Timcast IRL - Karmelo Anthony APPEALS, GiveSendGo DELETES Fundraiser w/ Mike Benz & Rebeka Zeljko

Episode Date: June 11, 2026

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Mike Benz and Rebeka Zeljko to discuss GiveSendGo taking down Karmelo Anthony's fundraiser, Jasmine Crockett slammed after defending Karmelo Anthony, Mike Johnson calls out California election fraud, ActBlue CEO refuses to answer questions in hearing after accusations of donation fraud, Dead Internet Theory is real, and Ethan Klein lawsuit could destroy copyright law.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwN... Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Mike Benz  @MikeBenzCyberOfficial  (YT) | @MikeBenzCyber (X) Rebeka Zeljko @RebekaZeljko (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Karmelo Anthony APPEALS, GiveSendGo DELETES Fundraiser | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Close your eyes, and you can hear the entire world come alive. 2026 FIFA World Cup is on, and you can stream it all live on TSN Radio. From the opening kickoff to the final celebration, every match, every moment. Listen to FIFA World Cup on TSN Radio. Gives Canada to the liftoff! Available on IHeart Radio. Carmelo Anthony is officially appealing his conviction, his sentencing, and we are seeing an insane reaction from, I don't know how else to describe it other than a, like, I don't want to make it seem like literally every black person is saying they want to kill white people or anything like that, because certainly that's not the case, but there is a massive amount of social media coming from people in the black community saying outright they want to commit violence against white people. In fact, in one video, a guy on a bike, a black man literally punches a random white guy because he thought he saw him at the

courthouse. In another video, a guy says to go out and kill. I mean, this is how insane things have gotten. Carmelo Anthony is appealing. Tensions are rising and give send go has pulled down his fundraiser and is expected, at least according to a few reports, to refund the money to those who made donations. I don't know how much that would actually be because I do believe they disperse, like these fundraising platforms will disperse periodically. Let's just say racial tensions are hot right now. And not even here across the pond, Belfast, Ireland is seeing still ongoing riots. Apparently it's not as bad, but they were telling people to get out of the city by the afternoon

because they expect that it be more riots. For those of you, I didn't see the story. Sudanese guy horrifically and brutally mutilated a man. I can't even begin to describe the things that he did, but he had a kitchen knife and he was trying to remove the man's head as well as his eyes, his face. The whole thing is absolutely horrific. And for this, we saw homes being burned down. We saw vehicles getting burned down. It's absolutely intense. And then, of course, we'll pick back up in the California Democrat election conversation about how they're cheating. New information, of course, emerging.

There's another report of a California individual being caught with. engaging in voter fraud. So we'll talk about that. And then the news that everybody can't wait to hear about. I guess we're still at war with Iran or the war is getting worse. The U.S. has begun striking Iran again, taking out water reservoirs. And apparently Trump's even calling Fox News reporter Trey Yinks from the situation room to explain what's going on. This is absolutely crazy. So we'll talk about that and a whole lot more. Before we get out of my friends, we've got We got a great sponsor for you. It's Chef IQ.com.

Father's Day is coming up, my friends. And if you don't know what to get Dad, this is it. Skip the random last minute gift and get him something he'll genuinely love using. Chef IQ Sense. It's a smart thermometer that connects to your phone, tells you exactly when your food is done. It's the perfect gift for Father's Day. And right now, during their Father's Day sale, you'll get 40% off site wide with my code, Tim. Dad's will love it.

You can check everything right from your phone. It tracks your cook in real time and walks you through it step by step. It tells you exactly when to flip, pull, rest, serve. It turns, I think it's done into I know it's perfect. No more overcooked steaks or dry chicken. Restaurant level results at home. Steak, chicken, burgers, fish, it handles all of it. Works on the grill, oven, smoker, whatever you're using.

You don't have to babysit your food anymore. Watch the game, hang with the family. Your phone tells you when it's ready. It's like having a cooking coach right in your pocket. this is the gift he'll actually use every single week. Go to Chef IQ.com. Use promo code Tim for 40% off sitewide. That's ChefIQ.com promo code Tim.

Don't forget to also go to Timcast.com. Join the community, everybody. Smash that like button. Subscribe to the channel and join tens of thousands of people hanging out every single day. And as a member, you can call in to the uncensored portion of the show. That being said, joining us, we got a couple of guests coming to hang out. First up, we've got the great. Mike Benz.

Great to see you. Who are you? What do you do? I'm a guy on the internet. He's a guy on the internet. I think you're like the foremost deep state expert. I dabble. I dabble in the deep. Dabble in the deep.

No, but with all due respect, I do believe that when it comes to issues of what we would describe as the deep state, you have uncovered more. You know more about the networks of these institutions and this power and things like that. So I think it'll be great to have you. I'm closer to the end.

NGOs than I am to my own family. So yes, that's, I know them well. Right on. And we also have Rebecca Zalko. Hello, thank you for having me. Who are you? What are you? What are you doing? I'm a reporter for The Daily Caller. I cover national politics. Right on. The boys are hanging out. What up?

Hi. Hi. Hello, everybody. My name is Philibonti. I'm the lead singer, the heavy metal band all that remains. Let's get into it. Yeah, Ian needs no introduction. He doesn't. He doesn't. But it's good to have the foremost expert on The Blob. The Blob. I like that moniker. Yeah, Mike was just telling me that Gielane Maxwell was on the 9-11. Okay, can we not do this right now? Absolutely cannot.

Data. Welcome to Ian Crossland show. All right. I'm going to stop seeing. The bathroom was miced, all right? Here we go. Let's get the news. We got this from CBS.

Two big stories. Carmelo Anthony to appeal murder conviction in Friscoe track meeting stabbing. They say that he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. It took jurors two and a half hours. We've got this new photo of him in his jail smock and his shaved head. Dallas appellate attorney David Cole, who has handled appeals for decades, said Anthony's team could have several strong arguments on appeal. But any appeal would not be about what the jury heard. It would center on whether this trial was handled correctly.

The Collins County Sheriff's Office said Anthony was transferred to a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility on Wednesday after spending one night in Colin County Jail. Now, the big, big component of this, Givesendgo has pulled down. This is from Dallas Express. gives and go has shut down the official fundraiser for carmelo anthony following his conviction for the murder of austin metcalf the move comes one day after colin county jury convicted him this we know with the campaign now shut down following anthony's murder conviction the platform is expected to contributors consistent with its policy on campaigns involving individuals convicted of violent crimes no official announcement has been made regarding the final disbursement of the more than six hundred and thirty thousand dollars raised prior to the givsend go campaign being removed the description posted by the anthony family reds in part as follows, this is the official support fund for Carmelo and his family during this challenging and difficult time. GoFundMe removed earlier campaigns for Anthony citing its policy against fundraisers for the legal defense of violent crimes, donations to those campaigns were refunded, and the company issued the following statement saying, GoFundMe's terms of service prohibit fundraisers for legal defense of violent crimes, consistent with this longstanding policy.

Any fundraiser for the legal defense of someone in charge of the violent crime is removed from the platform and fully refunded. So this is interesting. I guess the situation now for Gives and Go is he is no longer alleged to be. He is now convicted as. And for that, I believe Givesendgo's policies is like if you literally are raising money for a murderer, they shut that down. However, we did talk with Gives and Go GoFundMe when all this went down. And the CEO was saying they don't want to be a platform that polices people's ability to fundraise before conviction. Because that's why everyone's made it GoFundMe. And while they certainly did not agree with Carmelo Anthony, nor side with them, their issue was largely that they have to be neutral across the board. That's the point of gives and go. And it's what makes them better than GoFund me.

So now I'm curious how much money was already dispersed to the family and how much money will be refunded back to people who donated. They were donating still as of today. That doesn't surprise me, honestly. I mean, they bought a house, didn't they? they spent a good portion of the money from what I understand. So I wonder how they'll be able to refund that. They were already wealthy. They were already wealthy.

I think they rented it. They spent all of the money. And if I understand correctly, he had to get a public. I think it was like less than half of the donations went to actual legal expenses. I could be wrong on that, but not, sorry. Didn't he have a public defender? He had a public defender, but he also, I mean, he may have had two defenders. Maybe one of them was private, but I think it is fact that he had a public one,

But I'll fact check that. And the family was wealthy coming into it? They, well, they were not destitute, definitely. I don't know how wealthy or what, you know, someone's definition of wealthy would be. But they were not a poor, what you would consider, a poor family. They were at least middle class, maybe upper middle class. So are leftist groups outraged over the GoFundMe pulling?

I honestly. I'm so used to being on the other side of this where it's like, there's like a 13 year old girl wants to like start a cupcake stand but she voted for Trump and so now it's just like alien to process that like something in a situation like this As far as I've seen there aren't

formal organizations and there aren't a considerable amount of politicians that are coming out in some kind of protest or whatever it's mostly a racial divide and you know I don't imagine that it's the majority of black people, but the black people that are upset about it, they're very vocal, they're very active on social media. There are some assaults that you've heard about, you know, about, you know, there's a guy

Tim brought up earlier, Tim probably has it brought up that was assaulted because the guy that, the black guy thought that he was on the jury. I mean, in Florida, too. I mean, really in Florida. Yeah, so. And you said not all politicians, but Jasmine Crockett, she had some things to say about the trial. Some eloquent things to say we might add. She brushed it up, I think. Yeah. She was talking to She dropped the abonics, you mean? A little code switching going on? She was talking to the TMZ reporter today,

and she was using all kinds of euphemisms saying that he punctured, he punctured, Austin, saying that he punctured him with a tool. Yeah. And he said, she said, it was only one time. It wasn't like he was stabbing him multiple times. If you want to call, if you want to call the knife of tool, I will continue to call my firearm a tool because that's what it is. I think it may have been a multi-tool. Could be. Yeah, that he had, like, I saw some report and said that he had a three and a half inch blade attached to a multi-tool that he unfolded, which I actually think makes

worse because it's harder to pull the knife out on that. Yeah. Yeah, he had a couple seconds to think about it before he decided to kill. If he had like a steak knife or maybe like a buck knife or something and grabbed it, you could be like a passion murder, meaning, and just in the moment on the fly, he's like, he grabbed the knife. But he was like, but this was premeditated. Yeah.

So the fact that he grabbed the blade and prepared it and then go to the man indicates premeditation. So I haven't been, I remember this when this first happened, but I haven't been following it. Is there like a close question of fact that the protests are alleging, you know, he's actually innocent because it seemed just from the way it was reported with no diligence coming into it, it seemed pretty open and shut murder. Are these protests, are they alleging that there's some sort of mistrial and bias, or are they just pro-murder? They're saying that it's generally the people that are protesting are racially motivated,

and you hear a lot of things like, well, you know, we have to stick together, and he didn't, he. And it's an us versus them. Yeah. And it's in, it's not just for him to have gotten 35 years, that it should have been less, because it was only his first offense. I mean, it's a murder. It's only his first murder.

Yeah. The issue is this. These people that you see outside and the protesters on the Carmilla Anthony side are almost exclusively black. Have no idea what's happening in the world. And so the first problem

is that when they're asked questions, they say things that are wildly just not aligned with reality. However, Savannah Hernandez has that viral video where she asks the black woman if the evidence shows that this is murder, would you stand by conviction? And she says, no, we're going to stand with our own. They stand with theirs. We stand with ours. Prison rules. Well, I mean, it's racial

tribal rules, you know? So we found there's some great studies have been going viral. And Matt Walsh has covered this extensively, and he does a fantastic job of this. On juries, the only racial group that is neutral in terms of guilty or not guilty pleas by race is white people. So Asians, they tend to say Asians are not guilty when it comes down to it and black people especially. In fact, black people are more likely to say a white person is guilty and a black person is not guilty, not just that black people are not guilty.

So there's a clear racial preference, but the worrying thing about it is they like to do this meme. There's a clip in Reacher where Tom Cruise is trying to hide from the police. So he goes to a bus station and he's very clearly evading cops that are driving down the street.

So a black guy, takes his hat off and hands it to him, and then another black guy steps in front of him, and Tom Cruise puts the hat on and looks down. And, you know, people are posting online being like, oh, look at that. You know, the brothers are protecting him from the cops because they know what's up. It's actually not true. The data shows that there's a slight percentage increase that black people on a jury, when seeing a white person accused of a crime, are slightly more likely to say he's guilty

than someone who, well, than a white person would have a white person, or even a Latino or Asian person would have a white person. I'd be curious to see like a longitudinal study on something like that because that was something that I just remember I think I was in middle school when the OJ Simpson trial thing happened and and I think I saw like some portion of a documentary like years after that where it seemed pretty evident that the jury barely like admitted it basically no no no but today it is known that the jurors have stated explicitly right that's what I think like the documentary was saying that that it was like the jurors basically in a non-racial context, they'd call that like jury nullification. Like you actually see. Yeah, black people can just kill people, I guess. Right, right. But, but what I mean is like NGOs actually go around, like, they went around DC, like training juries to like nullif, like that you have a right to just, regardless of what the crime is, say someone is innocent of it because you don't need to follow,

like, you can make up your own mind about whether or not, you know, to vote guilty or not regardless of what the judge instructs you, like this whole jury nullification line or whatever. But I'm curious whether that has gone up down or stayed relatively neutral. Because when the OJ thing happened, there was, I feel like this sentiment around the black community that like, okay, we're owed this one. And then I felt like that kind of,

I'm sure that is statistically true, what Tim said. it felt like it was very much in the room in the 90s when there were all these race riots around Rodney King and all this stuff. And then I feel like it's sort of probably chilled out for a while. And then I assume came back in a big way during BLM like 2012 2013 and Obama era. I'm just curious where we are.

Like I'm curious if it's improved, I guess. No, it's, it's, what we are seeing now in response to this is shocking to me. And I was at most of the BLM riots. I mean, I was at the first Trayvon Martin marches in New York City. I was at the Ferguson protest. I was at the Freddie Gray stuff. I was at the activist meetings for these things. And I saw woke and I saw, you know, DEI kind of stuff.

But it was like, oh, yeah, look, there's a thing, right? That's how people feel. The videos we're seeing now in response to this, where they're like, go kill white people or nuts. I hate to give Jasmine Crock at any more airtime. But she literally in the hallway was like, he just wanted to get out of the rain. He didn't do anything. And then in the end of the video,

she's talking about, oh, if it was a white guy, I doubt he ever would have even been convicted. It was crazy. She was an elected official. I know she's a bit on the extreme end, but still. Yeah. Crazy.

They said there was no black people on the jury, and I don't really know how that came to be. But that's like the closest thing to an argument that they've had that I have seen. But they were claiming it was an all-white jury. Yeah. And then I think the kind of, counter was actually it's not an all white jury, it's just got no black people on it.

Right. But we don't know who the alternates are. And so I do think that framing is funny. I don't know if the jurors, there were Asians or Latinos on it, but it considering the counter argument, it would be funny if it turned out. It was a multi-ethnic jury, but without black people, and so black people just said it was all white. Yeah. You know what I mean? And they know, like bringing that point up, they're almost admitting that like black people would be more sympathetic towards black people if they were on the jury. That's exactly what they're saying. True, but it's just funny to, like, hear them admit it almost. I, you know, I got to respect them for it.

At least they're right honest. Man, imagine someone I made a post and they said, if white people start acting the way, if white people start acting the way black people do when a black person commits a murder or is murdered, it's going to get ugly. If white people acted the way that these particular people, the ones that are protesting stuff,

if white people acted the way that they say that white people act, there wouldn't be any black people. Like they swear up and down that it's lynching, that, you know, white people are killing them, they're killing black people and stuff. It's just total attachment from reality. Let's pull up this Jasmine Crockett clip. We're going to start light with all of you guys. There's been a crazy reaction to the results of the Carmelo Anthony criminal trial with Democrats still, some of them trying somehow to defend Carmelo Anthony.

Jasmine Crockett starts us off real light and easy. But just wait. because after we play this video, we're going to show you some of the street videos where there are direct threats of violence, calls to commit murder, and overt acts of violence against white people because of this ruling. He ended up hitting Austin one time, and it was about where he hit him. One time, two inches. This wasn't someone who said, hey, let me stab you five, six, seven times.

And so when you're looking at the punishment range, there's a reason in Texas that it goes from five to 99 or life, because you were looking at how intentional, like, how bad was this? 35 years for a kid who had decided to go under a tent that was not his team's tent as it was raining and simply didn't want to be put out in the rain by some random kid that he didn't know who was larger than him. Listen, a lot of people don't know what it is to live as a black person in this country, but just like you can give the benefit of the doubt to so many police officers when they go out and they shoot some black unarmed, person, even though they are trained, the fact that there was little to no mercy scene or humanity seen.

They first don't know what is happening. They don't. I mean, just the narrative that she's spinning. 35 years when he could have had 99, that's actually fairly merciful. The whole bringing up the BLM narrative, which has been patently debunked, the idea that that white police officer killing unarmed black men in the streets and the whole. hundreds or thousands of years. This is all just totally detached from reality. And then to talk about privilege from the halls of Congress, a black woman in the halls of Congress.

Unreal. Just unreal. The way she just said he hit him one time. But yeah, I mean, with a knife. So, so what she is saying outright is Carmel. Carmel, Anthony didn't want to stand in the rain. This is, this is what I've been saying the whole time. Carmelo Anthony went into the tent and it was raining. And they said, get out of our tent. And he felt disrespected. He didn't want to let these dudes make him stand in the rain or run through the rain to a different tent. So according to all of the witnesses, the gist of the story is, he refused. They asked him several times. He reaches in his bag, draws the knife, grips it in his hand. Someone actually said, be careful he's got a weapon. Austin apparently said, he doesn't got a weapon. Dude said, touch me and see what happens. He said,

I'm not going to fight you to attract me, dude. And when he walked up to him, one witness said, before he could even shove him, because people have claimed he shoved him. This witness had, but he didn't give it a chance to shove him because Carmelo Anthony stabbed him before he was even able to do it. Like in the throat? Only once. Right the chest. Right in the heart, yeah.

Right piercing his heart, killing him. And it's important to understand a couple of things. He unfolded the blade and prepared it in advance. Premeditation. The fact that he stabbed him in the chest, intent to kill. Chest stabs are almost always lethal. You're going to puncture the lung and people don't know first day. person is going to die in a couple of minutes from a sucking chest wound, or you're going to hit him

in the heart. And that's what he did. So I think it's, I think here's my, here's my, my profile on Carmelo Anthony. So apparently it started to rain. He tried to go into a dugout. They told him, you can't, you can't go over here, go somewhere else. So he ran up to a tent. They said, bro, you can't come into our tent. And he's like, you're not going to make me stand in the rain. In his mind, he's thinking they're disrespecting me. And I'm not going to let him disrespect me. Or rain or acid rain. Like, this is just regular old rain. Regular old rain. And this is one, I want people to understand. He was the aggressor, prepared a knife.

He could have just stood in the rain. And so this is the distinction. You know, I've told this story before about how New Jersey handles gun laws. They invert it. So when I had a guy try to break into my house, I was talking to the cops. And, you know, one cop was like, if it were me, I'd answer the door with a shotgun. And then I was like, oh, like, how do I do it? And they're like, oh, well, actually, you have a duty to retreat in New Jersey.

And I was like, I'm sitting, I'm in my house. and I'm like retreat to where is my house? And they were like, listen to what you're saying? They said, this is the funny thing about liberals. The cop said, listen, he's like, I'm not advised you on anything legal, but sounds to me like you want to tell a judge, I would rather shoot a man and kill him than stand outside. And I was like, I get it.

That's how these blue states operate. A guy breaks in your house and you are like, I'm shooting him, he's breaking in my house. You will get arrested in charge with felony murder. murder, and when you go before the jury and the judge, you'll say, he broke it in my house and I was scared, so I shot him. And they will ask, did you attempt to flee? And your response is, no, where would I go? And outside? And they're like, well, I don't know where to go outside. And they're like, you would, you would rather kill a man than be standing outside somewhere. That's intent to murder. Your Honor, it was raining outside. Now, think about how the left is handling this. To be fair,

I think most people are not siding with them. But people like Jasmine Crockett, hey, look, she's a, she's a damage she is siding with him. Her attitude is he should not have been made to stand in the rain. So you got to give him sympathy for stabbing somebody in the chest. He was just a kid. He was 17. They wouldn't know what district. Cracket represents. Just I think north of where the the, the like Dallas, right? Yeah, like Dallas area. Here we go. You guys ready for this one? It's dude riding a bike. Don't be a minute. There you go. Watch is 30. Hey, what are you on jurors selection? No, no, he wasn't. No, he wasn't.

He wasn't even let him answer the question. He was on juror selection. He's a vet. He's a bet. He ain't big on jury selection. He drew a knife. You're going to die. You're going to die.

You're on jury. Why are you on juror's in this? No, he wasn't. He wasn't. He wasn't. That man was not on a jury. He was on jury selection. That dude sitting on the ground that some bus stop or something was not a jury guy.

That dude doesn't go to jury duty. Look at him. He's not going to jury duty. I think we got to be careful on this one, but I want to play it for you guys. So we'll try and be careful with this video. Ain't no fucking judicial justice for black people. How many motherfucking decades and decades have to go by

where you don't receive that? Your justice is fucking frontier justice. They kill one of y'all. You kill one in them. Now, I just want to pause real quick. Is he talking about white? Is he talking to white people right now? because Carmelo Anthony killed a white guy.

I mean, does he goes on to say more things I'm not going to play because he gets, he, like, he says things that we can't play on YouTube. Someone needs to remind him that an eye for an eye doesn't work out when you're only 13% of a population. But where is the other eye? Who's the, who's the one? Well, I assume. Are they saying that like some white guy killed a black guy like the day before? I don't think he knows the facts of the case.

No, they don't even know they're talking about. This is the whole thing. Like, in one of the videos, there's the activists outside, and the woman says something like, what am I supposed to tell my kids? You know, I got five kids. And then a guy goes, Trayvon Martin. And it's like, what? Trayvon Martin was ground pounding Zimmerman bashing him in the face.

So he got shot. I mean, it was a tragic misunderstanding between two parties that resulted in a fight and Zimmerman was getting beaten up, so he shot the kid. It sucks that it happened, but Zimmerman was a Hispanic guy. And so to these people, he's like justice. What's justice to him? Carmelo Anthony stabs a kid who. literally said, I'm not going to fight you and Carmelo shouldn't go to jail. Think about what that

means. Yeah, you know, because I feel like race relations have gotten better in the past couple of years. Again, maybe I'm in a bubble. But it like, okay, so I mean, even take like the Trump 20204 election. Trump won a way more racially diverse like coalition than he had previously. Maybe just within the MAGA movement, I just see like just a ton of inclusion around the African American community. and there's, I think as the kind of Trump equals Hitler, Trump equals KKK stuff has just gotten maybe old and stale and just like. Well, actually, I think that shows that race relations are getting worse. So we were talking about the other day, like there was a young white woman outside of the courtroom who made to what I would describe as racial statements. She said the people outside were chimping out and then referred to what they're doing as a racial slur activity that we can't say on YouTube.

And young people are just unabashed now. They don't care. The reason why no one really cares about Trump being called white supremacist or racist is because Gen Z is like, yep, okay. And then they start throwing n bombs around like. The extremes have gotten. Gypsy Crusader videos. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, like you're saying, the extremes have gotten worse. And louder. The left has been using, has been stoking racial tensions. since, I mean, arguably since 2010, when it really kind of busts on the scene. I think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that with social media and having a cell phone in your pocket that basically let you know anytime you get a notification, right? People see these things brought into their feed a lot. And so the people that are very active online, politically active, which there's a, you know,

the Venn diagram for that is probably a circle or very close to it. These people have really internalized the idea of a lot of racial strife. There was a lot of talk. You don't hear a phrase much nowadays, but when people were talking about critical race theory, this is the goal of critical race theory, right? To awaken a critical racial consciousness, to make people aware of their race,

not just black people or Hispanics, but make everyone aware. And then to set up to figure out the oppressor-oppressed narrative in that, the dynamic. So that way, the people that are oppressed will align against the oppressors in the case of the United States,

its minorities against whites. Correct me if I'm wrong, it shouldn't find was the, political party of the IRA, wasn't it? Yeah, I think so. The political wing. I don't know for sure. But they are also the ones that are like, bring the migrants in Ireland. And right now there's, you know, riots happening in Belfast.

I'm going to go with the probably not correct conspiracy theory that they give up the fighting because they're like, we can't muster up enough support for Irish nationalism, so we're losing. So they create this political, they push through this political party. Bring in as many non-Irish as possible so that everyone has an Irish. racial awakening, and now people are riding in the streets. Northern Ireland and Ireland angry together as Irish. She didn't find a line with the Democratic Socialist Party. Well, I mean, it's just also you could see it as like a continuation of the war against

the British Crown in a way. You're like importing. Yeah. Historically, the right has been the monarchists and the people that are looking to, you know, keep the established order and the left of the people that are against that. And when you've got a group of people that even though Ireland has historically been pretty nationalistic, they look at themselves as opposed to the crown. They're going to say that they're the left because the crown is obviously the right as the monarchy. Right.

Well, I mean, so I guess part of it is you know when it's really hot in the country because there's protests, you know, there's like widespread public disorder. The police are scared. The mayor's office is scared and the like. And for the past couple years, there's been threats. I mean, obviously it popped off in Minnesota around like the ICE stuff. But frankly, a lot of that was the Hispanic organizing groups more so than the black ones. And I don't know if it's because USAID money, like dried up a lot of the NGO stuff. I think that's a lot.

I'm having trouble fundraising and the like. But the, like, I look at this and what's so interesting and, like, to me, unusual about this is you do tend to see this type of like insanity rabble rousing when there's an over. question of fact, even if it's like 95% likely that they're wrong. There's like something they're hanging their hat on, which begs the question of whether he actually did it or not. You know, he's actually guilty. In this case, it looks like everyone knows he's guilty. And the question is just whether he deserves 35 years. You know, I want to jump to the story. We're going to shift into the election stuff. We got some of the new republic. Johnson says California election fraud is so bad it can't be proven. Apparently it's more of a vibes-based thing for Mike Johnson.

They're going to say, asked whether he thought the L.A. mayoral election was rigged. How Speaker Mike Johnson did what it is best, steer away from the facts and embrace nebulous speculation. Quote, I'm not saying it's rigged. I'm saying it stinks to high heaven. And everybody knows that. Let's remove the appearance of impropriety. What a concept. Let's have votes on election day on the day of the election. CNN correspondent Manu Raju asked Johnson what evidence there was to support his vague complaints. Unsurprisingly, the Louisiana politician couldn't provide a whiff of it. Look, some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream, it's impossible

to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here. I'm going to tell you right about what the problem is. The problem is that if you are a smart person, you don't run for Congress, you will be successful in other ways and probably make a lot more money. So the midwits run for Congress and you end up with all due respect, I guess, not to be completely disrespectful to Johnson, but with all due respect to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about he is ill-prepared for these circumstances and perhaps he wasn't smart enough to look into them before making comments on them. It's actually quite easy to answer these questions, so I'll do it for this, Mr. Speaker. So if Manu Raju said, what evidence was there to support the

claim that it is rigged and that they are cheating? How about we go with the Secretary of State's the governmental administration on signature verification and what qualifies as a ballot? We'll go to Section 20991, subsection 8, which reads, vote by mail ballot identification, has no dated postmark. The postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for the receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service, but the voter has dated the vote by mail identification envelope. In other words, ballots can be accepted seven days after the election, hand-backdated with a smiley face as a signature.

What evidence do I have? it's in their own laws on the government website. So I'm going to stress this. On election day, Nithyaraman cries. She doesn't concede, but she cries because she gets crushed. Somehow, over the next week, they magically muster up a massive performance boost in mail-in votes. Now, how do you prove fraud when fraud is legal? You can't.

There's no fraud. This is legal. So let me put it simply for you. They look at the votes. They say Spencer Pratt's up by 40K. How do we beat them? We need, so you look at the proportion of votes that have come in. 39, 28, 20. That was the proportion among the candidates, I believe. Then you say, okay, so we need to make 100,000 ballots that go 60% for Nithia, 10 or 20 for Spencer Pratt, and then maybe 10 or 20 for Karen Bass. The way I said it on X, when you are in a rush to get to find as many votes as possible to eliminate the sole Republican, you don't have.

time to balance the vote count. So here's how it works. First, general ballot harvesting is cheating. It's electioneering and by all standards of elections should be illegal. You cannot go to a polling location and tell people who to vote for and tell them you will help them vote. But they never created a law to coincide with mail-in voting. So you are legally allowed to electioneer at a private home. Tell them, fill out that ballot. I'll fill it out for you and tell you who to vote for and then put a smiley face on it and I'll say it's all good. The best part is, the day after the election, when they know they need 40,000 votes to beat Spencer Pratt, they can actually fill out a ballot on the spot, write a back date by hand, and they don't need a signature. They can use Kirby Star from Nintendo.

That's an explicit example used by the government in California to represent a mark. And then when they turn that in, they say, what's the signature? It's a little cartoon character. Huh. What's the date on it? They wrote in Election Day. All good. That's how they are cheating. It's right there on the Secretary of States website for California. Now, there is something big. I was asked by a journalist today. What's the big story that Republicans need to be focused on? I said, oh, it's Watson, VRNC. Are you tracking this one? I know. It's going to be ruled on in a couple of weeks. And if it is expected, the Supreme Court will end, vote counting after election. day. That's the narrow ruling. If they go broad, they will end vote collecting before election day. And they will say elections must take place on the prescribed day a single day, but that's for federal elections. If they go real broad with it, they can rule all elections must follow the formula codified in Congress that elections are to be held on a single day. That means primary elections, which affect federal elections, must be single day elections

where people know they can come and vote and you don't count votes after the fact. If that happens, Republicans never lose again. So what happens if, you know, I'm at work. I have a deadline. I tell everyone I'm going to do it. Everyone expects and is banked on me having it done by 5 p.m. But I just don't get it done. Like in this case, okay, so would there be legal liability for the officials?

Because I could see a situation where they say, we know that's the law, but darn, there were so many and we were so understaffed. We just couldn't get it done. Like, I can't imagine that they just call the winner election night just based on the ballots they counted because if they did that, then they would only count the Democrat votes first in California. But if there's legal liability, like if there's a criminal penalty, if there's 35 years for whatever, the head of the local election, you know, commission or the, if there's personal

liability. Like, it'll be interesting to see if they go broad on that, how that gets like remedied? Yeah, like how they, but you make a good point. There's always going to be some kind of cheating. And I imagine if they do go broad and say elections on a single day, California is going to be like, well, you know, these are the districts that we count first for no reason. Right, for no all Democrat districts. Or what the Supreme Court may say is that you can only count votes that were received on the day of the election. So it's going to be interesting how they rule on this one. I think what they have to do is end mail in voting. The Supreme Court would have to say ballots must be received at a polling location right there and delivered, because that's the only

way to get around this. You can count all ballots received on election day so long as they were given to the voter on election day. That's the only thing they, I hope that's what they do. So then midnight comes and it's like, well, these ballots are from today. You can count them. just, you know. Didn't the SAVAC just fail? Like, wasn't there, didn't it just get shot down? Wasn't that supposed to have some sort? There's absolutely no appetite for that to get passed in the Senate.

I wonder, I wonder, though, that's because they know with Watson v. RNC, the SCOTUS is about to strike it down and they don't need to start a political fight over it. Or they're going to hold it in their back pocket to see what the Supreme Court does. It doesn't seem like they want to have a political fight over anything over there. Seems like Congress doesn't want to do anything. Yeah, they seem like... Speaker Johnson doesn't want to read the news about what's going on in California. either. The one thing Speaker Johnson did say that I think is true is that you kind of just know

that there's something fishy about that whole situation. When you see that spike on like, what was it? Like, day one, day two, like that feeling probably like. And I think it was either Saturday or Sunday when they had that mail-in ballot dump that just surged Nithia Raman. Like, I don't think it's totally implausible for someone like Raman, a progressive lady, to do well in L.A. That's not the implausible thing. It was the sudden surge in support. And then Karen Baffer, her vote share in the mail and dump didn't really change. It went down. It went down three points.

Which also that is extremely interesting. I think she lost her own district to Pratt. Nithy Rahman lost her own council district. That's where her name ID is. How does that make sense? Take us out. This is San Bernardino County Signature Verification Training. Statewide special election November 4th, 2025.

This is the special election training under state law. And this is the best I found because it uses Kirby. I mean, certainly they're ones. They use X's. Because there's something in California they call a mark. You can make your mark, they say. But I find the use of Kirby to be the funniest. So we'll just scroll down and take a look at what constitutes a signature.

You can draw a dick on it and it would just count as a signature. Yes, yeah, indeed. But hold on, hold on. You have to pre-register the dick pick before. Okay. So check it out. Kirby Star. Look at this.

Look at this. They're actually putting Kirby Star down. Some probably ultra-lib nerd video game. person did this. Here's my favorite. We scroll down and they give us an example of making your mark. Identifiable and with unique similarities and no letters. Pictures or symbols can be used as valid signatures. Since we have this symbol on file, it is considered valid. Now here's what's funny. The top picture is Kirby waving. The second picture is Kirby jumping. It's totally different. Wait, what? Not even the same picture. No fucking way. This is a valid California ballot

They count these votes. I'm gonna read that. Mike's like one. I gotta come up with something else. I don't get it. The signature thing's kind of weird because it's all trust-based. Like who could?

A million people could just write my name and no one would question it was. Everyone in this room can draw a picture of Kirby. You know. Maybe signatures were kind of fading out of. You know your process is questionable when you've lost Ian Crossland. What about a thumbprint?

Some sort of some sort of biometric. I don't know how a human would verify that. There's a ton of legal stuff you can sign, literally just typing it out with like a cursive font as well. Like they'll let pretty much anything slide with signature. No, this is absolutely wild because here's the thing. Like a signature is supposed to be unique to you and they're hard to replicate.

So you sign your name in a certain way that people have to practice to try and copy and someone who's truly trained can look and be like, that's not the same signature. These are, these are, these are, this is a picture of Kirby from Nintendo. And that was like from 100 years ago when your signature, no one ever saw it because there was no internet, there was no TV. So it was pretty unique to you, but now the point was if you had some kind of deed or card on you that showed a signature. So let's say you and I did a contract, I would sign it and then maybe even do a wax seal with like a stamp on it because your stamp is unique. But let's say I sign it. Later on, when I'm showing that, they'll be like, is this you?

You'll sign and show your signature to prove that you were the one who originally signed it. it would be hard for a stranger to copy your signature they couldn't do it a picture of kirby come on everyone in this room can draw that doesn't there's that allegation that hunter biden was like mad at his landlord and like signed the paperwork with like his own poop or something did you guys hear they i didn't hear that i think it was i remember there's this dispute with i think it was sean maguire versus uh hunter biden on this and there was like this allegation i i need to confirm that but like this is incredible, I mean, okay, because I already thought the signature thing was completely, because it's already such a

like, and who's going to? Like, the thing about this is the absurdity of it being Kirby, but also the fact that they are showing explicitly they are different Kirby's. So it's like. Is one the printed version and one's the signature version? You know what you do? Yeah, one's lower case.

But here's the point. Here's why you do this. If you are doing, James O'Kee, Keith went and documented, there's a known phenomenon. I don't want to, you know, I don't want to try and diminish the work that James O'Keefe did, but he went down and he caught these petitioners who pay homeless people to sign, take people on ballots to get referendums and things like this. If you go to a homeless person, you're going to be saying like, look, listen, if you write a unique signature, we're not going to be able to replicate it. We need these to pass musters.

So do a smiley face. That way, when it comes time to collect these ballots and forge them, put a smiley face. They're completely different pictures, but they look the same. They're being coached to do that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, James O'Keefebos on video. Here's what gets crazy. So the New York Post found 185 homeless people registered to a homeless shelter where they don't live

because it's a homeless shelter, right? Here's the crazy part. 185 mail-in ballots are going to drop in the lap of that homeless shelter. This shelter actually received $600,000 from Nithia Rahman, though I don't think she gave them the grant for voting. 185 votes doesn't move the needle. But when those ballots come in, who's tracking them? What if someone forges those ballots, maybe, if you try to investigate the fraud and you show up to the address on file and they say it's a homeless shelter and you say, how do I find Rick Smith who voted here?

They go, good luck, he's homeless. And that's it. Cold case. You will never be able to figure out who he voted for. And they probably and 185 votes doesn't sound like much in one shelter. But if they're doing those of the 100 shelters. There's a lot of homeless people in L. All of a sudden now, there's a lot of money that goes in an election.

And that money comes from the people who are the. politicians who are like the grantors on the Nithia Raman signed a $600,000 grant to the homeless shelter. I'm going to say it again. We got to have blockchain voting. We can't pull it up. I'm trying to send this link Mike gave me to us, but it's for some reason not.

Yeah, and you can also just look on X if you just type like speak, read Chinese with three question marks. I was. What is that? So speak, read Chinese? Speak slash read. That's one word. Chinese with three exclamation.

On X? Or three, three question marks. Yeah, on X. Sounds cryptic. Speak slash read. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Chinese question mark, question mark, question. Is it, who posted?

You want to just retweet it? I'll go to your page. Angel of depth, I think. So, this person. Did you want to just retweet it and I'll go to your page? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Here you go.

Boom. R.T. On Twitter. You probably are. At Mike Ben's Cyber. Yeah. I just RT'd it. I got it.

So I was streaming earlier this week talking about this. And this person actually went to the California page, registered to vote as a 103-year-old Chinese woman with no social security number. No, like if you click on that second screenshot there, am I good? Oh, yeah, I see. And this is what she filled out. Date of birth, 1923, so she's 103 years old. She is no driver's license, no ID card, no social security number, only speaks Chinese, but just said that she lives in L.A. So no documentation beyond that.

And then if you go to the next one, like, or the one after this, you'll see like basically you can do it without signature. And then boom, she got, she just put a random address and there's going to be a right in absentee, mail-in ballot that's just going to be sent to her address. federal as a as a 103 year old Chinese woman with no so you could do I mean you could just have a smiley shop factory line and just create these

well there's there's video of James O'Keefe his undercover reporters talking to a homeless guy and he's like my name's Teresa and he's just writing down they're filming these petitioners and they're paying the homeless two to three dollars to sign these sign these things they're paying them yeah that's got to be a crime

It is a crime. And when they went to the police, the cops were like, I don't know anything about it. It's probably a civil thing. They were given it, they were giving like two or three bucks, so it's just like, you know, lunch money. It was a real show of force when the feds took action on what Nick Shirley did. That was a, I mean, so much so that California did this stop, Shirley, Nick Shirley, like legislation, right? I mean, if we see arrests on that James O'Keefe video, if that's, you know, as valid as it's being described, I mean, that would. That would at least send a message?

I mean, look, I don't know what the mechanism to do that would be because the states, California has made their laws. So that way most of this stuff is illegal. And the federal government isn't, you know, doesn't have the power to regulate state laws. Congress has to do it. What Johnson should say when someone at CNN, you know what, I will say this best, if they say, what is your evidence that, you know, was regular, this voter fraud, I'll say they've already uncovered that there are ballots that were received after the election with no postmark and the signatures were doodles. And when they go, what, where is it? I'll be like, here, let me show you on the Secretary of State's website saying to do it.

Their only response is going to be, oh, well, that's allowed. I'll be like, really? Okay, I call that cheating. Right. There was a California woman who was charged with something just like that. This is from the DOJ website, saying that she worked as a longtime signature collector for ballot initiatives. And she has been charged with paying individuals, including homeless people living in the Skid Row area of downtown Los Angeles to register to vote. This was in May. What was that case? In May? In May.

This is the DOJ website. There's a woman who registered her dog to vote and then voted for her dog intentionally to prove a point about California. And they charged her with felonies. They only found out because she admitted it. She came out and said, I did it. She memed it. Yeah, she mimed it. She was like, my dog's voting.

and they were like, uh-oh. And the vote counted? Yeah. Well, who do you vote for? Reminds me of the Simpsons when Bart gets a credit card for his dog, Santos L. Helper. And then it was a joke, but I guess you can say Simpsons predicted it. And dogs are voting.

From what I understand, though, U.S. Attorney Bill Assaley, I think that's how you say his name. He announced last week that they're doing some investigations into the election fraud. I haven't seen updates from that. Granted, it was a week ago. But it seems like some of the Trump out. allies are taking a look at it, which is, you know, we'll see what happens. This is also why you can't have a popular vote because they would just have a factory in L.A. That would just print enough to win the federal election.

This is why we need to limit the franchise as much as we possibly can. We need to change laws. Let's show to the next component of this from the New York Times. Act Blue CEO invokes the fifth repeatedly in testimony to Congress. How about we just play it? You can hear for yourself how damning it is. Ms. Wallace Jones, in 2023, I, I sent you this letter with five straightforward questions with a goal of confirming that foreign funds are not in our elections and that Act Blue had adequate fraud prevention measures in place.

Quick context, Act Blue is the fundraising platform for the Democratic Party. They had been accused of not only accepting foreign money for Democrat nonprofits and politicians, but also someone was fraudulently or many people were donating in the names of the elderly and people who otherwise did not make these donations to bypass federal election donation limits. You replied a month later with a four-page letter describing your fraud prevention policies and procedures that you had in place at Act Blue. But according to the New York Times, your response to this committee may have been false and misleading.

Ms. Wallace-Jones, when you signed this letter to me, did you believe that this letter was false and misleading. On the advice of my counsel. Oh, you can't plead the fifth on that. I respectfully declined to answer this question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Ms. Wallace Jones, before you sent this...

Do you see the Asian lady in the back? Look at this lady right here. Look at this lady. Watch her eyes. Constitution. Ms. Wallace, before you sent this letter, everybody is that woman right now. Did you believe? Was it brought to your attention that this letter that you sent me was false and misleading?

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Well, I think it's important for everybody you know that according to the New York Times, you've been aware for quite a while that the response you made was likely false or misleading. Do you ever consider correcting the record for this committee when it was brought to your attention that your letter to me was false and misleading? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully... He's got to stop the line question.

Go, Ms. Wallace Jones, what is your name? Pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. It's pretty interesting. So now you're following the advice of your legal counsel. Oh, for the fact that you didn't when they want... You know, I'd say this. Normally, I'm very adamant that we do not use the invocation of the Fifth Amendment to imply guilt or anything. The issue here is that the story's out.

We know. The New York Times has said she lied to Congress. Act Blue was getting foreign money. They were illicit fundraising sources. We know why she's pleading the fifth in this instance. It's funny. Like when people have congressional hearings, they'll usually show up with an entourage

so that at least the people directly in frame aren't distracting and making expressions like that. It didn't seem like she thought that far ahead this time around. No. I mean, look, I think that the considering that there is a story out there that, you know, implicates Act Blue. there's got to be an investigation. It's my opinion that Act Blue, and by extension, the DNC are breaking a whole ton of laws when it comes to funding.

And when it comes to, I mean, obviously to elections in general, DOJ should investigate. And they should throw the book at them if they find anything. Because that's the only way you stop this stuff, right? You have to make the penalty bad enough so that way people are like, no, it's not worth it. And considering the amount of money that's out there to not only to get people into office, but that can be siphoned off into people's pockets and kickbacks and stuff like that, it's got to be a pretty steep penalty to make that kind of reward seem unappealing. I think it depends on how if you know, if they know that the money is foreign,

because sometimes foreign companies will create a shell to funnel money through to a movement. And so like if they're intentionally taking foreign money, that's hit them hard with the book. But if it's like they got scammed by foreigners that want to use them as idiots, then... Well, I mean, that's why... This is the allegation about what USAID was doing, by the way. If you look at the John Solomon report on the intercept around a plot from USAID to do the same thing using funds for Ukraine to be redirected, you know, back to the DNC. So if that happened there, how many other countries are... And funnels are being used to do that, and it coincides with this massive drop in DNC.

I mean, they're going after like Ken Martin and the DNC machine right now for not being able to fundraise like they normally do. What changed? It's like, well, we cut the money funnel for the front end of the funnel for the laundering. Look at the elections in South America. Yeah. I mean, like every country that has an election, the far right candidate is being elected. And coincidentally, there's no more USAID to funnel money. and to, I mean, USAID, I know that they're not, they're not like a part of CIA, but I'm sure that

they've worked hand in hand, you know, down. You're a lot more charitable than I'm. Well, okay, so be my guess. Please expand. I testify for five and a half hours to the Brazilian Senate Foreign Relations Committee on exactly how USAID effectively rigged the 2022 election with Bolsonaro there. Like, here's a great example. So USAID tripled the amount of foreign assistance it gave to Brazil the year after Bolsonaro won.

Now, this is not because there were some raging wildfires or like some tsunami that hit Brazil. They hated Bolsonaro. They called him the Trump of the Tropics. They wanted him out. He was basically doing all these things that messed with George Soros investments in Brazil and a bunch of other big Democrat mega donors. And so they tripled the spend from, like, I think it was 30 million the year before, to 90 million, just in a year and then flooded the zone.

They paid for the media in Brazil. They paid for the disinformation fact checkers people to all, like, go after the Bolsonaro social media accounts. They funded the university system. They funded the unions. I mean, even the Department of Labor, international affairs sent $20 million to the unions around Lula there. And they do that everywhere. You look at what happened in El Salvador. When they cut U.S. aid, all the opposition to Buckele just immediately evaporated.

All the protests. It's like there's nobody, because it's not just that like people are paid to protest. I'm sure that that happens. and it's almost like paying a homeless person to fill out a vote or something. But what you see is actually a lot of times people get involved in these protests because they're sponsoring organizations. They work for an NGO. That NGO gets money from USAID or from a government grant.

And the NGO institutionally announces it's going to boycott. So if you want to get promoted within that NGO or that university or that government bureau, you take to the streets and protest. You occupy federal buildings. You stand in the middle of crosswalks and railways to shut down the economically destabilize the country. And what you're seeing now is in country after country after country, every single place that was propped up by USAID is now going the other way because as soon as you make it a fair fight, who will else? Yeah. You think that this new world, because what I think is happening is the new world order has now been supplanted by the new new world order, which is like a Trump-led coalition instead of a USAID-led coalition.

Do you think that that will end up happening, that we will still coalesce around a new world order? It's going to be better than the old worst one? We're seeing a realignment of alliances right now. Like right now, there's a lot of hostilities between the U.S. and the EU on a number of grounds. And this has been exacerbated by what's happening in Iran. And you're now seeing something that was, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Marco Rubio, for example, helped, I don't know if he sponsored, but he certainly backed the legislation to NATO-proof, to Trump-proof NATO. in case Trump, I think this was in 2023, there was like a federal legislation to make NATO kind of

unilateral action by the president. You can look this up on Google in two seconds and just a fact check what I'm saying. But what's so funny is now you have, you know, the Secretary of State and Trump now suggesting what is NATO actually for? All the things that they were afraid of over, now we're seeing, we're seeing that because of the conflict with NATO and the East. around Greenland, around Iran policy. And so what you're seeing is this kind of reformation of alliances and even what's happening right now with this sort of Israel-U.S. military fusion thing is there's sort of this move to try to supplant the traditional five-eyes or the U.S. European relationship with a closer U.S.-Israeli relationship. Obviously, that's happening at a time where, you know,

a lot of this is being, you know, argued and debated domestically. But you're seeing this kind of reformation of alliances where there is this bleed left right, like Soros is very anti-neton Yahoo. Soros was very much for the Iran deal. They wanted to profit off of the hydrocarbons and deal-making versus the sort of Israeli foreign priority, foreign policy priorities and the Republican Party sort of alliances with that. But you see this, first of all, like state has supplanted, the State Department is supplanted a lot of the functions that USAID was doing. But we're also seeing a lot of diplomacy, soft diplomacy being replaced by hard diplomacy. Like, think about the way you would traditionally go about removing Maduro before what Trump just did. So what you would traditionally do is you would,

you would establish a blob in Venezuela. You would have the National Endowment for Democracy, you know, basically create little cell networks within the professional class of doctors, lawyers, businessmen, agricultural labor workers. You'd you'd have USAID give a bunch of grants to, you know, university centers and philanthropics and human rights groups. And then eventually you'd get 100,000 people who were on payroll and who would all stand to profit from a regime change and would all do their part. And they top of that process takes it. But the problem is Venezuela has kicked out USAID because of a number of fights that they got in, particularly around 2019, 2020. They have put up a firewall around a lot of that.

So it's been kind of ineffective. We've had to go to Colombia or Turks and Caicos or Nicaragua and kind of like migrate people in. And even then it's it's been slow going. So instead of having a blob, you sort of have like a military mob that is that is replacing what is traditional. Like so in a way it's it's more honest but and direct. But it's also a very new way of doing things versus what we've been doing for the past. years because we created this whole thing, you know, we had the Department of War from 1789 to 1948. We just changed it back. We called it the Department of Defense as a lie to be consistent

with our blob apparatus that we're not, you know, militarily. But now that we are leading with that, Venezuela, Iran, and it's making the Pentagon, which has a much bigger budget than USA ever had have a have a more dominant role not just at the military level but in a diplomatic level because the military is now threatening to do directly what u.s aid would typically threaten with economic sanctions or like what biden did with the billion dollar u.s aid loan to fire the ukraine you know victor schokin prosecutor you said you know if you don't get rid of the prosecutor by the time i get on this plane you're going to be out a billion now it's like okay if you don't do this we're sending in seal team six and we're kidnapping your president

I think one's more effective. It did have a more honest vibe that whole thing because Trump was like, we didn't like him and we wanted their oil. And it was like, oh, well, at least you just said that out of the house. And it was like in our hemisphere, so it was a lot easier. I think for some Americans to get on board with that sort of thing, even without like priming people and being like, by the way, this is why we need to do it. I think the American people got on board with it because it was so effective.

It was so cool. Because if, yeah, well, I mean, yes, it was sick. It was like a 40 minute in and out. But the American people will tolerate, even people that say they don't want to see the U.S. foreign policy being exercised with the military, right? They will tolerate strikes where Americans don't die. They will tolerate actions where Americans don't die. And where it's in our backyard. Yeah.

Well, yeah, but I mean, so like, just for argument's sake, if the Iran war that's still going on, if it had had. been two weeks and they actually achieved all their goals, the American people would have been like, sick. Like last summer? Yeah. I mean, well, I mean, last summer, last summer kind of, they didn't really do it, though. It was short, though. Yeah. The 12-day war.

Yeah. Like, the American people would be like, okay, cool. It didn't drag on. Americans didn't die. I'm cool with it. I've got two stories that, I don't know which one we should play for us. Normally, the way I like to do things is that stories, lead to stories. One story is a man who is talking about dead internet theory

and he's showing this plague of AI auto-replicated videos. We could start with this one and talk about dead internet theory or there's the Ethan Klein lawsuit which I believe is intended. The court systems are trying to drive us towards the AI dead internet apocalypse. Which should we start with? Internet theory is here or Ethan Klein's got a lawsuit which is going to contribute to the dead internet and the psychosis of the American people? I think we should start with dead internet theory as a whole.

So maybe you can explain. All right. I saw this video. This is from Dylan Talks Horror. Shout out to Dylan Talks. He's a small little Instagrammer. But this video freaked me the F out. And here's the thing.

I want to say this. Maybe he faked this video. I have not seen something so egregious as this. It's about to show us. However, today, I made a video where I pulled 22 links off of Instagram of the exact same joke over and over and over again. It's a video where people will, they're like me when I'm 30,

but I forget that I'm not 18 anymore. They walked on the stairs, jump the last two stairs, and then the next scene is them transparent as a ghost, and they turn around and see their dead body. I have probably seen, in all seriousness, I'm not going to exaggerate. I said yesterday 5,000.

The number's probably closer to maybe like 175 or 200 identical videos. Now, I understand what memes are, but memes are iterations on. So I highlighted today, there's a video where guy's doing, he's doing chin-ups, and he says when you try to go for that extra chin-up, and then he turns into a ghost and dies, that's a meme iterating off of a joke. A trend sort of thing. Exactly. Everybody just making the exact same videos over and over again is you being programmed by the AI to be a single cell in a multicellular organism. Watch what this guy is showing and I hope this is uh I again the internet could be fake right

but check this out we got unmute it. You know, because that shit is so fucking real and it's just it's insane. So this is a video. It's about the woman who walked into the water with the two dead fish, but just watch this. It's fucking crazy. Y'all, as soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mind was to hear my guy. Y'all, as soon as I seen the video of the woman holding the two fish walking into the water,

the first thing that came to my mind was to hear my guy. So for those are just listening, what he's doing is he's scrolling through reels, and it's the exact same voiceover with a bunch of different videos. Now, the allegation is all AI generated. She turns around. She's two deadfish in her. Y'all, as soon as I seen the video of the woman holding a two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mom was,

as soon as I seen the video of the woman holding a two fish walking into the water, the first thing that came to my mind was to hear my God. In addition, as soon as I seen the video of the woman holding a two fish walking into the water, the first thing that there was a video. So there's currently a video that's going viral. So there's currently a video that's going viral. And if you think the dead internet theory. So then he shows other videos.

Now, the people are saying in the chat, what people do is they rip the video and then lip sync the audio to steal the content. So one of two things is happening. And I think actually probably both. What he's arguing is that it's like AI. They're fake generating these people. They're generating people talking and putting them over these videos because the internet is fake. I want to pull up another story for you guys from NBC. and this one we've known about for some time, but now it's official.

Bot web traffic has overtaken human web traffic data shows. Cloudflare says 57.4% of requests are now automated bot requests while 42.6 are human generated. So the reason why I want to highlight this is that I made a video today. I snapped. I just lost it. I've been talking about how I'm sick of seeing the same video over and over and over again. People, random people, are being programmed by social media. to become zombies. So yesterday after the show ends,

I go home, I make my beam dream, no joke, I drink it every single night. And then I even pay me to say that, not this time at least. And I got my phone, and I'm on Instagram, and I swipe, and there it is again. There it is again,

a guy jumping off a counter being like, me being 40, but forgetting I'm not 18 anymore. And then he turns transparent, turns around, and there's a body, and I was about to hit block, and I went, I'm going to save the link.

So I copied the link, saved it in our internal communications, make a list. scrolled got another one saved it scrolled got another one saved it i got around probably 50 or so of these videos back to back almost nonstop and i just have this huge list of all the links where they are functionally identical videos niquita beer is just fucking with you man what's up i said niquita pier is just was instagram okay so what's happening is these people influencers don't know what to do with their lives they've got no no functional training they want to be influenced

answers, what's the technique? Find a viral video, remake it. What's happening is Instagram is rewarding these specific repetitions. So human beings are basically lining up like lemmings and just imitating each other, be it lip syncing, AI generated or otherwise. The internet is entirely fake. You watch a joke video on Instagram. I guarantee you it's a knockoff or it's AI. Do you think you saving the links to all of those videos or like interacting with the post makes the feed. Saving the link tells Instagram to show me more of the same. So your your feed's just the same thing. It is. That's terrible. And that's, but that was intentional. Right. So, but like, so the other day I'm scrolling and I see this stupid joke. And like the first time I saw it, I laughed.

There's another one where it says, there's text and it goes, uh, only getting up three hours of sleep doesn't phase me. And then they'll like throw a beach ball and giggle. And then they'll hit someone in the head with it, and then it'll change to the guy in the ground dead, and the beach ball will actually be like a can of propane or something. And that's the identical videos over. So I'm scrolling and I see a guy doing, you know, snowboard tricks. I scroll. I see a poker hand with Negrano. I scroll. There's the joke. I scroll past it. I don't even stop to watch it. Then there's a guy bowling and it's a strike. And I'm like, oh, that was cool. Then I scroll ping pong again. I hate ping pong. I keep saying, stop sending me ping pong, but it won't stop. I scroll past it.

there's the joke again. Then I put, Not Interested, then I scroll, see a few videos, a few minutes later, there's the joke again. So then I put, this is making me uncomfortable. So then finally last night when I see it, I go, I'm going to save the link. I'm going to save it. Saving the link,

they go, let's go. And they just literally, I swipe up, there it is, I swipe up, there it is. It was about 50 back to back, two back to back of the same exact videos over and over again. So like the algorithm is more sensitive to a positive interaction with the post, But if you say you're not interested, it will ignore that man. I can't tell you, every single time I see ping pong, I put, this makes me uncomfortable, it won't stop sending me ping pong. Because I think it's going like he's interacting with it.

Interesting. Yeah. bizarre. My feet is perfect. There's a lot of reasons to get rid of meta properties. But it's not that it's TikTok. These videos are TikTok. It's all of these platforms.

What I think is happening is, the human. I want to know what you think about this because I think this is deep state related. I believe that the establishment wants to go back to an era where they had only a few finite media mechanisms. There were 10 channels. Can't keep her model. Exactly. When this podcast era emerged, it shocked them and it boosted Trump and they hated Trump.

So my presumption, my hypothesis would be the powers that be said, guys, when we allowed people to do their own media through social media, they propped up. Trump, that was bad for us. How do we bring this back to where there's only a few channels? Make it so that the only thing that's promoted is the exact same joke. If you make content that is not in line with what we want, it doesn't go viral. So a lot of people have noticed on X, for instance, their posts don't get traction anymore because of the new algorithm. It is all narrowly defined. And I believe the end result of all of this is the elimination of intellectual property. These jokes can't be copyrighted. It's just replicated over

and over and over again, and now no one can claim ownership over the original video, because it's just copy of a copy of a copy. Actually, and I don't know if you can copyright jokes you might be able to. I don't think so, though. I believe that where we're going to end up is the big companies will be the only ones of the means to control some semblance of intellectual property, but they want AI. Disney is going to have AI generated movies, and they won't care because they will control those platforms.

Meanwhile, the social media platforms won't allow for shows like this. or for independent thought, they're going to put everybody algorithmically into a rigid line so they all make the same 10 videos over and over again. So, I mean, there are a couple of things maybe to disambiguate. So when you pulled up the, that statistic showing that bot requests had overtaken the, yeah, this one. Automated bots. So does that include like when chat GPT pulls?

Because like, I'll give you an example. So I use, I use AI. It's completely replaced Google for me. Yeah, yeah, me too. I'll use like Grock, chat GPD. When I'm doing like deep research stuff, I'll often use the like the deep research function on, uh, for chat GPT where like it will sit on a question I ask for 49 minutes.

Oh wow. Like literally 49 minutes and we'll just pull tens of thousands of links. Like I'll make it like a deep, you know, a deep request and it will just go through tens of thousands of links in that, like the amount that would take me weeks. to manually click. Like, it'll do that in an hour. Yes, but there's something called the recitation problem. And I think, again, this falls into the,

we must keep everybody in a rigid media mechanism. They can't think outside the box. The recitation problem is a noted issue that all of these LLMs will default to responses that are the majority not correct. So if people are, if everybody is wrong about something, let's say everybody believes that 2 plus 2 equals 5, But academics go, no, no, no, it's two plus two equals four.

The LLMs will tell you it's five. I guess the consensus of that. They default to consensus because LLMs operate on probability. So I brought this up a few weeks ago. One of the issues is, actually, I'm going to ask you a quick question because I love the subject. So I'm going to ask everybody who already heard me ask this question not to answer. It's just for the two of you. So you go into a casino and you're looking around.

You want to figure out what to gamble on and you see a roulette table. So you decided to go over there and sit down some seats open as a guy smoking, dealer looks a little messy, a little tired or whatever. But let's play some roulette, right? You know what roulette is? You're familiar? I don't. The wheel with black and red? I've never gained.

You throw the ball and it spins. Okay. So you sit down, you said, I'm going to wait a little bit to see how the ball is landed. Right? So you look at the screen, you see, in the last 30 spins, 17 have come up red. You decide, I'm going to bet on a color. Which color is the smarter bet? Okay, I mean, I'll go first.

Yeah. I mean, I feel like it's sort of the same hypothetical as if someone asked me, like, flip a coin, heads or tails, the last 17 were heads. Ordinarily, I would think there's a 50-50 chance. I'm agnostic because it's like if it was a normal coin and it was not a rig coin, then I would assume a 50-50 chance. And it doesn't matter if you pick red or blue or red. or red or tails. But yeah, rare black, thanks. But in this case, like if I saw 17 in a row,

I would think... Not a row, just 17 of 30. Oh, 17. Oh, 17. So it's about 76.30. I mean, that's pretty well within the, you know, margin of, you know, because if it was a truly, if it was 29 out of 30, I would say, well,

there's, maybe this is a weighted roulette table. Maybe there's, you know, maybe there's a magnet. underneath it. So what do you bet on? I mean, I would go with the one that is slightly more favored just because there might be some, not because I think it's going to even out over time, but in which case you go black, but because if there is something that is, it could be that there's some physical defect or some proclivity of the dealer or, or whoever to like, you know, do it slightly

more. So I guess, considering you're not super familiar with Roulette, do agree or disagree? I mean, I don't know if you have it. That sounds right. I don't know. I'm kind of impulsive, though. Like, I will just do the opposite thing and so like fuck the system. Well, Mike's just red. I'm going black. Mike's correct. And so traditionally, people used to say, if reds coming up too much, black must be due because it's supposed to average out over time. But that's incorrect. That's called the gambler's fallacy. What ends up happening is everybody learns the gambler's fallacy and then

confidently says, it actually doesn't matter what you bet on because everything, the odds are equal. And that's called the mathematician's fallacy. The presumption that a physical system operated by human operates in an abstract mathematics space. If you ask any large language model this question, it will give you the wrong answer. Oh, it goes black? No, it says neither. It doesn't matter. Oh, it assumes, it's like assuming like a, what are they, like a perfect competition or something in a market. Like so, so I did an experiment with these LLMs where I actually prompted them. You, you walk into a physical casino with a tired dealer. I put, those prompts before you in the question intentionally. Casinos go to great lengths to deal with

imbalanced tables, imperfections, and tired dealers, or what they call dealer signature. Every single casino knows this. It's a part of their standard training. They use a Kirby. What's up? They use a Kirby for the signature. They do. Yeah, yeah. So dealer's signature means there are dealers without realizing it. They'll wait for the zero to come around and spin every time the zero hits their hand. Not even thinking. And they spin the exact same way every time. So the ball keeps. keeps landing in the same quadrant of numbers. Pro gamblers know this. They look for signatures, and if you see a signature on the board, you play that game because

you're playing to an advantage. Pit bosses know this, so they'll go to the deal and say, change your spin. Or they'll pull the croupier, they call them, they'll pull them off. But LLMs don't know this. And there's an interesting thing here. Pro gamblers are not experts. So despite the fact professional gamblers have written about this extensively, the LLMs will disregard their expertise as degenerate.

pit bosses and casinos will never explain how to get an advantage play against a casino so they won't mention it at all. Mathematicians and academics will say the numbers are statistically the same, so it doesn't matter what you bet on. Right, because our models are based on that. Exactly. So it has, yeah. So when you go to any AI, chat chip deep or otherwise, it, I guarantee you is probably giving you the wrong answer. In fact, I have, every day, because I agree with you, I largely don't use Google anymore. And even Google now is an AI-generated response for the most part.

Most of the time, it's wrong. So, for instance, I was doing research on the California elections today. And I asked it about elections where an individual pulls ahead in this manner. And it said, there are no instances where this has ever occurred. I was like, that's interesting because I believe it was the Washington Times found something interesting. I then said, what about the blue wave in 2018? And it went, you are correct. This actually happens all the time in California.

The first answer was fake. and only because I had researched this previously, did I catch that mistake? Yeah, they're like shit testing you in a way. It's like, it's like, you know, but also it's helpful to know things like that, though, Tim, because what I find too, as I'm, this has now become the dominant way

that I do research and just interact with the search interface of the internet is like knowing the bias of the AI is helpful to like outsmart it in getting what you want, knowing the various things that will try to throw up. Like, if I'm a,

asking a spicy question on controversial topic. I will never say it's me because I believe this. I will say I have a friend who I'm about to be in a debate in. He's a smart friend and he's going to really come at me with the best evidence he can find. Tell me what he's going to say to me on this. That way it'll spit out like evidence that I know it would withhold from me if the AI thought I believed it. Yeah, you have to know how to prompt an AI. And most people don't. Yeah, most people who use AI are going to get duped and it's going to make everyone a little bit. Yeah, I mean, I'm personally very pro-AI and I think that the LLMs or the models are going to are going to remedy for a lot of the errors.

I don't think they're going to get rid of bias. It's still going to be biased depending on which model you're using and how they trained it. But I'm of the opinion that probably in the next six to 12 months, the, the, the errors are from AI are going to are going to drastically decline. And AI video is getting so shockingly good. It's mind blowing. Yeah. I keep calling

for it. It's bad. There are men on the street videos that are AI that I would guarantee maybe 60% of the population would not be able to tell we're AI. It's literally like a guy standing there holding the little DJI and he's like, when you go on a first date, do you think the guy should pay or do you want to pay?

And the woman goes like, guys should totally always pay. And it looks totally normal and you can't tell it's AI, it's wild. I saw a video of like 20 bunnies jumping on a trampoline that was like, nice. And then I looked at it, I was like, wait, it's not real. A lot of times you have to know the context of the video. Like you can tell by what they're saying more than what you're looking at.

Like if it's something where topics intending to inflame people or stuff like that, a lot of times you can be like, ah, you know. Most people really hate that. And I totally understand. Like, I in a way, like, hate, oh, you got me. that feeling. But what I like about what's happening with the realistic AI video is it's causing everyone to collectively question like, okay, I just saw this. It looks super real. Is it actually real? And everybody is having that experience. And so it's kind of a corollary to what we all went

through kind of as like in the conservative branch of politics in 2016 when it's like you see something in the news. And you're like, OK, CNN reported this. And like, I'm supposed to leave CNN, right, but this is this really true? And so it caused, it caused like this massive critical thinking spike. I disagree. You disagree? Turning Point put out a clip of Charlie literally saying, if anything happens to me, I appoint Erica Kirk. She's great. She'll do a great job. And the anti-Kirk lunatics immediately said that was AI. Yeah. Yeah. So it's, it's like, I, I half agree. Like a lot of people have started to question, but a lot of people are now rejecting real evidence as AI. Right. Like to this point,

Turning Point has long maintained. There is a video of Charlie Kirk at, I think he's in Aspen, at a fundraiser where he literally says, it was because someone said something like a donor, said something about like, we give this money, like what happens to you? He says, if anything happens to me, I appoint Erica to run Turning Point. She'll do a great job. He was selling these people. Apparently even Candace Owens has now said, like, oh, I've known this video has always existed,

despite the fact she's long maintained. It didn't. So finally, Turning Point sits on it for as long as they can. and I think the reason they did was intentionally to get as many people to lie and push nonsense as possible, then fire off this video being like, there it is, it's true. The immediate response is, that's an AI video. Yeah. They just don't want to believe it.

Trump could be accused of punching a little kid and then a video will come out of Trump patting him on the head. And then someone will make an AI video of him punching the kid and everyone who hates Trump will say the punch is real. And everybody who likes Trump will say the pat is real. And I love the boomers, but like they are especially susceptible to this sort of thing. I mean, especially like with political campaigns, this is a huge conversation that I'm sure many of you guys are tapped into. Like are AI political ads even allowed? Like when the massy race was going on, it was incessant. All of these, you know, borderline defamatory ads being run against this candidate.

It's interesting. And I think it's actually an important conversation because it's like, yeah, this could convince realistically a substantial portion of people to the extent they could sway an election. I don't know how I feel about it, but fascinating. Yeah, it's interesting. Because California, when, you know, because it's actually. The Democrats were in this real dilemma where they just seemed profoundly uncool and they were being kind of out-competed in the vibe competition in 2024. And I remember California tried to pass this law against any sort of like AI generated ads.

And it was, I think it was the legislation was basically born out of like AI memes, like making fun of Newsome and the like. And it was, but in that case, it was very clear that these were satire. It was very clear it was AI. It was like, you know, a dog parachuting out of a helicopter and pooping on, like, you know, Newsom's head or something. But when it does, like seriously, when it's intended to deceive, when it's intended to make it look, I mean, I think eventually where you're going to get to is a place where the metadata and some sort of certification is, like, probably going to become best practice. And if you don't have it, like the metadata certified, like, and it's, you. in a polarized topic or a controversial thing, then you will default to say, no, this has been

certified by X. And I don't know if they're going to try to stand up a regulatory committee, and then the whole thing will become like a political control mechanism for control of the truth. But it'll probably land on that somewhere in that area as a, as this happens in so many different contexts, and there becomes like a real multi-billion dollar industry of PR firms who, can just instantly general crisis management firms. Oh, you said ExxonMobil is responsible for this oil spill? Well, we have a video of this Trump supporter doing it, actually. And it's like, I mean, like, you could come up with a million scenarios like this

where you could just muddy the waters. You could tell, like, you know, because the thing is, like, video is very psychologically shocking on people. And when you see something with your own eyes, like, it's a, you want to do a false flag and blame another country for a terrorist attack. And so you say 12 people were killed in country X and look at this gory video, then this is, I actually struggle with this in law school. When I, I remember in criminal procedure, when I learned for the first time about this rule that basically if you have like really shocking, grotesque evidence that will psychologically make the jury just want to drive them basically to bloodlust to make them want to convict somebody, anybody, just to compensate for this horrible thing, then, you know,

you can actually as defense counsel for the, for the defendant who's on charges for the crime, motion to not have damning, gory evidence entered into the record just because it would prejudice the jury to want to convict just because even if the rest, even if the jury, like if they're on the fence and they think he's probably innocent, but damn, that video is like, like if he did that,

if he did it just like it showed in that video, like that nothing else matters and so that's like a very real effect in jury trials like it's a very real effect in propaganda yeah um the future of AI especially AI video um I think to your point like it's going to be really really really difficult to to be able to parse the truth and I think the result of that is you're going to have people that are far more skeptical of everything I mean even now you see people specifically, I think, because of the BS from COVID, that happened during COVID and general mistrust of the media and stuff, people are now defaulting to whatever they see, if it's not from individual sources they trust, which are in no way guaranteed to be more

reliable than any other source. But they basically just say the default position is, I don't believe it. And you're just going to have a society of skeptical people, and you're going to end up with because of that kind of skepticism, you're going to have people that, that's the word I'm looking for, people that, people that just become dejected and disconnected from,

from society because they're like, well, I don't believe anything, you know, there's going to be, but isn't that wisdom? I mean, don't, I don't know if you guys had grandparents in your 80s or 90s who, just skeptical, man.

I don't know. My pop, so, like, skeptical of everything. Like, I feel like every old man who's like 90 years old is just like, default skeptical. It doesn't mean they don't believe things or whatnot, but like they're, it's like, oh, I've seen enough shit in my day. And I could, like, there is a certain wisdom in that. I mean, when you see how easily sheep are led when they don't have that critical thing on, doesn't mean even skeptical as you are. Everyone's got priors and everyone can be misled or whatever.

But I actually, I feel a lot smarter reading the news now than I did 10, 20 years ago, especially when you know you've when you grow up with faith that yeah you look at these like boomer types who just if they see it on fox news if they see it you know like like that there's nobody in jenzy who thinks that way they're critical of that and i think that's healthy i think the skepticism is healthy but i think the cynicism that i'm thinking that comes along with it is unhealthy yeah skepticism is like i don't believe it cynicism is i think it's untrue for sure and then nihilism is the next phase which i think it's all fake yeah i mean you all that sloth, that's a sin.

That kind of... That kind of... The cynicism is, I think, is something that actually will harm society. So I want to... We've got to jump to this next story, and we'll start with this one. Ethan Klein is suing eyedubs for defamation

over alleged molester remarks. Creator plans to fight back. Now, I don't really care all that much about their defamation case. You know, I don't know much about it. Whether there's merit or not, I have no real comments on it. But Ethan Klein, the reason I bring the story up is that it's the latest iteration in his...

ongoing lawsuits against many other creators, which brings us back to this one, which has probably the most significant potential in copyright law. And I believe the big tech companies and the AI companies are hoping Ethan Klein loses. So we've got this from Copyright Daily. Judges first take favors Denims, but will it survive the recut? The story goes like this. Ethan Klein produced a feature length documentary criticizing Hassan Piker. Several streamers, including one woman who goes by Denims, watched the entirety of the feature-length film while providing criticism to it periodically. He sued her saying that you can't just take the full body of work and claim its fair use. Right now, in the preliminary ruling, he has lost.

And the judge is basically saying he needs to issue a response because Denims does have a fair use claim. In fact, citing Ethan Klein's own previous lawsuit, what is it, Hosenzaday v. Klein, saying that this is very obvious criticism. The judge made several points, including nobody who's watching Denims, who is critical of Ethan Klein, is going to go to his channel to watch what he has to say. Therefore, that shows this is fair use. Ethan Klein is at risk of losing this case. Now, he did force a settlement with another live streamer who played the video in its entirety.

She issued an apology. It was pretty wild. Now, I believe on the merits, Ethan Klein is wrong in this case. However, I think it's important that people understand the end result of copyright law should he lose. It's just one grain of sand in the avalanche. But understand what this means. If the judge wins, and this goes beyond court, if it gets appealed, if it becomes precedent, the argument is an individual who is critical of a piece of content, who seeks to comment on it,

can use the content in its entirety regardless of infringement on that market. So I'll give you an example. I have a video where I comment on a, I have a 20 minute long video. It's a podcast about culture and the importance of traditional values. And I use for only about 20 seconds a clip from Star Trek for the next generation to exemplify the point I made about how in the early 90s culture was very different. And it was, it's an amazing scene where Captain Picard is confronted by a Romulan, ignore all the Star Trek-y stuff.

The captain of a warship is in communication with a captain of another warship. and he's got the bad guys have two ships pointed at him, arms ready, and he says, surrender now, and your crew will be prisoners of war. And then all of a sudden, allies of Captain Picard appear and shocking his enemy, and he says, what will it be? Shall we die together? And it's a brilliant line about strength and leadership. I got this video flagged, copyright strike, cannot monetize it. For 20 seconds? For the simple 20 seconds out of a 20-minute list. long video. I cannot make money on the entirety of the video for using a cultural example of the 90s that I believe is fair use. The argument, so I appealed it. They said no. I consulted with

legal counsel and they said the issue is that Paramount licenses these short clips intentionally for videos like yours to make these references to the show in the 90s. By you claiming fair use, the first thing you need to understand is fair use is copyright infringement, but you are claiming an exemption. Their argument in rebuttal is that you've commented on the era and the content, but we sell these clips for a license fee for which you are now infringing on our market. Ethan Klein produced an hour and 40 minute long video. That's expensive and hard to do. If he loses, we are moving towards a wiping out of all intellectual property. If the argument could then be, I made a YouTube channel titled I Hate Marvel.

and I played Avengers Dooms Day when it comes out on video to criticize the storytelling, and I play the movie in its entirety periodically making comments on the video. Now, the argument right now is that, well, I mean, Marvel Studios, Disney, they've got lawyers to sue you no oblivion. You'd never win. But that is not the same as whether or not precedent gets set. As it goes with law, it starts with a light thing that no one thinks is possible and then turns into mandate. For example, in New York when they banned public drinking, there is a city

councilman who was quoted as saying something the effect of, let it be said, this will never be construed to say that a man can't enjoy a beer during his lunch while at work. Sure enough, in New York today, if you sit in a bench and crack a beer, you're getting a ticket. So the issue then becomes, I believe the AI companies, I'm sorry, I'm going to pause. It is a fact. Jack Dorsey, Elon and others have called for the abolition of intellectual property. They want their AI models to be able to use and reproduce any and every creative work. So they have publicly stated this. I believe that this is the intended condition for the big tech transhumanist AI people. They want a world where you will not have any intellectual property rights. So what this means is, and again, I want to stress,

Ethan Klein is wrong to sue because this is known, particularly with Hughes v. Benjamin, Akele Hughes suing Carlo Benjamin, that you have a right to do this commentary. But no one has yet tested feature length criticism. And that's where we're at now. The next step of course is me saying, I can use Star Trek for 20 seconds. The end result, of course, is I want to criticize the political messaging in Starfleet Academy, for instance. So I will play the entire show in its full intent. entire to point out why it's bad, and it is not in any way different to the lawsuit that

Ethan Klein has filed against her where he is losing. In which case, if Paramount says, you can't play our full episodes, we hate your show, you know we hate your show. My audience doesn't want to watch your show, and they're only watching so that I can rag on it. That would clear me the same way that Ethan Klein has lost, a way Denims has been cleared. Yeah. So we were getting into a little bit before the show on this. And admittedly, I don't think I've cracked open and intellectual property that thinks it's the bar exam 20 years ago or whatever. So this is not like a field that I know anything beyond the lay about. But I have a question because like when you when you mention that thing about, okay, well, Paramount Licenses it. And when you think about like a

a Marvel movie, that is like you get a ticket to watch that movie or you pay, you know, you pay Amazon to get a license and Amazon kicks some of the money back for that. And so with the Ethan Klein video, I guess, and this is just an open question to you because I think you've just studied this more than me. Does the fact that that hour and 40 minute documentary he made, does the fact that's freely available on YouTube

and that he does not earn money in the form of a license fee impact the precedent being set? He makes money. It's not free to watch. watch. You got to watch ads. Yeah. So it's the ad rev. Okay. So he, so his market is that he produces a a piece of media. Right. And monetize it through advertising. So he is selling to advertisers. When you play his video on another platform that bypasses those advertisers, you are stealing his ability to sell to advertisers. Okay. So I have two questions that flow from there. So one is,

is there a distinction in terms of legal precedent between that and a direct pay to parents? amount, for example, like a movie studio. And then B, if, let's just say Ethan Klein's video gets demonetized for some reason, you know, he used a 22nd Star Trek thing or he, you know, said, I don't know, he gave the wrong, he gave the wrong opinion on vaccines somewhere in there. Like, would that then? It wouldn't change anything because he can monetize it in a million different ways. The ability to control that is extremely important. So we are, so it's not just the Ethan Klein thing. This is just one example of it where we are seeing the complete erosion of the right to monetize your content. The first problem in this space is, so he made an hour and 40 minute long video where he's ragged on Hassan.

It's kind of stupid. I mean, I don't really care. I mean, okay, fine, right on Hassan, right? It's not like he made an Oscar-winning $100 million feature-length film or anything like that, right? But it doesn't functionally matter. The content cost doesn't matter. The issue there is we spend between $50,000 and $150,000 here at Tim Kest to produce feature. feature-length documentaries. We did Sin Frontera with 6-7 Kevin, and that was expensive. We got to get

securities, got to fly, he's got to do a much of stuff in Panama and all these things. If we cannot monetize it because this woman, I'm not trying to rag on this one, I'm just saying in general, was able to play it in full to her audience so they don't watch ours. We will never make a documentary again. You sell those documentaries for, do you only monetize through like YouTube ad rev on a free for the user, but you have to watch ads thing? combination of things, Rumble Premium. Rumble Premium. So it's Rumble Premium and then we do clips.

We monetize clips from the thing. So here's the full length and then here's clips. The clips promote but also generate money in and of themselves. If you're a Rumble Premium, then you can watch for free as the user. Well, if you're paying for a subscription or Rumble Premium. Right, right, right. You paid for it. Right.

Okay. Although in that case, isn't it kind of a little bit Netflixy in terms of the business model? Right? Because like Netflix, you pay Netflix a monthly fee and then you can watch for free the movies that you don't. Well, it's not free. You're paying for them. Right.

Well, I'm using it. You're not like paying up front. I don't know that there's the perfect constellation of words to capture this, this concept exactly. It is free in terms of there is no additional charge beyond what you've already paid for a general service. And you're not paying for them the same way that you're paying for like a one-off movie purchase or to go to the movie theater or like, like for example, if I. But that's a material.

Well, that's my question. Is it material? The idea of that some things are monetized. through an upfront payment is not material in what your market is. So the question of copyright infringement is, does, there's a series of questions, there's a series of exemptions. The questions are, did you copy the work? First, do you hold the IP rights to the work?

No. Was it someone else's? Yes. Did you copy or substantially use? Yes. And are you infringing on their market? The infringing on a market is one of the most important things. So we've dealt with this a lot.

The nature of this show and my morning show is literally built upon copyright infringement with exemption. That is, when I pull up this article from copyright lately, they own the rights to this article. The question then becomes, is it fair use exemption or is it outright copyright infringement with no exemption? The reason why this falls under fair use is that anybody who wants to read the full article is not having that substituted by watching this show. I did not read the full article and we tend not to read full articles in their entirety. and the article itself, even if we did read the full thing and sometimes we do, is only one one millionth of the full website. Anybody who is a customer of copyright daily who wants to pursue what they write needs to go to their site and we do not replace them. However, for a feature length production or even a single video, watching that in its entirety infringes upon its market.

That being said, it has long been upheld that it is not, I'm sorry, that it is a fairies exemption because she is critical and criticizing. The argument is the public needs this ability to criticize public works. However, if Ethan Klein was Paramount and she had watched Starfleet Academy, she would have been crushed. My point is, Paramount and these structures are weakening while independent content is expanding. Don't get me wrong, we talked about the AI data net theory stuff and all that and how they're trying to push back on it. I believe the end result of this, the through line we're looking at is there will be no intellectual property. As evidenced by the statements from Elon Musk and Jack Doris is saying abolish IP laws and the fact that every day new precedent is set or new trials are lost on the issue of intellectual property and copyright infringement. I think it's better to have no IP law than to have all the IP owned by a small group of people.

And it's going to be one or the other. That's a tough question. I have a good answer. But I will explain this. One of the problems that we have is that this show, my morning show and this show probably generate a couple hundred million views per month. We control maybe about 60 to 70 million views per month. That means if I go to my metrics on this show, it's like on YouTube, it's like 13 million per month. Then on Rumble, it's like 20 million per month on my morning show.

We control those views. When people say how many views do you get, I can say we get about 60, 70 million views per month across all platforms. I can go to advertisers and say, would you like to buy you? against these videos. However, there are people who rip, repost, comment on generating 100 plus million views we cannot control. So I produce content. I cannot monetize. The problem there is the death threats and the security threats remain the same while the ability to monetize goes down. Creating probably what I believe the deep state would prefer. Smaller independent creators without backing struggle because you get death threats, you get violence. It's harder to live a normal life and you can't

make as much money as you used to. So for instance, full, full security for a studio is going to cost $5 million a year. It's absolutely merciless. Now, if you can't monetize the views that are resulting in those death threats and those threats, you can't tire security. So it creates an inverse, I don't want to die by speaking out, and I can't afford to protect myself, so I'm going to pull back. I'm not saying it's a guarantee or anything like this. The bigger question with Ethan incline is, I spent $100,000 producing a documentary. It got ripped mercilessly by 10,000 people under fair use. I made no money. I will never make it again. So I've, I've two immediate reactions to that. One, I'm not sure you're like the second one. I think you might find interesting.

So the first one is, I could see a way, because what you're sort of getting at here, even if it's not currently codified or organized that way, I could see a judge preserving Paramount's ability and your ability for your documentaries to monetize by by contextualizing the ruling somehow or using whatever framing is necessary to get there where you basically allow uh fair use on non paywalled content but if you like for example you know like this difference between like a youtube a traditional YouTube video and like having to go to pirate bay to jack something because you know you can't get it unless you pay someone the studio itself by getting a ticket, or, you know, a Netflix subscription to get it where they at least

get some part of the pay, the paywall somehow, whether that's Amazon Prime, a movie studio, a rumble premium thing that you need to pay, they get some, but you're, when you're, when, when they, their business model is based on a paywall and you're circumventing the paywall to get it, that I could, I could see there being a way where it preserves that. It still infringes on the ad rev. I get that. But what I find really interesting. That's what they want. Yeah, I agree. What's really interesting about what you said about kind of like deeper forces around this is I've been pursuing something for a number of months and you guys will see the fruits of it at some point this year. This long-range plot around controlling monetization of content online

is something that gets, like, the elements involved in control over monetization of content goes to some just incredibly deep, dark, twisted forces, plots, agencies, that it's kind of mind-blowing. Like, this started immediately after the 2016 election when Trump won, and there was two things happening at once. You had traditional gatekeeper media, I won't, maybe a... I'll try to take the shortest route to this possible. Okay, maybe I'll say, you can ask me questions if you're, if you're curious about it.

I don't want to, because I could talk about this for an hour. But, okay, just the super short version is when there was this crisis where the same thing that you're saying that is felt in the podcast, Monti's podcast world, the legacy media was feeling that as their own ad rev was getting sucked out by the big, like Google and Facebook, where it was eating the traffic that used to, the ad revenue that came from traffic when you would see it in the New York Times instead of a, you know, a YouTube video covering the story or it being tweeted out or something. And so at the same time, there was this explosion of citizen journalists and just, you know, right-wing news outlets

that were alternatives to what you'd see on, you know, unipolar, you know, uniparty. And so they came up with this plan to, in order to get their gatekeeper status back, they said there's too many messages, but there's much fewer messengers than messages. We can't kill all the messages. This is also before AI scan and ban. They were still using, you know, right. So like YouTube would hire like 10,000 new human moderators

and wouldn't make a dent. Now they can do the AI scan and ban and do a lot more that way. But what their plot was to simultaneously, they said if we, there's a, at the time Breitbart was super hot. like Steve Bannon, who was leading Breitbart at the time, you know, even became effectively, you know, the shadow president as NSL and Saturday Night Live would refer to him and the like. And they were like,

okay, well, there's, you know, there's 10 million monthly active Breitbart readers, but there's only one bright part. If you, we don't need to get rid of everybody sharing Breitbart because if you just get rid of Breit, how do you, how do you do that? You kill their, you kill their ad rev. Right. And so what they did is they said about this, they started working with, the advertising companies, the big four, they, and literally these were all like CIA cutout organizations. And not only that, like the Biden administration government itself, and even the Trump administration unbeknownst to the White House, like USAID was doing this, state department was doing this. And they had this sort of policy of demonetizing disinformation,

cutting out the funds of disinformation. And even if you look at who's on the boards that they would funnel the money to, it was like NewsGuard, Michael V. Hayden, the CIA director. I want to go back and keep it on track. And there was this period where the media companies were suing Google because Google was crawling the news pages. And you would then go on Google and it would summarize articles underneath them. It would say like the title of the article and the summary. So people weren't clicking the articles anymore because they would read the lead and then they were done. So this resulted in Canada actually banning putting some like bans in place on news websites or something weird happened like this.

It was like a political, it was a pay to play basically. like. Well, so the issue was, the news organization said we can't make money if Google rips it and people read it for free. So this, this is important because it's exactly where we're going now. The future will be, as you described it, individuals, independent shows like ours will make no money because we'll have zero copyright protection. There will be no IP laws for small individuals, but the big networks will have a de facto IP protection, despite the fact there won't be IP laws. They will have a paywall. system that you have to use and they will funnel you towards and they will make it functionally impossible to make a living being an independent media personality. That's the whole point of this. Like my argument is if Ethan Klein actually loses and this makes precedent, then the functional argument is I can watch Avengers Doomsday in its entirety. But do we really believe they will allow the little guy to go to do anything to them? The point is Ethan Klein is an independent guy who is very wealthy and well-off with a lot of following will not be able to compete.

Pete. They did not, remember, was it, Markiplier? Is that his name? Yeah. He made that movie. And they got really mad. He made a blockbuster movie. They don't like gatekeepers. We, Carter and I did music. Should have charted on Billboard Hot 100 and they tricked us and made sure it could not over and over again. This is the machine they are building. And this is the point. You will not be able to monetize your content. It's fair use and free for all. The big companies will functionally be under the same rules, but they will crunch. you under the weight of their machine. I think you can still make money

even if you don't have the rights to your content because people, advertisers will advertise on the live show. People will still subscribe for the live show. I cannot make money if someone else clips this video. I can't make money. Well, if they clip your advertisement, you're making double the money. No, I'm not.

Go to place and type in code Tim. Like if someone else runs that ad for you, you're duplicating your audience. Right, but we don't get paid for that. We should be getting paid for hits. promo code Tim. I don't want to do contingency. Contingency sucks.

We like going to every person saying it is a set rate. And if you're, listen. I think you can still get that. Imagine a sponsor comes to us and they sell, they go, we want to market this handle for hammers. Handle for hammers? That's right. It's a 3D printed clip that clips onto a hammer so you can hold it. So the hammer is like this.

And I'll go, okay, well, the rate is for you, $10,000. And they go, deal. promo code 10. How many people do they're going to buy that? I don't know. So if I said, if they said we'll give you $5 per sale, I'm going to say, no one's going to buy that product. I think you can still make money off the ad reads, even if you don't have long-term ownership. Because it's really about the immediate show. People watch it once. Tomorrow, they're going to watch the show tomorrow. They're not going to watch this show tomorrow. They do. We actually have clips throughout the

whole week. You'll have the live show you can still go to. As long as you're working. It's kind of weird. We can't make the money on it. Well, it's kind of weird for an artist or an entertainer to have access to their own production output. It's a 20th century. What's going to happen is for the big networks, if you do a critique on Avengers, if you do a critique on Avengers, YouTube will just say we've got a finance claim. They won't call it IP or copyright and they'll just send whatever money you would have made to the big networks. And then when Ethan Klein says, you watched my documentary, they'll say, shove off. We do got to go to your Rubble Rants and Super Chats. So we're going to read what you guys say,

The uncensored show, uncensored shows coming up in a few minutes at rumble.com slash timcast, IRL. But before we get to your comments, we got a great sponsor. It is enhanced. This episode is sponsored by Enhanced. You guys heard of the enhanced games. The team is rewriting what the human body is capable of. They also have their own consumer line, not hormones, not prescriptions. The daily stimulant free supplements built the same standard.

Again, like they reached out. I was like, these are like supplements and like vitamins because we love that stuff. And they're like, yes, excellent. If you train hard, you work hard by 3 p.m. most days you're running out you're running on whatever's left in the tank enhanced makes a daily formula called stronger doctor formulated clinically dosed no proprietary blends one scoop five grams of creatine eight grams of pure l citraline that i pronounce it beta alanine and essential amino acids zero caffeine no crash it's an extra set in the gym something's still left when you walk in the door at night

and if you're playing the long game enhanced makes longer a daily longevity formula built by the team behind the Enhanced games, no middleman, no markup. Go to shop. Dot Enhanced.com slash rumble and get 50% off your first order. Again, shop. dot enhanced.com slash rumble. Take advantage of the limited 50% off welcome offer. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys.

And when someone clips that, they already bought the ad so I don't get extra money for views we can't track. We don't get dollars per sale. We got this old-ass tech where it's hard to track where the money coming from where it's going to. Like with blockchain smart contracts, it does make it easier to track. I got to pause.

I got to stop you. That's not true. What do you mean? We've had reference URLs forever. And when we do contingency, which we have done, we know exactly who's clicking. We know how many sales we're getting.

It's how Amazon works. We don't sell here at Timcast, for the most part, contingency deals because they're usually bad deals. Like I mentioned, there are a lot of companies that say we have a product and we go, I don't know. That's a good product. And they say, well, we're going to try and advertise it anyway.

They could say to us, we'll give you $10 for every sale. And we had one company approach us on a product. And they said, we won't do a direct buy because we don't have the capital for it. Can we do a contingency? And I said, no, because no one will buy your product. So if that video goes viral and the ad is in it, it won't matter. I won't make money off the contingency. And if they do a direct pay and say, we'll give you 10 grand for the ad read. And it goes viral, I can't go back to them and say, hey, look at this. some random guy commented on the video and got another million views. You're going to say too bad. You should be, and there should be an AI that can crawl the web and find iterations of that video for you. So then perhaps the negotiations after the fact are we'll charge you 10K for the direct read

and will give you a half price rate for all views. You know why they wouldn't do that deal? Because they'll be like, that's an infinite loss. If we agree to 10 grand on the ad read and it performs well, we make money. If someone then copies that ad and it blows up and we owe you a million dollars we don't have, we're in default. We can't get an infinite downside ad buy. It wouldn't make sense. But like clippers, you know, this age of other people taking your stuff and clipping it and put in other.

Copyright's dead. What if the ad was used in like a place that you don't want to be used too? Like someone like Chaw the Builder clipped it or something and then. Well, we got to read some of these. We only got a few minutes and I rambled too long. Joshua says black activists are obsessed with melanin ratio. It's their only currency. They want perpetual grievance or their entire victimhood identity would be rendered obsolete.

Brutal assessment. What do we got here? Blave Kaiser says, I may be in a bubble as well, or this is orchestrated. I've seen tons of black content creators calling Carmelo and these other morons out, but they're not getting any traction. Well, there's a mixed bag. when you look at most of Reddit, everybody's like, he's guilty, man. They're not going to riot over this.

But we showed you a video guy punch and put someone in the head. There exists this contingent of black identitarianism. I think that's what we're calling out. And that, real quick, that's why earlier today I said, what bothers me about all of this is racists. These black people, they are racist. There are tons of great black people.

And my favorite Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, shouldn't even have to be brought up in this. But we do this because the left are racists. And we try to clarify our position to people who are not politically initiated. Well, and I think actually this administration is really doing for the first time, kind of like a full frontal assault on the front end of the funnel of that. Like if you look at, they've gone, they've gone at disparate impact root and branch. They've gone at DEI super hard.

And they've tied the federal grant money to like getting DEI out. And a lot of this is, you know, cultural, familial, you know, reinforced in a hundred different ways. but the fact is when it's sanctioned by your school and it's taught, you know, at the school level, which every single person has to go to and it gets reinforced through that and it's not taught that it's bad. In fact, it's taught that it's good. Like that creates this culture and there's, we're only right now into like year one and a half of any attempt to get rid of that. I think there actually, there was a major Justice Department ruling on disparate impact just this week. And the fact that they're, I mean, what you see is a lot of like machine left.

Democrats who are upset right now at the academia and the universities because they're bending on this compact for America thing around like basically putting contingency on whether you get federal funds for whether you've uproved your DEI. We got a question for you, Mike. David Flores says we're watching a color revolutionary tactics regarding the Carmelo case. How much worse would this be if USAID still? existed. Well, so I mean, I would say, this looks bad and ugly, but also small scale, not, not like, okay, I don't see, for example, AFL-C-I-O, C-I-E-I-U, I don't see institutional

cover for this in the way that you would see in a color revolution. In a color revolution, you would have masses of people on the streets, you would have intense organization, you would have institutional sponsorship, you would have diplomatic top cover, you would have a whole range of things that this is not. I would not say that every time, you know, there is some sort of destabilization event at any local level that that is a manifestation

of an orchestrated color revolution. I mean, there is such a thing as authentic protest, even when the authentic, they're authentically stupid. Like that happens all the time in ways big and small, and I would categorize this as a relatively small, temporal kind of, you know, fever, outbreak of a black nationalist sort of sentiment in a relative minority, you know, portion of both the black community and what we saw in Congress. So I wouldn't characterize it is that if, and I don't think USAID would,

even in its most pernicious, They would take on a BLM type case or even a Trayvon Martin type case where there's a disputed fact pattern, something like this. Right. Yeah, I don't think. They can't win. Let's grab this one. We got neglectful sausage says, if YouTube oppressed your people, you'd vote to convict more often. This is why YouTube flight is a real thing.

Oakland used to be 95% YouTube, same as Chicago. You leave from crime and from tribal convictions. What does that mean? YouTube works a mysterious way. He wrote YT. If YT, if YouTube, if white oppressed your people, you vote to convict more often,

this is why white flight is a real thing. Oakland used to be 95% white, same as Chicago, you leave from the crime and from tribal convictions. So what happens is, I think traditional American culture

and largely among the white population, it is very non-confrontational and seeks to avoid conflict. I actually think this is why, by it's rooted in literally who this country was founded by, people who are fleeing from Europe. They, I'd rather go live in the middle of the woods than deal with what's going on here.

It's no surprise then that the descendants of those people, say, me from Chicago, say, I don't want to live here. I'm going to go move somewhere else. And that's why you get a lot of this, you know? Well, a lot of it is also law and order and the pressure on law and order to stand down amidst political pressure. Like, if you look at where crime has gotten really bad,

you see a lot of capture at the city council and mayor's office to appeal to the kind of, you know, what in cases like this is almost like a black nationalist type bloodlust type thing, but because you have a lot of that sentiment playing out politically and whatnot in these cities, it's, it's, there's the police department's told to stand down or it's underfunded and like, and what I like about what this administration is doing. First of all, I've lived in D.C. probably four or five times now in my, in my life for various years and then taking off and then coming back for various things. And it is, DC is way safer than it has ever been.

Oh, man, clean. It's clean. Wow. It's clean. It's safe. Like none of my friends of Edron's, I remember when I lived there during term one, the pizza shop next to me got shot up and the Whole Foods next to me got robbed at gunpoint,

like my second month there. The Washington Post covered for the Whole Foods. robber that held them up at gunpoint saying, oh, you know, he was like a poet rapper just trying to get his life on track type thing. We're like, okay, my pizza shop got got the window shot at. Like, this is the capital city. Like, what if I was a senator's son? Like, why would a senator, but the fact is, what Trump did is now everywhere you go in D.C., there are men in camo with large visible guns that they don't say anything. They don't, they're not in your face. They're not, they're just walking around.

like everywhere. And it's crazy how quickly they were able to clean it up. Literally in the matter of like years. It's crazy. It's like San Francisco cleaning up the homeless thing with the China delegation. Right, right. But I think that the admin just announced an initiative to do this at like a at a national level. I don't agree with that.

We got a special case for feds. You don't put the feds in other cities, not legal. No, but I think there's a program. I think it's a voluntary. Let's talk about this. We got to go to the uncensored portion. I want to read one more chap. Aaron Glenn is a terrorist, that's his name, says apparently yapping about Ethan Klein is more important than covering the riots in Ireland happening literally right now.

No, that's for the uncensored show where we're going to show it uncensored. That's what we're waiting for. So head over to rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL for the uncensored show. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Rebecca, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, you can read my byline at the Daily Caller. And you can also follow me on X at Rebecca Zalcoe, spelled R-E-B-E-E-K-O.

check me out on X at Mike Ben Cyber also on YouTube IG all the stuff and then also my foundation is Foundation for Freedom Online.com you can read the latest and greatest on the censorship industrial complex there. I'll be at Ian Crossland all across social media

that's all I got Phil I am Phil the remains on Twix the band is all that remains you can check us out on Apple Music, Amazon music, Pandore YouTube, Spotify and Deezer and if you're in the D.C. area we will be playing the warp tour this Sunday so go ahead and get your tickets at warptour.com.

Top billing, by the way. Yeah. I think we play it like four. No, no. The, on the, on the, oh, yeah. They do, they do it in alphabetical order. So you're 303 and then all that remains. So it was Sunday?

Yeah, it's a Sunday, yeah. I'll be competing with the UFC fight. Yeah, I know. Tickets to. No, but his early. He's early. Yeah. We'll play before the UFC fight.

Yeah. Get into DEC and go see. I think they don't, Warp Tour doesn't let you know exactly until the day of, but I think that we're playing in the afternoon. Nice. Well, I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks' music or Carter Banks official everywhere else. Follow our label at Trash House Records on YouTube and I'm pumped to talk about Ireland in the after show. Don't forget the left-leaders for crime. We'll see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast.I.R.L right now. Thanks for hanging out.