she wanted the government to steal people's property. That never happened. Again, you can you can straw man me for as long as you want. The issue is that I, I in large part come to Tim show because I want to engage genuinely with people of opposing ideas. If you can't do the same to me, that's fine, but that's a reflection of you. No, no, actually, we all agree with you, but before you got here,

we all talk to each other and said, let's just pretend like we don't. That's actually all something they're like, we voted for Kamala. I'm not even gonna lie, we voted for Kamala. Only when liberals show, we change the format of the show. Would you think it's right wing? Huh? Would you have voted for Kamala?

Yeah, probably. Yeah. Not even probably, absolutely unequivocally, unquestionable. The problem was they didn't have a primary. And it was like imperial selection. That's like, I don't want to vote for imperial selection. Sure, but it's better than somebody who tried over there. I gotta read this.

I don't know. I prefer the process. I prefer the Constitution. Eric says drug test your guests, Tim. Mitho says, Kami-Mami. Just to let you know, corporations are considered

individuals under American law. If you let another country screw over our business interests, you are letting them screw over the majority. So that's a good thing, actually. The law did it, so that's a good thing. I thought it was funny that he called you Kami-Mami. Yeah, all of them are going to call me,

I'm not a communist. In fact, I spend a large portion of my content. Pems the Great says, I live in rural Virginia. If a pregnant cow, a halfer, crosses a, unto my land, neither the cow or calf become mine, and I could be killed if I try

to say they are, and birthright citizenship. I want to take the cow. Mitho says, Jesus is the third temple. His return is the fulfillment of the prophecies. He said before his death, tear this temple down, and I will rebuild it in three days. He came back to life in three days. Interesting.

All right. Let's see what we got going over here on this YouTube. We got a bunch of big superchats here around this. Big ones. Big. Very big. Some say too big, but it's okay.

The biggest, the best. Madcap vlog says, I got a question for Rudyard. Have you looked into astrology and the 84-year Uranus cycle? The last Neptune was in Ares. The last Neptune was in Ares was the Civil War. The last time Pluto was an Aquarius was the American Revolution. Is it real? So I have not studied astrology.

I have not put significant effort into it. I heard there were studies by the CIA studying it that thought that I heard the CIA did research that there are correlation in political events in astrology, but I haven't looked deeply into that. We're talking on Newton and how he was into alchemy. So Newton was into alchemy and these things were all part of the same coherent pre-modern worldview, but I have not sunk a lot of time into astrology. Personally, I feel like the planets, if it is a magnetic universe, which evidence is pointing at,

that they're like lenses, radiation lenses so that the radiation passes through planetary bodies and it can super accelerate and leave imprints on your body when it comes out of the mom's EMF frequency body, you're exposed to the radiation and it imprints something on you. Might have something to do with their stars and planets are. People generally believe that the planets informed stuff over history. What I would best guess is it's a correlation thing, that the planets operate under certain underlying correlations we're not aware of,

and these correlations operate across the universe. because lots, like, you know, the suicide rate is correlated with the yo-yo purchasing rate, and no one thinks that buying yo-yo's causes suicide. I do know. Have you heard of the website Spurious Correlations? Yeah, I have. It's great, right? Spurious correlations.

It's been around forever. It's so good. Here we go. Google searches, let's see, the number of movies Dwayne Johnson appeared in correlates with Google searches for zombies. popularity of the first name Caroline inversely correlates with Newmont's stock price. Google searches for zombies correlates with the number of real estate agents in North Dakota. Interesting. The distance between Neptune and Mercury correlates with petroleum consumption in Azerbaijan.

Whoa. That proves that's something. And it's from 92 to 2017, too. Right, right, right. All these different timelines, interesting. I wonder why they can't hold to a consistent timeline for this. Their claims. Look at this.

The popularity of the press F to pay respects meme correlates with Boeing stock price. Naturally. I wonder what happened before 2006. Probably the same thing. Or before 2011 or before 2004. Well, in 1999. Interesting. Obviously exactly what you think it was.

When you just take a little snapshot of them. Yeah. The number of breweries in the US correlates with Amazon stock price. That is not a spurious correlation. That is not at all a spurious correlation. Because they bought Whole Foods and they put breweries in the Whole Foods. Because Amazon stocks themselves are. are sentient and they buy beer.

No, because Amazon's growth correlates directly with the shuttering of box stores and local businesses, which creates open, vacant buildings by which people try to fill them with a service that Amazon does not provide. So your local butcher gets shut down, your local packaging store gets shut down, whatever Amazon.com can replace, there are now empty buildings in your city center, and what can't Amazon make a brewery to hang out, play games and drink? So this actually makes sense. Interesting.

They do have cell beer, like the Whole Foods in Venice, California, and Rose and 7th, we would go hang out at the bar in the Whole Foods. Let's grab this one from the Apostle. James says, I'm a combat veteran, 22 years in the USMC infantry, six combat deployments. I can tell that Kyla has never experienced real adversity, let alone seconds to assess potential life and death danger. Okay, just to front-low this from the hop. No, I was serially sexually abused from zero to three.

I worked for it's fine it's nobody's fault one of the worst things that I think that we do on all of these types of political conversations is we engage in thought termination right we use cliches that will make our audiences happy like being like hey hey what is a pedophile and my audience is we be happy to I think one of the worst things that we also do is we assume a lot about each other right you've assumed for example that there's no substance that you can engage with me on which is unfortunate because I haven't assumed that about you just like I haven't been overly impressed by a number of things that you said you've never been in a lot of you've never been in a life life in that situation, right? Yes, I have. I've had children chase me with axes. I worked for high-risk youth. I spent most of my career in jails working with like both young sex offenders and their victims. But they're getting chased by dudes. I'm not a combat. I'm not a combat veteran. And I would never ever begin to take that away from these people or steal that valor. But people people pretending, no, I haven't been Canadian. We don't have guns. That's crazy. Right? We have the next best thing is children with axes. Um, close actually. Very close. And I've Someone said after our hockey team beat the Canadians, they have to give each person in America

40 acres and a moose. Yeah, but you get only the northern territories, so nobody cares. In Rogers, the fence, he did ask you what your philosophy. When you guys were going out of it, he asked you what your philosophy was, but it kind of got ignored. Sure. The reason why I'm saying that he's not engaging with me is he just keeps insisting, you're morally inconsistent.

And it's like, I'm a pluralist. Being pluralistic, necessary. Like, it doesn't mean that I'm not, I can't be inconsistent. But you can just ask me, how do you draw the through line? of your foreign policy, and I'll give it to you, but instead you assume things about my foreign policy. I think the point I understand is that, like, Prince. I'm going to say this. So the reason I say this is that I've spent a very significant amount of time studying the philosophy of the left. And the left uses various rhetorical games, and when I hear them, I just throw them out. Because the rhetoric,

you've used many. So when I hear the rhetorical games, I hear the mental filtering process they're used for. But what is a woman isn't a rhetorical game? So I'm done. So I'm not done. So Okay, I'll ask you afterwards. When you look at how the left operates, they have a series of mental games they use, and they have a series of filtering mechanisms. Why don't we start off the uncensored show with this? So just keep that thought. We're going to jump out of the uncensored portion.

Also, commie-money-based. I'm taking it. Rumble.com. Rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL, in about 30 seconds. And then we'll add swear words to the arguments. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Roger, do you want to shout anything out? You could watch my shows.

I'm just here, man. Just blow it through the universe, man. So I should start now? No, no, no, no. No, we're a shout out. No, we're going to switch over. So, Kylo, what's up? Yeah, hey, not so aridite.

If you actually want to engage in substance, that's kind of the thing that I do. I don't care what you think. I care how you think. No, no. Yes, it's not about what. It's about how. We are bridging the gap.

Literally, the future is reliant on people continuing to communicate in high stress situations like this. So keep it going. Ian's a dog and subscriber. You can't trust anything he says about it. All I want is. to preserve righteousness throughout. We've got to define all those terms.

I met Ian Crossland. Follow me there. Carter Banks. Man, this has been a really great discussion. Thank you both for coming out, and I'm really excited for the after show. You can follow me at Carter Banks Everywhere, Phil. I am, Phil The Remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon. That is patreon.com slash fill it remains. The band is all that remains.

We're going on tour this spring. We're going to be out with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes. We start April 29th in Albany. You can check out ticket. You can get tickets. at All There Remains Online.com. You can check out the band's music at Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime.

We will see you all over at rumble.com slash timcast.IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for ringing out.