Timcast IRL - MN To LOSE Congressional Seat Over Deportations, Attacks Against ICE Getting WORSE w/ Sulaiman Ahmed

Episode Date: January 17, 2026

Special Guest Host Alex Stein is joined by Ian, Tate, Phil, & Sulaiman Ahmed to discuss the recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis that resulted in the death of Renee Good and Trump's decision to back down from strikes against Iran.   Hosts:  Alex Stein  ⁨@AlexStein99⁩  (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) Producer: Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Sulaiman Ahmed @ShaykhSulaiman (X)

From Amazon, MGM Studios comes Melania, a new film that takes you inside the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential inauguration through the eyes of the first lady herself. Step into her world as she orchestrates inauguration plans, navigates the transition, and moves her family back to the nation's capital. History's biggest stage on the biggest screen. Melania, only in theaters on January 30. Hey, Ontario. Come down to bed MGM casino and see what our newest exclusive, the Price is Right Fortune Pick has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show, only at BetMGM. Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Clifhanger, and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download

the BetMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the Price is Right Fortune Pick. Pull up a seat and experience the Price is Right Fortune Pick, only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only, please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact ConX Ontario at 1866-531-260 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages, welcome to Timcast, IRL. It's Friday night. Things are going to get spicy, but before we start, the shenanigans, we've got to get a word from our sponsor. It is Beam Dream. Head over to shop, B-E-A-M dot com slash Timcast. You get to 35% off your nighttime blend to support better sleep. I am a massive fan of Beam Dream. I drink it every single night.

It helps me sleep. It's improved my sleep score. I wake up feeling better. And it's got all the good stuff. And it's got magnesium. It's got meltonin. It's got althian. It's got rationing it.

And the best part is it's a delicious cup of hot cocoa with a bunch of different flavors. They got cinnamon cocoa. They got brownie batters. salt caramel variety packing it, you get them all. Chocolate peanut butter. That's great. They even have a melatonin free if you got concerns about that one and a salty dark chocolate. I drink it every night.

Seriously, there's no added sugar. It's 15 calories. And I'm not even kidding when I say it does absolutely improve my sleep. When they first reached out to sponsor us, they sent us these samples. I tried them out. I'm like, we'll see how it is. After a couple days, I woke up feeling better than ever. I didn't even know I could sleep better.

So check out, shop B-E-A-M-D-com slash Timcast. shout out Beam Dream for sponsoring the show. It is Bearskin. Oh boy. My friends, you've heard of the Bearskin hoodie because you watch the show, you know, and you need to get one now. Smart people are grabbing theirs now because when it's already freezing, you want the gear that actually keeps you warm. Bear Skin is running a 60% off deal right now so you can finally upgrade the sad excuse for a winter hoodie you've been suffering in. You've been suffering.

Trust me. These hoodies are built for serious cold weather. It's got 340 GSM of bearskin fleece. 10 legit pockets, a muscular fit. And even zips into the heavy storm rain jacket to turn into full winter waterproof armor. Whether you're into hiking, hunting, traveling, I just hate being cold. It's the last hoodie you'll ever need. You'll get the free U.S. shipping, fast delivery.

And you're finally kidded out properly for winter. So it's a win-win. Do yourself a favor. Text the word Tim to 36912 to lock in your 60% off. Again, text Tim to 30%. 36912. You'll get a link sent straight to your phone so you can check it out later if you're busy right now. And when you shop with bearskin, you're not just getting killer gear.

You're also supporting the fallen outdoors and the hope for the Warriors veterans programs. Don't wait till you're freezing to realize your hoodie socks get bearskin now. While it's 60% off text Tim to 36912. You can also check out BAER.Skin slash Tim. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. Everybody goes support bearskin. Great stuff. keeps me warm at night.

All right, with all that being said, it's time to start the show. To my right, you know them, you love him. Tate Brown, tell them who you are. What is going on, Patriots? Tate Brown here, holding it down. Yeah, just wrapped two episodes

of Across the Pondon going up on this weekend with the great Connor Tomlinson. So be on look up for that on the culture channel and on Conner's channel. It's going to be some good stuff, and I am happy to be here. And everybody knows the guy to my left.

Everybody give a round of applause for Philobonte. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil LaBantie. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. and anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Hi, it's Solomon Ahmed.

I'm an independent journalist on X. You can find me on X and on YouTube. On YouTube, I'm Suleiman Ahmed X. Alex Stein is Marty McFly, and I am Doc Brown. So when we get together, dude, the show goes off the rails. Are you ready to, I just want to talk about conspiracy theories. By the way, I'm at Ian Crosswood. It's where you can follow me, do, Alex.

Well, we have to get a word from our other sponsor. I just want to say and address the Jewish elephant in the room. love you Israel. You are the promised land. You are the chosen people. You're better than everybody, especially that brown guy over there. So we love you. Down with the brown, up with the Jews. All right. With that being said, guys, we have

Suleiman on here, and he said something very interesting before we started the show, is that he's kind of liberted and that he disagrees with what ICE is doing currently in America. So I think this would be a great time and a great place to start with personally, people are mad at Donald Trump because he's not doing enough when it

comes to protecting ICE in Minneapolis. Me, I'm going to have the opinion. It's like, you know, I don't love people getting shot in the face, but I don't love women driving over people either. So I guess my point is, Suleiman, what do you think about Donald Trump and his support or not support of ICE? Yeah, I think the way the entire situation has been handled has been extremely incompetent and extremely bad. So there's two ways of dealing with this issue. Either you just leave it or you deal with it in a very systemized, harsh manner. And what harshness means is not shooting someone in the face, right? So just think about it when you deal with a kid.

You can either, so my children, like, I've never had to hit them. Because they know what the rules are. They understand what it is. And then they know they won't break the boundaries. But when you basically deal with the issue that you did, where you're basically sending ICE agents in and you're basically doing it based on some kind of propaganda that Nick Shirley's put out, whatever it may be,

it's just going to ferment the situation and make it a lot worse. So therefore, you have to either go in harsh. partially or light. In addition to that, what happened was with the eye situation of shooting Renee Good. Again, I think it was done intentionally in order to ferment these riots and ferment hatred by both sides because a very easy way to de-escalate the situation was you wouldn't have JD Evans coming out and fighting with a lawyer on X. You would just be, look, we need to work out what's happened. We're going to investigate the situation. There'll be an independent inquiry and I think everyone would be happy with it. What's happened is what it seems to suggest is that what's

happening is the people in charge, whether it's the vice president of the United States of America or DHS, whoever, are trying to hide or take cover for the ICE officer and therefore people are like seeing this as a state sanctioned hit. What did the ICE agent do wrong? Shoot her. Well, it just, it's, why did he shoot four times? I was, I can kind of understand, no, it's actually now it's came out. Look it up there. Now they said there's four shots. I only saw three too. I only saw three. I only saw three. Supposedly I just read today that there's actually four shots but I guess you know was one shot not enough to no it doesn't well when you're dealing with use of force issue it doesn't matter like the number of times that he shoots is totally irrelevant

like it's it's not a situation sure when a cop shoots or when a cop shoot somebody they actually have to put a specific report for actually each bullet when it's yeah but when it's in this when it's in that span of time it's it's considered the same use of force yeah all three shots were dispatched in like a single second yeah but I'm saying typically in law enforcement they have to do reports for each separate shot But from different angles, right? It doesn't matter because it's a use of defensive force, right? The police officer is moving across the front of the car. There's a lot of people that make a stink about him being in the car.

He was walking around the car. He wasn't posted up in front of the car. He was moving across the car. As soon as she accelerated, wherever the wheels were pointed, it doesn't matter. As soon as she accelerated, he's in a position where he's like, I'm in defense of my life, and he's authorized to use defensive force. It's the long and short. I think one shot, maybe it was.

justified but at the same exact time you saw Donald Trump say that the guy was in the hospital you see that he got hit yeah well they they bring him to the hospital because he was actually hit by the car and alleged he's alleged to have had at least government officials said that he's had an internal bleeding so according to that so that's according to CBS news so if you don't want to believe the stuff that the government says that's fine right but we can only go by with the information but we have to look at who the report is from the report is from CBS Barry Weiss that's important point to know in addition to that you've

basically got another issue, which is when you look at what happened, look, his life wasn't threatened. The car was, I stand still. It doesn't matter. But his life wasn't threatened. And the first shot happened. Yes, it was. The car was moving towards him. The car is a deadly weapon. A car is a mile an hour. A two miles an hour. It's not a deadly weapon. So the argument that you're making would be the same argument if he said, well, the gun, he had, the, the perpetrator had a gun, but he wasn't pointing at the officer. Police don't have to wait until you're pointing at a gun of them or you're shooting at them. As soon as the person's in the car

refused to get out and hits the accelerator, as soon as the car starts moving towards him, he doesn't have to be like, oh, I know what the car is gonna do to defend it. So there's two points. One thing is her wheel was completely turned. Doesn't matter. We already talked about that.

Doesn't matter. The second thing is he's going at two miles now. And why that doesn't matter. Why that's important is because, for example, I just saw a video yesterday, like, you know, Nick Sauter, me and him came up together on X, but that being said, so, like, I like him.

But that being said, there was a video of him literally going faster than that. Does that mean all their lives are endangered, There's craziness. It's two miles an hour. There was no police officers. No, but life in danger. Your argument is that life was in danger.

No, no. What about civilian life being in danger? If there is someone in front of the car, if Nick Shirley's driving down the street, he's not endangering people on the street. Right. In next order. No, no, there was people in front of him.

No, so my question to you is this. But that's also not a police officer. That's not a police officer. I'm just pointing out it's a false equipment. We're talking about two different. Okay, let me ask you question though. So, if, if you said the cops's life was in danger, if there's in civilian and his,

there's a one question If there's a civilian whose life's in danger, are you allowed to shoot the person? Yes. In defense. Depending on where the laws depend. So based on your argument, when Nick Saw or was driving his car,

any of those leveling people could have shot him. No, because those people were not conducting law enforcement operation. No, but your argument isn't whether it's law enforcement. Your argument is whether it's self-defense. Whether your life is in danger, sorry. And I want to make this point as a graduate of the Dallas Citizens Police Academy. And this is true, you can look it up. But in law enforcement training,

one of the main things that they teach them is to use your strength. That is one of the most important things that when you're in a high, tense situation, you do not overreact. Literally, that is part of the training. If I'm just looking at it, I would assess that he overreacted a little bit. I mean, I know he got hit by a car, but it looked like he was still on his feet. If he would have got knocked off his feet, then I could have been like, oh, man, he really was worried, but he was never off his two feet.

As a matter of fact, he shot to that. I'm saying he had enough of a stable ground. He shot her right in the head. And then when she died, he's saying, fucking bitch. He didn't know that she was dead then, first of all, second while. He just got hit by a car. But why not let them get aid? I know, but when a doctor comes-

He didn't prevent her from getting aid. That was other police. That was other police officers. I know. Well, if somebody gets shot and you prevent them from getting aid, your job is to protect and serve. Okay, so know what they were doing is they were protecting the crime scene because the police and fire, fire authorities were there.

The police had their own EMTs and they were on their way down there. The people that are on the side of the road that are saying, I'm a doctor, you don't know that person. You don't know what they are. You don't know what they're doing. So what you're saying is they should have allowed a bystander to go and contaminated a crime scene. You're not going to do that. The police will never do that. You also got the car after. Contaminate a crime scene. I mean, somebody's dying in a car. I think that you would try to do anything to save their life. But the point is there were already EMTs on the way down the street, right? There were already EMTs on the scene. They would have the EMTs from the police department go down there and

say, hey, look, we're going to take care of it because if you let someone else go down there, you actually contaminated crime scene. And whether or not, whether you're not, that's, it's something that we like that is policy with police uh police departments nationwide how far with the EMTs because i never saw them i don't know i never saw them i don't change the fact that that doesn't change the fact that the police will have state officials go to a render aid as opposed to bystanders because you don't know if a bystander says if a vice standard says oh i'm going to go down there and i'm going to help you don't know that guy's actual EMT you have no idea who this random person what about doing the next pandemic they say that you can't go to uh go play uh in your band because you're not

vaccinated and then an ICE agent tries to prevent you from doing whatever you legally feel like you can do and then they shot you because this is the problem is that we say that in this instant because she's a libtard oh we can celebrate it it's not a big deal but very easily this could be turned against us that are either anti-vax or anti-government so if you can't see i'm not coming i'm not coming from i'm not coming from a political perspective because i'm a gun guy i carry i have a gun on me right now okay i carry a gun i've gone to multiple gun classes and the things that you go over in the classes generally are the legalities of what happens if you get into a self-defense situation. And I'm telling you the policies of the police station or the police

department or actually the feds in this case, but because that is what they're going to go by. We can we can pick it apart and say, well, he should have this or that person should have that or look at where her wheels were pointing, blah, blah, blah, blah. None of that stuff actually matters when it comes to what the department, what the feds are going to say. That's why he hasn't been charged. He hasn't been charged. And this is one of the things that I said, day one. I was He's not, he's not, he's not going to, but when he's not charged, that doesn't provide proof because the claim from the left is. The reason he's not being charged is because this was state support of the state. It doesn't matter what the claim from the left is because they're going to claim, they're going to claim that it was, that the government did everything wrong anyways.

No, but if it was the other way around, you guys, if less if Biden was in charge, you got to be like, oh, Biden basically is allowing the murder of Republicans. I was, you can say you guys, but when Ashley Bavitt was killed, I wasn't one of the guys out there screaming about it. And the second point is, when you look at what he did, he shoots, then allegedly, the car hits him and then he shoots maybe two or three times more. So the three times at all. Okay, so two times more. So it means like, for example, his hit clearly wasn't bad enough that he still managed to shoot through the wind through the side mirror two more times. Yeah, I want to know about that. If he's got to explain every bullet, I heard pop, pop, pop, pop, is what I heard. He shot her once. She drove and started to drive away and then he fired three more at her while she was driving away.

Is that to protect so she didn't pull out a gun and turn around and shoot at him? Is that why he finished her off? It was all within a second. Like, we're expecting superhuman level. Like, the entire argument is, like, look, we're not expecting perfection. Like, of course, every time there's going to be a police involved shooting, it's not going to be, like, this beautiful, perfect incident. Like, these things are messy. The reality is when you accelerate towards a police officer, you need to, like, understand that they do have the right to return fire because you're using your, you're using your vehicle as a deadly weapon. If a cop thinks you're coming at them and they shoot you, and then you turn and run away, and they shoot you three more times while you're running away, is that murder?

It all depends on what the situation. If it was like five seconds gone by, there could be a conversation. Again, we're talking about like in the space of a second, this is all going on. To your exact point, if the police believe that you are going, so if you're running away with a gun, right? They'll finish you off because they think you could turn around and shoot. Hold on, let me finish. If you're running away with a gun, the police can shoot you in the back because there is a reasonable fear that you are going to cause harm to someone else. And that car is a 2,000-pound bullet, basically.

Hold on, let me finish. If you don't have a gun, then the police cannot shoot you in the back if you're running If you have a gun, because the situation is, will, is there a reasonable fear that you're going to harm someone else after the engagement? So is someone driving a car away reasonable? Is there a reasonable fee he was going to be? Come on. I don't think that. I don't think that.

That's why the police. That's why the police. The context I'm talking about with Ian is different from the one that we're talking about. Yeah, yeah. With the car, she didn't see a gun. Wait, hold on, let me finish this. She didn't see, the cop didn't see a gun. He had no reason to think that a car driving away from him was going to cause immediate threat to anybody.

buddy. So why did he fire those extra three shots? He already had decided he's going to kill her. A car that's being pursued by the police, that's why they have pit maneuvers. Because again, a car on the loose, you know, being pursued by police, that is going to be considered a threat against the public. And that's why the police have the authority to conduct pit maneuvers. So if you're going to say, well, he has zero right whatsoever, again, this is also in the space of a second. So I think this is a moot point anyway. But even in that instance, then you have to be against like pit maneuvers. I mean, these are, these are things that the police use to- No, no. Piff maneuvers isn't shooting the driver in the head. That's It's still like, there's still a threat of death.

It's a non-lethal way to get them. Pit maneuver is intended to be non-lethal. You're supposed to run their car off the road and arrest them with a pit maneuver. If you want to kill them, you could kill them. The pit maneuvers are done at like 60 miles per hour. Yeah, it's not ideal. The police are making the calculations that will probably kill them or severely. The purpose is, to kill them.

To your point, they actually make it in some states, it's not, you're actually not, cops are not even legally allowed to chase people on motorcycles because they don't want the person to die on the motorcycle. Yeah, I know. So you got somebody a serious felony crime, but they're on a motorcycle, and they don't want to chase him so that person's die. So why do they try to respect his life in that situation? But we don't respect Renee's good luck. Well, it's more about the point of these operations are about incapacitations.

You're trying to incapacitate the criminal in whatever manner that looks like. Not killed, though, right? You're supposed to do it in a non-lethal way. No, no, no, no, no, no. You need to do whatever you can do to incapacitate the criminal, whether that's death, whether it's not, that's besides the point. The point is protecting the public. Well, wouldn't you say that they should err on the side of non-lethal force? No, because this is the shoot-em-in-in-the-leg argument that you're making.

in a defensive situation, you shoot to stop the threat. You don't shoot to... Well, then why didn't you shoot her tire out? That's... Well, why didn't you shoot him in the leg? I mean, that would require a rambo-level abilities of the talent. Well, when you choose to be a cop, and I know... No police officer are trained to do that.

But I don't think anybody's asking him to be superhuman. I just think that if you just look at it and I get it, everybody can watch the same clip and have a different interpretation of it. It's like, if you're standing across a room from somebody and I draw a six, it's going to look like a nine to somebody else. So people can look at the same exact thing and have a totally different interpretation of it. But when it comes down to it, Tim Dillon did say it best. This is an ICE agent. This guy's like basically a fake cop. You know what I mean? He probably signed on for the $50,000 bonus.

I don't know how much time he spent. How much time did he spend in the field? He deployed to Iraq. He was even worse. So he's got a guy with PTSD. Okay. So no, no, no, listen. You're just giving him PTSD. No, okay. Every soldier. Have you ever watched Caleb Hammer's podcast? It is not true. It is not true. Every soldier. Just answer my question. If ever I know what I know Caleb Hammer is. What happens when ever he has a military vet on, what do they say? I have, they're on disability. Again, every veteran is on disability. You can look it up. Over 90% of veterans are on disability. If you've been to Iraq, you have PTSD.

Okay, so he has PTSD? No, I'm not saying that. I'm making a fun of you. No, I guarantee. Look it up. I'm just saying the majority of people that go serving the military, they get disability for the rest of their life. Why do they say that? Because they say that they were near a bomb and they had PTSD. So that's even worse. So we're giving a guy a gun that, that probably was shot out. That probably does have PTSD.

And so now he's nervous because he's thinking it's in Iraq. And really it's a total fabrication. This is a total fabrication. No, it's not. It's not. He had an additional PTSD because six months earlier, what he did was there was a criminal whose window he smashed into, he was smashed into the guy's window,

and then the guy drove off and dragged him around the street, and he's got a lot of injuries. So he already added PTSD from that as well. And I think that's why he acted in a kind of insane manner. So you're thinking this ICE agent is scared of a car driving at him because of a previous sense of it. Everybody's going to be scared of a car driver. So does he have PTSD and he was afraid or was it not?

Which one is it? So he had PTSD. You shouldn't have been that. It was irrational to be a fearful of a two mile an hour car. So you're saying this reminds me of that time I got hit by a car. I bet you're just admitting that he wasn't a true of a car. This is degraded into two miles and hour. It was degraded into trying to apply things to the guy.

What happened in Baltimore? Have I answered this question. If he was just totally justified, why didn't other ice agents shoot at the car? Because he was the one that was. There was another guy right there. He was in front of the car. So he's not allowed to mitigate the threat? So the other cop's not allowed to mitigate the threat?

Because the whole argument is based on self-defense. You're telling me another cop. Oh, so you're telling me another cop couldn't protect another cop? Is that what you're saying? That's illegal? I'm making the argument of self-defense. No, you're retarded. No, what I'm saying is if you're a cop, you're supposed to enforce the law.

So if you see another cop potentially getting hit by a car, you can shoot him, and he would be just as justified as a person that's getting hit by the car because he's a law enforcement agent. So if you're going to tell me that a cop can't prevent somebody, another cop from dying, you're wrong. That doesn't make the guy that's in front of the car, that doesn't mean that he's not allowed to use force to stop it. Why didn't the other guy start shooting as well? I don't know, but just because the other guy didn't start shooting, doesn't mean that the guy that's actually in front of the car

doesn't have the right to use force. You know, Suleiman, you said that the car is going to two miles an hour. I think it's important to realize the car was accelerating at the guy, so he didn't know how fast it was going to hit him at, and it was a couple thousand pounds. And it's like, if you flag a cop with your gun, you pull out a gun and you wave it past him, he's going to shoot and kill you.

That's accelerating a car towards a cop is flagging them with a gun. But Ian, he didn't even get knocked on the ground. He wasn't accelerating towards Ha-Fest Paine Festival. He never fell down, though. He was in front of the car. I know, but the car went so slow it didn't even knock him off his feet.

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to what's saying. He didn't even fall on the ground. When you flag a cop, you didn't even shoot him with a bullet. You didn't even intend to. No, but you've got a gun. This one, she was just driving off.

And he actually came from the unsighted because he came from the right, So it's highly likely she didn't even see him. That means, she was looking right at him in the video. If you look at the video, sorry, she was. Yeah, yeah. And then when the first shot was fired, his tires were pointed straight. No, no, you're right.

Apologies, yeah, you're right. You're good, you're good. But she turned the wheel as the shot, but when the shot was fired, but when the shot was fired, the shot was fired, you can look in the video, the tires are pointed directly forward. And the guy, the cop couldn't see the wheels. The cop is looking at her.

The cop is skids and then basically turns it to the right. The wheel, she's turning right from the beginning. I'm talking with the wheel, not the actual wheel, not the actual wheel, Getting into the granular things like where the wheels are pointed doesn't matter. He was in front of the car and he felt like she was going to hit him because the car was coming at him. That is what justifies a use of force. Like all of the other stuff, like all this like, you know, why didn't this guy do this?

There's no justification for two miles an hour. Because then what you're saying is, I'm going to say it again. He felt like he was in danger. And so he used force. That's how the law is written. And based on what you're saying, right? Because we have just already had this conversation. If a normal civilian feels like they're in danger,

he accepted that he could also shoot. That means you're saying in Minnesota now, people like Nixoto, when they're using their kind of same manner, they all could be sure. All the reports could be sure. In a use of, in a use of, crazy. Listen, no, in a use of force situation,

the person that is defending themselves does make the decision as to if they believe they are in threat of death or serious bodily injury. Yes, because there's a difference between a mob surrounding a car and chucking stuff out at, trying to reach to the windows, break the windows. There's a difference between that and a actual law enforcement operation.

But if you... No, but the situation is different. But the similarity of the same thing is where you believe that your life is in danger. That's the point I'm honing on. Right. If you're standing in front of a car and Nick Sorter stomps on the accelerator, then yes. Then you could shoot him. But if you're with a mob attacking his car and then he accelerates, that's not a self-defense

situation. Why not? If there's more than two... Because you engaged in. So if there's more than one... Well, the police engage as well. But if there's more than one person... in front of the car, then it's no longer your life's in threat.

No, if you're in a mob attacking a car. Let me ask this question. Was Ashley Babbitt was her death? Was it justified? I don't, this is filled. I don't know the intricacies. It's a very good question, bro. She was there.

Oh, bro. I was like a song. This is my problem. This is my problem. You can't see. You're not smart enough to realize that what's happening with ICE can be done to you. It can happen to you. It doesn't matter if you're a libtard.

Doesn't matter if you're conservative. The government can do something wrong to you. So the government's not perfect. That ICE agent is not perfect. They can't when you don't drive your car at a cop. As a law enforcement. Okay, but was Ashley Babit justified to be murdered? So she was going into a place that she shouldn't be,

the cop was actually justified in shooting. Okay, you're a piece of shit. I mean, there you go. I'm just saying, this is a piece of shit. No, I'll give him credit. He's consistent. He's consistent. Yeah, because most people are not.

I don't think Ashley Babbage should have been dead. I think Ashley Babi should be alive. I think Ashley Babi is like, I'll kill him alive. I'll kill that bitch, kill that bitch, just shoot another girl. These are women. We're shooting white women. Why are we shooting white women? Do the dance and yell.

We're shooting white women. Listen, the point is you asked me was the cop justified? And by the standard of the law, yes. Do I think that she should have been? No. But yes, by the legal standard, Ashley Babbitt, it was a justified shooting. She didn't have a weapon. She wasn't doing something aggressively, so I don't think he should have, but it was justified, just like in the situation with law enforcement in Minneapolis, they were justified.

I'm telling you by the law. I think that the cop was right, so this is my opinion, was right to shoot the woman in the car. But I don't think the cop was right to shoot Ashley Babett because he- Well, you just said to do everything. No, no, no, let me finish. I said, by the law, not my opinion. I told you. So they're both legally justified. They're both legally justified.

My opinion was different. I think that Ashley Babett was different because Ashley Babbitt, he couldn't see if she had any weapons in honor and she did not. Okay? So the car is a weapon. But in Jan 6, there was people who were aggressive. Remember, they were on walkie-talkies. For example, one guy who I had a debate with Jake Lang literally had a baseball bat and he was smashing people. By that standard.

So that means, would you think, I would say he's probably got more of a chance of believing. These guys are battering us. By that standard. No, by that standard, it would be justified. If that was actually your standard, and I'm not saying that this is the standard that we should go. No, let me finish. By that standard, it would be justified to all the people down with the machine gun that were in the hallway.

And no, that's not. Because, again, Ashley Babbitt was trying to go through the window. She put her head through. Now, she may not have been trying to climb through or whatever. Maybe she was, but she put her head through the window into a secured area. That's why legally, not my opinion, but legally. It was... How was the window smashed?

I don't know. I don't know. The window smashed. So then, you're thinking, window smashed up, someone comes through. Like, I'm saying, if you be consistent,

which you are, you're basically they were justified, but I don't understand the kind of opinion, bit. I don't see the disconnect. My opinion is because you couldn't see if she had a weapon her hand and she just...

But then that's a con to your opinion of the first one. That would be good enough to be a threat. You don't know, like the mob's attacking you. The window's broken. She comes through. She might have a weapon on her. No, no.

Because if you can't see that she has a weapon, The one in Minnesota, the car is the weapon. So she obviously has a weapon. She's behind the wheel of a car. She's in control of the weapon. The one when it comes to Ashley Babbitt, she's only putting her head through and he shoots her in the neck.

So you can't see if she has anything in her hands or if she has a weapon. That's the difference. So your position is if a mob is attacking you or one person from a mob attacks you, then you can only shoot if you see a weapon. If they're attacking you, you can shoot to defend yourself.

but they're attacking you. That's the difference. Well, that's what the police thought, didn't he? That's why he shot. He was, there was standoff distance. He didn't know that she was attacking. Anyway,

I don't want to sit there and pick apart the Ashley Babbitt thing. That's pointless. That's like, I'm justified in not having a position because it happened like four years ago and then we're comparing it to something that happened last week.

You have opinions on stuff that is much older than four years. I know, but this is a specific shooting from four years. I was like a freshman in call. I don't, I wasn't there. I'm sure if I was politically active. None of us were there.

I'm sure if I was politically active. at the time, I would have, like, a hot take on it. So you can't have an opinion on it because you're young when that happened? I just think, oh, let's, I mean, if he had legal justification. Do you have an opinion on the Holocaust? Yeah, I do. I have some very hot. I'm just saying, you weren't alive there and you got some hot takes on there.

So, I mean, it's just like, let's not act naivete because you want to try to, oh, you have to pretend to be Mac or else you're going to get in trouble. It's like, you can actually just say how you feel. You don't have to worry about getting canceled. You can try to be? I legitimately don't know anything what the Ashley Babbitt is. So you have no opinion whatsoever? I mean, I kind of take Phil's position.

If it's like, if he had a legal use of force, then he had legal use of force. I mean, what are you going to do about it? I guess what it comes down to is I'm just worried the government overstepping how much power they have. I get that. Well, listen, Alex, if that's what you're worried about, I have good news for you. They're gun who they've got all the guns. I know. That's why the Second Amendment is so important.

But I just, you know, I guess when it comes to this incident, I do think that he was probably justified in shooting one time. Then he shot four times. And then after, and he calls her a fucking bitch. I thought that's a little unnecessary. It shows that he was actually very angry. And that you guys say he got hit by this dangerous car. He never even fell on the ground. So people getting punched in the face get hit harder.

You can see his feet skid back because it's on ice. Yeah, but he didn't even lose his balance. He never lost his balance. So he got hit so hard that it didn't even knock a roller. But there's this like a very, like almost the exact same situation happened in Baltimore, like three months ago and the lady got completely crushed by the wheel. Because they're what I'm saying he didn't. I know that might have happened.

But he did not get crushed. Because he didn't know if he was going to have like griper. He barely got dinked and then was able to scoot around, get no shooting stance and blow the girl's brains out between her eyes. He did have like one hand and his feet were sticking back. And he was holding a cell phone at the same time. So he was, listen, he had a cell phone one hand, a gun in the other.

He's getting hit by a car that's going so fast and he didn't get knocked on the ground. No, I'm saying, he's probably shouldn't have shot. He probably shouldn't have brought out his gun. We're expecting like James Bond levels of maneuvering from this gun. They're just running interference for the... No, I'm not trying to work. See, that's a 360-lider stall.

I'm on interference now for Lib Tards because I don't think a guy that didn't get knocked on his feet shouldn't have blown some lesbians head off. I mean, give me a freaking break. Who's got three children? I'm anti-violence. Like, I'm not one of these people that's ever going to cheer for somebody dying. I think dying is bad. I think when people kill people. I agree.

It's a tragedy. It's a sad thing. I've never once like, I've never, I never like was like this is a great thing. Well, a lot of people are. A lot of people are. I'm not here to defend those people. I'm just here to say, like, we shouldn't just throw this guy in jail for self-definite. I didn't say she'd be a jail.

There should be a little. You put an independent inquiry. That's the thing. There should be an independent fair inquiry. I mean, they'll find the same thing. It's like literally it's happened very often. But that looks like sanctioned murder. No, it's not.

I mean, you believe that, but that's what it looks like. I'm just worried because there's going to be another pandemic. There's going to be another time that they lock us down where we disagree. This is definitely going to happen. And maybe it's not an ICE agent, but it could be a Department of Homeland Security. It could be a martial law in our own city. And I don't want to live in a city where I'm going to have. Do you think the left, like, they, the way that they use force is.

depending on what the right used. No, but I'm saying. Of course, it's escalation. No. No. No. Actually, I actually wrote this down to your point earlier, and I wanted to get back to this. You mentioned how they were carrying this out, right?

And it was because of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance were escalating. The escalation of what brought it back to my mind. Oh, that was one of the first things you said. If that were the case, then why is the like cities like Memphis and New Orleans who have police forces that work with the administration have no riots like this, right? So the police force doesn't inhibit the federal government from doing its job. They don't have the mayor and the governor getting out saying, we need to be out there and resist and blah, blah, blah.

It would be my opinion that the reason that this is happening is because the governments in the states and the cities are not helping the federal government because they're sanctuary cities. That, I mean, that's illegal in the first place. There is no right for a city to be a sanctuary city and to ignore federal law. They're supposed to help. So if your point actually held water, then Memphis and New Orleans and other cities that have had ICE go in and help and remove illegals, those places wouldn't have had smooth operations that you didn't hear about on the news.

So actually, what you said actually adds to the argument that this is a possibility, because in reality, if you've got the mayor who's against you, you've got people in authority who's against you, you've got waltz against you. You've basically got a standoff between the two. And then it does become a politicized situation. Now it's just become left v. right. There's a battle. Everyone's going out on the left and protesting.

Everyone's going on the right. No one sees it. No one's going on the right in protesting. You've got reporters. You've got Nick Sorton. So they're opinion journalists, but they're not out there protesting. They escalate in the situation is what I'm trying to say. So in reality, when I say the other side, you've got ICE and these reporters who are escalated in the situation.

And so in reality, it creates a quadma. Ice is carrying a... their left and right and the reason they want that is because of the separation they want people this doesn't this does not have to be political there have been there are no no no no no no this is this is not political this does not have to be political because it there was a time in the united states where the entire country agreed that we didn't allow illegal aliens to just come and stay in the country and ice was but not murdering people everyone agrees about the illegal no everyone doesn't agree about that and people are literally

All these signs that say. I'm saying everyone here agrees with about illegal immigration. But the people that are making political. The majority of Americans agree. Not. But the point that are saying like abolished ice. No, no, that's fine. There are people abolish ice.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this issue isn't solely about immigration. The larger issue is that they believe on the left. I know you were on you guys are on the right. But they believe that this is state sanctioned murder. So you need to get out your kind of mug a box and see what the other side said. But it doesn't matter what they believe because they're just going to say that no matter what. Look, they called Donald Trump.

No, they were calling Donald Trump a Nazi before he did anything. George Bush was a Nazi. Mitt Romney, they called the Nazi. The most vanilla conservative you can ever. And you guys call him communist. Anyone who disagrees with you is a commie on the left. Like everyone does it. You're both doing the exact same thing.

It's not. It's demonstrating that you do the same thing. No, it's not. It's not the same thing at all. Because the left has been, like I said, the left called Mitt Romney, the most vanilla politician in America, the most in offensive conservative there is.

They called him a Nazi when he was running. They called John. I'll call him a picture. They called John McCain. They called John McCain a Nazi. And then when Donald Trump came on the scene, they were like, oh, we love John McCain. They don't believe the things that they say. You guys literally do the same thing.

For example, you guys call Mamdani an Islamist when he believes in LGBTQ and all these kind of left and liberal war things. Correction, I called Mamdani Brown. That's much different. Yeah, that's you. I heard people call Mondani a communist. It's pretty discouraging because he's not. So if someone is a member of the DSA, is it, if someone is a member of the DSA, is it, if someone a member of the DSA is it out of bounds to call them a communist um democratic socialists of america

they're not they're not communist no socialism is different to communism only because the goal of socialism is communist no it's not you couldn't believe that what are you talking about what lennon said Vladimir lenin said the goal of socialism is communist yeah that's Lenin doesn't speak for socialism that was his idea yeah that was his own position and you've got different forms of communism as well but the point being Socialism is a very different structure to communism. That's like saying that Hitler doesn't speak for Nazism. If Hitler said something, it's okay to say. No, it's not.

No, it's not. No, it's not. Because if Hitler said something, it is reasonable to say the Nazis say, right? And if someone says, I'm a national socialist, it's reasonable to say, well, you're a Nazi. Right? That's reasonable. For example, my friends, like Jackson Hinkle are part of the ACP, the American commoners time. That's communism.

You're friends with Jackson. Yeah, he's a legend. He's not a legend. Yeah, it is. No, I like him. He's got to watch him. He's right. Future president.

Future president. Future president. Jackson Hinkle. Future we got. If he doesn't get bombed in Yemen. Future we got, if the Zaius let him in, there'd be Fuentes be Jackson Hinkle

in a future presidential election. Jackson HECL is being held back. Yeah, no. It's not happy. But anyway, that's a communist. American Communist Party, not like a DSA. We're going to talk about communism. What do you think is going to happen

in the midterms, do you think that it's going to happen? Do you think that it's going to go the Republicans where? Do you think it's going to go? I think the Democrats will probably get the edge. Do you think they'll get the House and the Senate? I think they'll get the House. I think the Republicans will hold the Senate.

Just based on, because polling is actually pretty accurate, despite what a lot of people in the audience believe it's like, no, actually like polling overcomes vibes. And like, we think it's just a guarantee that J.D. Vance is going to be the next president. But what happens if we get, no, it's not guaranteed at all. It would be bad. I mean, it would be bad either way. I don't think, like, I don't think they're going for retribution.

I think they're going for total victory. And so I don't think it, matters what we do, they're going to enact the same policies, no, but I'm saying when the people that we don't like are in power, they can use the federal government to come after us like they did during the pandemic or like they did on January 6th. And that's, I guess, what I'm saying. It's not that I'm against Renee Good or for Renee Good or against the cop or for the cop. I can just see that this being used against us on the other side. And I can see how they flip the script. So that's why when we cheer this on, we're cheering on our own demise. Well, no, they're going to use power anyway because

they want to win and they want it more than we do. No, but they'll use escalation. They'll use escalation. So when you guys are insulating anyway. When you guys are supporting state sanctioned, murder, they're going to be like, okay, we can do worse than that. It doesn't matter what the left says because they're going to say the most extreme thing

about the conservatives. Anyways, if your argument is we should not exercise power because the left is going to exercise power, you have to get past that because they're going to exercise power. No, my position is. No, I'm not a level. I'm not a libertarian anymore. No, no, no.

So my position is neither the left all the right should be exercising dystopian power. Because when that happens, you lose your right. It's not about dystopian power. Well, the first thing I thought was if a cop puts his hand on my hood of my car and I touch my gas pedal, he has the right to shoot me. And everyone's like, yep. I'm like, well, that's fucking, well, that's fucking, why would you do that? Why would you drive it down the road in five years?

I'm driving down the road and a guy walks out on the street and he puts his hand on my car. He's like, this is an official zone. We're studying a crime. And I'm like, who are you? He's like, don't move your. I'm like, show me a badge. He's like, don't move your car. You're changing this.

Now I can't touch my gas. I'm going to get. You're changing the context. You're changing the context so much where it's not the same. I'm inviting against escalation because of what could. This is a contingent possibility of escalation. No. Random dudes walking out in the middle of the road with their AR.

Ian, Ian, it's not random dudes. Those guys were clearly identified as ice. As a new form of military branch or some heavily militarized form of branch. You keep changing the context. What if it's a militia? You're changing the context. She knew. they were, first of all, she knew they were. Second of all, if there's a police officer that

says police or says ICE, and they all wear very clear identification that says their ICE. So if I do box that out with some very clear bad. So it's not, she's an American citizen. She's an American citizen. So she's probably thinking ice probably doesn't have any authority over her. Well, it doesn't matter what she's thinking. It's like Gestapo. Exactly. Right. It doesn't matter what she's thinking. Enough of American citizens. She's probably thinking as an American citizen, she can do that, but they're going after illegal. No, no, no. She thinks ICE are literally like a Gestapo going around, like there's some sort of like Nazi death squad.

Yeah, against illegals. No, against everyone. That's the messaging that they get. Well, now it is because it's murdered the American citizen. No, they trust me, they believe that ICE are these just like loose cannons and they're these crazy Trump Death Squad mega, megatrons or whatever. It should be kind of based. Against illegals. But to your point, Ian, like, you can't change the context of what happened.

If there's someone that doesn't have anything, any, I'd have. identifying markers and they come out and put their hand on your car and you speed away, no one is going to say you did anything wrong because they don't have any identify mark. What if their shirt says police on it? If the shirt says police, like if it just says, what do you mean? Or is it like an official look? Exactly. What do I mean?

What if they have a badge and a shirt that says polizia on it or whatever the phone? What if they identify? They look like a cop. If they're dressed like a police officer, you should probably do what they're saying. There are cop impersonators that people like just pull up. People over that have fake cop stuff. Yeah, what if it's a local militia, man? Think five years in the future of what, you know, you get...

Because we're not dealing with hypotheticals. We're dealing with women driving cars. It's already, like, okay, what if, you know, what if they, like, develop laser guns and then, like, start evaporating illegals? It's like, oh, that'd be based, one. But, too, like, it wouldn't be best? Like, what to evaporate illegals? This is what I mean?

You're right, wing is up crazy. We're making a joke. You guys are mental. We're making fun of it. It's a joke. So, I mean, you said that it's the top of the show. show you said that this operation, this whole removing the illegal, you agreed that illegal immigration wasn't good.

I think you... Yeah, yeah, of course. For the work... It needs to either... We need to either stop trying to get rid of them or do it harshly. What was the word you used? Harshly. Yeah, it's tough measures.

Because what's happened at the moment is what they've done is they've fermented. They've allowed this incident occur. Now he may or not bring the National Guard in. Then he'll bring it in. And then things will escalate. And what's happened is that you've allowed this major escalation to occur or by doing it so slowly in a very small escalation manner, like a little bit and a little bit.

little bit and a little bit. I think the way he should have dealt with this and look, I'm targeting this city, I'm going in harsh. All these people are going to go in, then whereas the ICE and National Guard, whoever it is, will find all the illegal immigrants, will bring them in and will be very tough that people can't go there and protest, you can't have this escalation that occurs and you just go into the city and you completely stop that. This, you know, this escalation factor is that what happens is things for men. And when things for men, they become worse, worse, worse, worse, and now you lose control. And then it's like, for example, you know how a father ends up hitting the kid because the kid's not listening, but you only got in that situation because

You didn't put the rules and requirements in first. You weren't tough. So when you say harsh, like when I think harsh, I mean, are you talking about martial law? It's a very good question. Not martial law, no. But what I mean is you would basically, let's just take one city of example. You'd go into, let's say, Florida. There'll be a specific area in Florida, wherever the area that there's a lot of illegal immigrants.

I don't know what it is. And then you'd basically send in ICE and the National Guard immediately go in, find everyone, do the operation in a very small period of time, You don't have time to get the protests and the gatherings done. You completely sought the whole issue out in a very, very systemized manner. That contributes to escalation much more than just expecting local authorities to collaborate with the federal government. I said that again. I said that would contribute to like a much higher degree of escalation than if we just expect these local authorities to collaborate with the federal government.

Yeah, I think that from, I see what you're saying, but it's just that fermenting part, isn't it? Because what's happened now is what I predicted. But why? Which was this escalation that was going to occur. Now the protest, now you'll see is even more protests are going to be coming. There was more people. and now Trump's going to send in the National Guard, then they'll send more protesters.

Then Trump might do the Insurrection Act. It's going to be, that's just explanation. So why is the impetus on the federal government to disengage when it's the local authorities that are not collaborating with the federal government, not collaborating with the law that, again, the president is sort of trying to enact here? Do you mean engage or disengage? Well, I'm saying, why is the impetus on the right

and the president Trump and the executive branch to disengage rather than the president? You know, some state, really they have state rights. Well, I know that. The same reason why the federal government has marijuana is illegal, but in some places it's illegal. So sometimes the state, there's nowhere where it's legal for illegals to come in. I know, we're trying to conduct a federal operation. So why is the impetus on us to disengage?

No, I didn't say disengage. I said the opposite. I know. I agree with you. I think Trump should go way harder. I'm just saying if the goal is to mitigate escalation. No, no. I'm saying, oh, okay, I get you what I said.

So if you're talking about this specific shooting of Renee good, I'm saying that was handled really badly because you had the vice president, the United States, come in and basically in support of the guy without investigation, What would have been smart, basically management, which is what the president is, is basically to say, look, we're going to look into it. This is the information we've got. There's going to be an independent inquiry. Then the left acting mental would have actually made them look mental. Right now, no matter what you say, because you guys are in your kind of like right wing echo chamber, both sides, the left do think this is a stay sanctioned murder.

And you guys are like, yeah, she got murdered because she was going to murder him with a weapon. So whatever it may be, this is major escalation. So I want to make this point there real quick. I just want to make this point. So when it came down to this specific thing, I don't think this, you know, René Good's death was planned. But the people that are really in power, whether you want to call it the deep state, they knew.

There's been multiple deaths now. Portland, two people died. I think there was another person that got choked to death. They knew when they put the federal government and they put ice in these cities that there was going to be something that happens, like a George Floyd-S situation. They love that this is happening. They love that we're fighting about it, especially after Charlie's death, where all the left cheered that on.

and now you have all these right, you know, right-landing people cheering on her, you know, Renee Goods death. It just shows a hypocrisy in the situation, and this is all done on purpose in order to divide us. And if we can't see that, and I would say have just kind of a, I mean, you don't want to admit it, but I'm saying, I guess, have a neutral take on this, then you're just kind of feeding into the propaganda. My question would be, why would the deep state be in favor of immigration? Because they want more federal government control. They want more ICE agents. They want to put a policy in place.

They want to control you. They want to put a social credit system. For the last 60 years, every deep state sort of incentive structure has been put behind mass migration. Well, of course, exactly. In order to divide us and to make our country have, you know, I guess. Agreed. Yeah. You know, you know, hegemony or a hegemon or whatever you want to call it.

Like the more diverse society gets, it's actually easier for ruling powers. It's like a homogenous society is actually. Well, it's about anarchy. It's causing anarchy in the country. It's causing chaos. And therefore, what this does is ferment that. Then you have basically these, I know, you think it's a whatever, but then you have these extra like palantia, you have.

the other situate things where people are being tracked, people are being checked, then you'll have social credit score for your safety. When things get worse, what happens is you manufacture, you know how COVID? Everyone got manufactured consent. People,

when someone tells you, someone on the left and someone right, guess what? You're going to be murdered, like the best way to free people not to die in the streets is to allow them to do this. Hold on a second. You guys remember Jordan Peterson, right?

Everybody knows Jordan Peterson. Yes, yes. One of the things that he... One of the points that he made that was... Enough. One of the things that he said was like, hey, you know, people have inherent opinions, right? Like, they're really based on their, their personality.

I definitely do. Like, I'm, I've always been, I've always been pretty right wing, even when I was a libertarian. I was a right-wing libertarian, right? And so the idea that there needs to be this, this top-down division, I think that's totally wrong. Even in the French revolutions. Yes.

Because, no, because, let me, let me, let me, let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. You guys made your point. Let me finish. The point that I'm making is people are inherently right wing or left wing generally. Like, people do have a certain, you don't think that people are.

I would disagree. I would say that we're more of a populist country. Yeah. No, I don't think so at all. I would say the majority of people are in the middle. The average person would probably be in the middle. A normal person, if they weren't manipulated by group would have a mix of use. Let me.

No, I don't, I don't think so at all. I think that there are people because you look and look back at the French Revolution, right? The people very easily split between the people that, wanted revolutionary change, which are like the Jacobins and the people on the left, and the people that said, no, we need to stick with tradition. There are people that just have these kind of opinions. And so they're, hold on, hold on, hold on. What's this bitch doing?

I'm starving. Let's go kill these people. I think that's totally different. Hold on. There were peasants that did side with the left and there were peasants that sided with the right in. You're probably retarded peasants. I'm serious. I mean, it was a long time ago.

Just like now. Just like now. But listen. But hey, no, listen, listen, I'm not saying that there aren't people that benefit from the division in the U.S. And there are people that will foment it because they want to see certain ends. Exactly. But the idea that if it wasn't for like the people above kind of pulling the strings that we wouldn't have division, I totally disagree. Particularly when you have a country like ours that is so that is basically multicultural nowadays.

Well, you know, you would get division for sure. But I would say that our tribes do get along. That it's not... I disagree. I disagree. That's definitely not true. I disagree. You can't even be friends with like a leftist?

That's not about being friends. It's not friends, but we're talking about like national level cultural cohesion is just not possible. Everywhere you look on planet Earth, like multicultural diverse societies are dysfunctional. Singapore is like maybe the only exception. Yeah, so it's not impossible to have a cohesive. Well, Singapore requires like extreme authoritarianism, which you've said you're against. I am against it. But I'm just saying I just think that what is being done is a coordinated attack on us so that we're fighting

each other so that we don't actually solve our problems. When you see our government, we have a uniparty, what was it? Forty-five senators just voted to give 300 million to Planned Parenthood, but they call themselves conservative and they want to, you know, go kill babies and give these left-wing organizations. It's all alive. Well, you agree on that. Well, I'm saying, these politicians, it's all fake, Tate. I know, I'm just telling you, it's a unit party, and we get the impression that it's right-wing versus left-wing, macho man, Randy Savage versus Hulk Hogan, and it's all bullshit because they're on the same team because they're going to the locker room at the end of the day, and they're having a beer together, and they're laughing because

they get all the money and that's why elan omar goes into office has a hundred thousand dollars in her bank count and now she's got 30 million dollars that's why dan krenshaw has become rich being a politician these people do not don't you're talking about what would a right wing populace and a left wing populace what overlapping goals would they even have i think a lot of goals other than so many i think most of goals they would be besides like vague like eat the rich or get a yeah that's not big that's huge that's a huge that's a huge right yes one of the affordability crisis that affects yeah huge right yes one of that's a huge right yes one of the rich that's like that So what you say the leftists and the right would agree that he was talking about earlier in the French Revolution?

Those were the ones that were saying, eat the rich. The idea of eat the rich would destroy the country. And what I'm saying is, okay, the time. The reason I say they're vague is because the times that vague goals overlap, they have two completely different ideas, policies that they're proposing to achieve that. Really, other than trans and abortion, a lot of leftists and, you know, right-landing people actually agree on a lot of self-out. Yeah, I think that's right. No, these are not the only two divisions. They have fundamentally different worldviews.

Also, on the gay stuff. People on the left wing view people as blank slates, and then people on the right view people as part of larger hierarchy. This is like the foundations of political philosophy. I don't know if I agree with that. People are somewhere in between. People are typically not religious. People in the right are typically religious. Well, there are people on the right that aren't religious.

I know. There's exceptions, but they don't disprove the norm. I don't even know if the majority are, I don't even know what the majority breakdown is. But if you do look at like, you know, we talk about Israel a lot, you know, they're all left-leaning. And now that the conservatives support Israel. and now they've all become conservative. Doesn't that seem kind of weird? Like they obviously didn't have a political party

if they donated to all these left-leaning places. And then now Donald Trump is, you know, sympathetic to their support of Israel. Now they're all becoming conservatives. You don't think that. People like people from Silicon Valley, Bill Ackman, Elon Musk, he's talking about those type of people. You can see how they can flip-flop, so it's all bullshit.

You can be a leftist one day, and the next day you can donate $20 million to Trump's campaign. Because they have one issue. Exactly. But that's separate from like... Well, they don't have one issue. Like Elon Musk, it's not just the Israel issue. He's got the H-1BBB.

Huskin, Bill Ackman, have two completely different, like, end goals. True. So I'm talking about Elon Musk and Silicon Valley. Their issues are basically cheap labor. Even within, well, to a degree, yeah. Yeah, cheap labor, Israel, basically Zionist control of the United States of America, implanting, like this is a tech into the country, making sure AI and they have the basically control over what happens with AI.

AI is the future. That's very important. Having control of the data centers, hence why Greenland and all these things are going to issue. So they're moving to whichever party. Greenland is geopolitical, not about AI. It is about, yeah. It's about the trade routes that are opening up. Probably both.

So you think Venezuela is a part of the Silicon Valley cabal that's running? So Venezuela, I think, is, first of all, I think is, sorry? Zionists. Even all the people went on there and said, oh, this is so good because Iran won't have oil, Russia won't have oil. I mean, you can't see that China won't have oil. That's why we went there so that we can, our adversaries. It's a geopolitical move. I know, to punish our adversaries.

We're going in. China's still going to get this. China's still getting the same amount of oil. They're getting the same amount of deal. What it, the reason for that was, sorry? Iran might be getting less. No, no, those are still in place. Iran exports.

But the point is, sorry, go ahead. Well, I'm just saying it does, what happens in Venezuela does affect Iran because they drops oil prices. I'm saying they have Hezboa there. So, you know, it's the main point of Venezuela. It won't even drop oil prices because we just, we're dumping oil on the market now, very cheap oil on the market. No, but the point is they can't dump it because what's going to happen is they've got a

large reserve of oil, but to be able to penetrate into that oil and use it is going to take a lot of time. That's why, like, no, it's funny you said it because in California, oil and gas is still expensive as shit. That's California. I know, but it's a stay. Why is it cheaper in Texas because California has their own regulations? Also, there's a bunch of bullshit regulations that make it more sense. Like, you know, that's a whole different thing. Let's put aside Paul, single, probably he's going to get quite a lot of the Venezuelan oil. But yeah, I think there's a multiple factors when it comes to Venezuela. I think it's primarily a geopolitical play. I I said, I said it's primarily a geopolitical play.

Oh, they said geopolitical. Yeah, I mean, that's, but I mean, that's the long and short of it, right? It's good in multiple ways for the United States. It's like, yeah, that's how that's what it's government offer. I don't think it's good to steal someone's eye personally. You get the Panama Canal too. I mean, they sort of started it when they again nationalized all of the oil that. They nationalized.

They won't. Yeah, we had cut deals with these, again, private American enterprise had cut deals with these different Venezuelan organizations to. So the U.S. basically goes to war with countries for private, companies. I sound a bit commie to me. Yeah. Yeah. We protect Americans. We're a murder of corporations. We're murder and murder and stealing. It's like pirates, man.

We're going to protect American property. Do you know, do you have a problem? Real quick, to your point, though, these multinational corporations, Exxon doesn't just operate. So you call it an American company, yeah, a lot of that money goes to Americans, but it doesn't just go to Americans. It actually goes to other countries benefit for these

multinational corporations. And by the international corporation. So it's like, look at the Apple iPhone. The Apple iPhone is made in Shunggong, China where the conditions are so bad for their workers, they have suicide nets. And the reason they do that is to save money. So these corporations don't care about us. They actually care about their bottom line more than killing their own employees.

So I do think it's a problem when we have a country that's being run by multinational corporations. And I think it is obvious that that happens when these politicians are all getting funded by whether it be A PAC or even these oil and gas industries or the farming industry, whatever industry it is. They can buy these politicians for pennies on the dollar. So I just don't like multinational corporations encouraging us to go start war. on their behalf. And if you say that doesn't happen, I just think you're being, you know, a little dull. Well, that's the difference in America. In America, multinational corporations and companies

run the country. With China, it's the other way around. It's the country that runs the corporations, but they're very similar models. Yeah, it's corporatocracy is what we're in right now. And then the Chinese have a communist state where the corporation owns 51. They're both dangerous because the corporations can become governments of their own. They basically are now. It's very dangerous. They can hire standing armies. They literally went to Venezuela. That's just proof that. That's why it's vital to identify, okay, what policies specifically would undercut, you know, those MNE, you know, network, so to speak, that's obviously, yeah, that is true that they do have a lot of influence in Washington, probably a plurality of influence. Control. So the question is, okay, what policies

that the Trump pursuing, the Trump administration is pursuing that would undercut the goals, again, of multinational corporations, et cetera, these very varied interests? And again, mass deportations is something that is absolutely petrifying to multinational enterprises. I would argue that legal immigration is almost worse than the illegal immigration. The fact that you have H-1B visas, these people, and they look this up. Indians, and people are going to fact-check me, are more likely to lie on a college acceptance application or a work application. You even had Mindy Kaling's brother is famous for saying that on a medical school application. He used to put that he was black. So we actually have a system that all these college kids, you're young college-age guy, you go and you spend $100,000 on a college

degree, and you get your job stolen by an Indian guy that lied on his resume because these companies put in legislation that benefits in that lets them higher than you get tax breaks. So that's bullshit. And that is being done by multinational corporations. And you know what? Trump's not, I don't know if you stopped that. I think you gave 300,000 visas to more Chinese people. So I would just like it if we actually had a government that cared about American citizens

or maybe the affordability crisis that you say is, oh, right-linening people and left-leaning people have, you know, not the same problems. I would argue that most of our problems are very similar. Yes, true. Again, if that were the case, people that are on the left, that again, if they are truly prioritizing kitchen table issues, they would be all in favor of mass deportations. But the problem is they have another guiding North Star, which is ultimately they have self-hatred, and they're totally okay with, like, again,

eradicating the cultural foundation of the United States. That's not what it is. So what it is is the people on the left have been, the people have taken control of them. And in reality, what's happened is they care more about liberal, woke issues rather than real left-wing issues. So you're right. If you were a real left-wing person,

you would support deportations. You would also support the tariffs, not the way Trump did it, because he did it in a full-on mental, made no sense way, which destroyed small businesses. But if he did proper tariffs, they should be supporting it.

The reason they don't support is, A, because they're anti-Trump, and B, because they don't know what left-wing is. They think left-wing is actually being liberal and woke. But that being said, you have the same thing on the right. Like, on the right, they'll only support policies if Trump tells them. So a lot of people on the right were like,

oh, why you would, some way, I know it was 50-50. But even on the H-1B visa, a lot of them were supporting Trump, when in reality, that was harming working-class Americans. So this is the problem you have, when people fall as part of it, group, they'll just follow the group, irrespective of what the actual political ideology of that book is. I would think, yeah, expanding H-1Bs, like, the entire system should just be completely

gutted. But the Trump administration has, in the year of 2025, like, the data has come out. We are at net-negative migration. So, again, more foreigners have left the country than I have arrived. That hasn't happened in 60 years. So really since the Hartzeller Act passed, which was really a nuclear bomb in the United States in many ways, we have not been able to achieve net-negative migration. So it's like, no, I'm going to give the Trump administration of their flowers. How many deportations have he done? I think right now it's around like, like 600 to 700,000 and then like one and a half million one and a half million self deportation allegedly again if we're at negative negative migration I'm going to look this is the problem is no I'm genuinely asking you as someone who

no I think it's low because I know you're like but I think like you're like it's very much a maga guy and also and what it is I think is a fact because you've been very strong about in this in this conversation about how much you don't like illegal immigration yeah but okay all even better all immigration If that, do you, so in terms of the number of 600,000, when you've got, what, 20 million, 11 million legal? Like, I think 80 to 100 million need to go. And what? 80 to 100 million people need to, like, be out of the country. 100 million people need to leave the United States of America. We need a lot of denaturalization. You need a, okay, please explain to me how you're going to go about.

So, okay, let's let's go. I said that's my goal. No, no, let's, I always hear some of these far-eyed guys saying this. I want to hear it. So explain to me how you're going to, what's going to be your criteria of deporting, what is it 30% of the population. Yeah, I think I think achievable is probably like 30 to 40 million. I think that's what he said 100 million. That's what he said what you wanted. My pie in the sky. My pie in the sky is 100 million. That's what I want to know. That's what I think you would. So illegal is about 11 million

what else. Yeah. They would take anchor babies. Pretty much, pretty much anyone that's a, anchor baby. So Vivekramiswami's gone. Yes. Okay. Oh yeah. Heavens. Laura Luma. Her mom's a bird. Probably. Yeah, I think I think generally anybody that came, I think the Hart Cellar Act was just a massive mistake. And so anybody that came in because of the Art Seller Act, again, we should probably pursue de-naturalization. Could there be acceptance? Sure. I don't know what that would look like in policy.

No, but what would you know? Like, unless you're like, okay, if someone's white enough, I want them in, it depends on if that's your position, I want to know it. Well, I think that white and black Americans are heritage Americans, and so they should be prioritized. Um, so FBA definitely stay. Foundational black Americans. Yeah, yeah.

I agree with the Ann Coulter analysis that like this is fundamentally a white and black country. Like the first man killed in the American Revolution was a black man. Like, there's no question that like, they're distinctly American. So basically. And when you say white, Tihanos, like they were here for a while. I'm going to give this example because I know them. So, like, Jackson, his parents came on the Mayflower.

Jackson. Jackson. Jackson Hinkle. Oh, right. And then Nick Fuentes, they came through Ellis Island. Would they, would they get to stay? Well, yeah, again, this pre-Hartzellar Act. It's like 1965.

Okay. And what about- And even Ellis Island had a lot of problems, too. But like, it worked out in the end. So how would you get your 100 million? This is the thing I'm not getting. Because we were at like $2. I don't even, I think we were at $180 million during the time of the Heart Cellar Act.

But then there have been births as well, isn't there? Yeah, again, births to a lot of people from the Hartzeller Act. I mean, if you look at the proportion... So anyone who came after 1965, you would depart them. So they could have been in this country. Whoa, so they could have been in this country for three generations, but they're gone. Elon Musk gone. Elon Musk out. Maybe, yeah.

No, maybe. I'm just saying, yes, pie in the sky. Okay, what about your non-pie in the sky? Well, like, I think what's actually practical? It'd be like 30 to 40 million. Oh, what would be in that? What would be in that? Who would be departed?

Well, I mean, alone, 30 million illegals, that's easy. And then a lot of people that have, like, fudged paperwork to get here, people that have immigrated here, but they're on welfare, people that are, like, net negative. What about people who've not been born here, but I've been, you know, got citizenship? Again, we're looking at, like, what, a feasible immigration policies, and yeah, they would stay if their paperwork's here

and their net contributors to the American tax base. Okay, so long as you include this on Piker, I'm fine with it. Yeah, whatever we need to do to get this on Piker out as well. Let's touch a topic that is not controversial. at all. Donald Trump, not bombing Iran. Now, a lot of people expected it was going to happen on the 16th because I guess the first Ayatollah stepped down on January 16th, like 30 years ago, I guess so this date is very important to these people. And it looks like I'm seeing on the Israel firsters on Twitter getting mad that Trump hasn't done anything yet. So I guess, you know,

we can just go around the room. I think that if we start a war with Iran, it's probably going to be a big cluster fuck and it's going to cause us a bunch of problems. So I'm obviously I'm a conflict interventionist. I don't want to go and fight these wars for other countries. But I'd like to see maybe Maga Tate wants to freaking blow up the Ayatola. No, I do not want war with Iran. I think it would be a quagmire. Again, Venezuela, the goals were clear. Again, the outcomes were clear even before the operation happened. What about the argument that Maduro actually surrendered. Have you heard that conspiracy is that that Maduro had surrendered and was going to turn himself in? Well, I mean, probably because he knew that like you knew what we were capable of. And he looked around and he said, saw that, like, the people guarding them were, like, fat, like, retards.

So he knew, like, that was probably the best decision possible is to give himself up. Saddam had given himself up, too, but they were like, we don't want you. We want the country. Yeah, I'm just, I'm just very allergic to intervention in the Middle East. What about bombing? What about if he bummed? I don't even, I just don't want to get involved in Iran. Okay. I'm fine with that. It's just a mess. Again, the interest. I didn't say I want to. I said, I'm fine. There's a difference being. There's, I'm not pro intervention in Iran, but if the, if, if they did, I wouldn't lose any sleep.

I get for sure it takes too young for this, but there's a thing called the PNAC Project for a New American Century, where they actually wrote a whole doctrine about how they're going to take the seven biggest threats to Israel and the Middle East. And Iran is the last country on that list. And we went there and we destabilized all these countries. We basically went to Afghanistan. And not only did you say Donald Trump is killing all these people because they have drugs, but in Afghanistan, we actually protected the poppy fields so that we didn't mess up their economy of selling heroin. So obviously that's a lot. Obviously, the government does want to sell drugs. I think the Iran contrary, the government got caught shipping in cocaine, trading them. But it wasn't about cocaine. Well, they were giving Nicaraguan's guns, and then we were taking the cocaine and selling it. It was about fighting the communists. Whatever. I'm saying we were flying into me in Arkansas, and then Hillary Clinton, two boys died on a train track, and they said they smoked weed and fell asleep on it. And she covered all that up. My point is, if you look at drugs, they don't care about drugs.

That's all a lie. So, you know, just America is not, we say we're so perfect. I don't know. I think we got a lot of skeletons in our closet. On your question, you said you're fine with a bomb in your arm. So are you fine with Iran bombing U.S. military sites in the GCC countries? Why would I be fine with that? That's a ridiculous reason. So why are you fine with the first?

I'm an American and I like America. So I'm on America. I'm on America's. Okay, you can stop putting words in my mouth. I'm on America's side. How was that on America's side to bomb Iran? Because if the, I said, if the United States does it, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Like, because it's, it's, the government does a lot of.

things that I wouldn't be out there saying we should go do this. There are a lot of things that don't have a significant impact on my life. And if it doesn't have a significant impact on my life, I'm actually not going to go out and protest. I'm not the kind of guy that's going to go out and protest. No, no, I'm not asking protest. I'm asking, because you could be like, look, I don't really agree with it, but it's fine. Or you could be like, look, I'm neutral about it. But when you say you're fine with it. I said, I'm fine with that. So I'm, that's a neutral. I'm like, okay, fine, you, whatever. Like, fine would be neutral. I'm not like, we should go do it. In fact, I specifically said that. Yeah, I think the problem with being

neutral on the issue is that what is the consequences? So there's only a couple of possibilities. One possibility is you're okay with America bombing another country, which I'm just like a Muslim and I think ethically just harm and anyone is not a good thing. But okay, I know we've got different morals and ethics. But that being said, separate to that, there's always consequences for your action.

So when you bomb Iran, inevitably there's going to be your reaction. Hence why Israel, who knows that if they bomb Iran and the GCC countries pleaded with Trump to say, look, don't do it. the reason you didn't do it because they knew that they would be targets. The U.S. military bases would be targets. Israel would be target. And the issue you've got is that basically what it does

is cause escalation. Iran isn't a weak country. I'm not so sure. I'm not so sure that it actually would have significant consequences and the reason I say that is because there was everybody so many people were saying, look, if we strike Iran, if we strike the nuclear sites in Iran, there's going to be all these consequences. There's going to be a ground invasion. There's going to be this. There's going to be that.

And so far, we've not seen any of the consequences that people were predicting. I'm not saying, I'm not saying, I'm not I'm not saying that there couldn't be things in the future. I'm saying up to this point, we have not seen any of the stuff that the doomsayers were saying. No, no, because that's because it seems like that was kind of like an agreed upon situation where America, but before they were saying that all this stuff is definitely going to happen now. Because it was agreed upon because what actually happened in that war was, which has kind of been proven now,

based on the fact that Israel said it already is, it was a 12-day war. Iran dominated Israel. The very first day Israel hit Iran really well. Iran didn't expect it because they manipulated. Trump told Iran, we're not going to, we're not going to, we're not going to, Israel's not going to hit you. So he believed him and thought there's going to be negotiations on Sunday. On the Friday, they hit.

Iran was doing military exercises. So on the first day, they succeeded within Iran. And after that, Iran dominated Israel. Israel didn't have no defense missiles. And this is the reason they want to do that. They haven't got enough defense missiles to stop their attacks. And so that's why they went to Trump and made sure that they stopped the war. Trump's way of stopping the war was he had an agreed thing with Iran.

In my view, this is a last bit speculation. Agreed and thing with Iran to say, look, you take your whatever nuclear bits you've got in Iran, we're going to bomb and then you can do the thing in Qatar and they both bombed each other and that's the end of it. But now Israel's not ready for the basically the war so I don't think that that was escalation now Iran doesn't want it because it would be

significant escalation then it would be GCC attacked Iran at Israel attacked and Israel and GCC and I want to make this point because the first during the 12th day war why did we bomb Iran because they had nuclear capabilities allegedly but now you see Donald Trump tweeting that we're going to bomb them to help the protesters so that's what we're going to do

we're going to go destabilized countries because people are protesting because there's so many countries where that's happening. I mean, in Israel. You know, it's dead to America. Just someone got killed in that. Yeah, we just protested against him.

Should another country bomb us for protesting our president? No. Countries are not the same. No, you're talking. I don't think we should bomb it, right? I'm just saying, I mean, you know, I guess it's just where it's like,

what is the objective? It's kind of like the war in the Middle East. The objective is not clear. So that's where I'm on. The objective is solely for Israel. If you're America first, you listen, let's be clear on this. It's quite evident from the Middle East

that these countries actually want deals with America. As soon as Qatar, UAE, got opportunities, they've got deals with the United States of America. Worse than that, they've given United States of America $5 trillion. That's the level of love they actually have for America, and that's actually how they do. Let's be clear on this.

Arabs psychologically and Asians as well, they look up to the United States of America, they look up to the white man. And so that's why they'll give $5 trillion to America. And so my point about that is these countries want to make deals. The issue you have is the only reason they're not making deals with America, for example, the only reason Iran has issues with America is because of Israel. I'm not so sure I agree about Iran.

I understand what you're saying about the rest of the Middle East, though, because for the most part, most of the countries in the Middle East do have fairly good relations with the U.S. And I think that a big part of the reason why the U.S. and Iran are hostile is because the U.S. is basically meddling in the Middle East, according to Iran and Iran would have far greater influence over the other countries in the Middle East if it wasn't for the United States. I don't agree. Saudi Arabia and Iran don't particularly get along, and the Saudis have a significant interest in Iran not getting nuclear weapons.

I think that as much as it is true that, you know, Israel doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons. I also think that there are a lot of the countries around that don't. Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons in the first place. If they wanted it, they would have got it a very long time ago. I don't. I don't think I agree with that. Well, you can not believe it, but we've seen the actions.

I think that's one of the failures Iran's done, that they should have got nuclear weapons, but they've not got it because a fatwa made by Ayatollah Hamanae, who basically said that you're not allowed to have nuclear weapons according to their religious law. They're Shia, I'm Sunni, so I have different religious belief to them. That being said, they're quite clearly saying that they don't believe in nuclear proliferation.

In terms of Iran, I do actually think that if Iran didn't have an issue with Israel, because Saudi, Israel and the United States have always kind of been aligned, they would have good relation with all those countries. And you see that by the fact that, for example, Hamas is Sunni, Iraq is Shi, sorry, Iran is Shia. So in reality, these people will get along. When it comes to bigger geopolitical situations, they'll get along.

I believe there's only one impeding issue, and that is Israel. Well, what's the issue exactly? Israel. Israel wants control of the area. They want to do expansion within the region, and they are themselves want to make sure that they don't have existential threat.

So they believe that in the future, there could be a scenario where maybe these countries could be a threat. And so what they want to do is basically weaken all these countries so they're no longer a threat. It's kind of like psychological damage after what happened, according to them for a thousand years

up until the Holocaust where they think you can't trust the whites and you can't trust Muslims. It happened after the Holocaust as well, though, because there was the seven-day war and stuff like that. What do you mean? Or when a bunch of countries, the six-day war in a bunch of countries. Yeah, that was Israel.

That was, again, America lying to, LBJ got on the phone with Nasser. So what happened? The Egyptian didn't want to go to war with Israel. What happened was Nassar, the leader of Egypt was actually fighting a war in Yemen. He gets on a call with LBJ. He says,

the Israelis are not going to attack those other? Once again, he lies and says, no, they're not. And then they do a blitzkriek and attack them. So that was Israel again. Well, real quick, I just want to bring this up. It's so crazy, these letters from JFK, where he was talking to look this up,

where he was saying that he couldn't believe every single night that Israel was bombing themselves and then calling the UK. Thank God we're talking about JFK. Well, I'm saying, it's just kind of weird that they were doing that. You can find the article somewhere else, but in his own notes, he was saying that.

What happened to Jeff. The Jews killed him. You said the Israelis were bombing themselves. JFK wrote a note. He said it and we can find it. Maybe this isn't the good one. Hold on that. They're kind of the masters of subterfuge, you know, the Israeli Mossad.

But when I look at the Balfour Declaration, the way Israel is set up after World War I and the betrayal the Arabs, it seems like the liberal economic orders attempt at ballworking the Suez Canal and controlling trade hegemony in the region. They split up the Soviet Union and took Sebastopol and Black Sea port access away from. from the Russians on purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union. Like that's all Israel, it seems like it's just a militarized outpost of the liberal economic order. Even if it was, which I can see slightly where you're coming from, especially when you look at 67, but then when you look at, for example, what happened to JFK, and then you look at the fact that after that, you basically had a scenario where when the Soviet Union weakened. Remember, Israel also was working on both sides.

They were given military, U.S. military secrets to the Soviet Union. They were given Soviet Union's secrets to the United States of America. So even in that situation, they weren't an ally. They were actually an impediment. They were going to just go whichever side did well. But in terms of the Suez Canal, in terms of what you're talking about, I guess that is a good, decent point. But it became less of an issue over time,

which you see when Egypt fully just basically became part of like the American imagination. Well, and this is the quote right here. There were 13 bombs set off my last evening there, all in the Jewish quarter and all set off by Jews. The ironical part is that the Jewish terrorists bombed their own telephone. phone lines and electric connections the next day frantically phoned up the British to come and fix them up. So that's what we call a false flag attack. That's Jesse Smallet.

Well, it would be, he said Jewish terrorists? Is that what it says in there? No, it says set off by Jews. Nothing about terrorists. Jewish terrorists bomb their own telephone. Oh, well, I mean, so that, I mean, typically, and this might be splitting hairs, but typically terrorists are people that are not part of the government and false flags are set up by the government. Well, I don't know. I mean, he's just saying, we don't know.

I'm only splitting hairs. No, no, because the problem is that what you've got is you're right. Like, Israel has always been, the United States of America has always been kind of linked and or subservient to Israel. Subservient. Yeah. Always? No, that's what I said and or. But always?

No, that's why I said and or. Well, and or? As in, as in. So, I mean, because the country, the U.S. was a country for, what, 150 years before? No, I said, I said the U.S. and Israel have always been linked and or, so all being subservient. So you're not, you're, the point that I make,

since the US existed a long time before, since 49. Yeah, I know that, that's what I said, and all. So, so, but there were two key incidences I can just think about, which is, for example, the Brits, do you remember when they bombed the King David Hotel? They called them terrorists then as well. And then obviously, GFK always never had a good relationship

with them and always seen them as extremists, as did the Queen of England. You know, I have kind of this utilitarian take on is supporting Israel and supporting military in the Middle East because I was really anti-war in Iraq. It was just a not seem like nonsense. But now I think like if we just pulled out of the Middle East and just said, you're on your own. Iran take nuclear weapons. I feel like Russia and China would take over the world, take over the Suez Canal. America would become third bitch.

And then we would be spending $700 on coffees and speaking Mandarin. So it's like I'm a little more bullish on. military authority and control now to protect American religious, you know, Republicanism essentially. Do you, where does your take? World can't stand a power back. So I'll just stay your position back and tell me if I said it wrong. So your position is that America should subjugate the world so you can have cheaper goods. And it's beyond me.

It's because freedom of speech, because of gun rights, property rights, these ethics that are inherent in our country, I think is the best on earth or the least worse. You think that's a good ethic to subjugate the earth? to murder, kill, and cause mayhem so that you can have cheaper coffee. I know I'm kind of being reductive in what I'm saying. You're doing extremely. I do think America should behave like an empire. Let me answer. But there's different ways of empire.

Yes, there are. You don't have to know. Now you've changed it because initially you were like, they should kill and bomb and do all these terrible things. Then he says, well, you know, they should behave like an empire and then you're like, okay, well, there's different ways to do it. So just, just, so the way that you set up the question is, should they be? the worst empire imaginable so that way you can do this. No, absolutely not. No, absolutely not.

The United States is not the worst ever, the worst ever empire imaginable. If China or Russia were in actual, like, where the global power? How is China expanding? How is China? I'm not saying they are. I said if they were, it would be totally different. No, China is expanding. But China is expanding.

Like what China now, when you look at it from a military perspective, when you look at it from a technological perspective, they're massively advanced and they're advancing so much. And I don't want China to take past it, but this kind of understanding that you believe that China is not advancing in the way they are and that they're not building an empire is just not a bit of reality. They're certainly trapping like third world assholes with like horrible trade deals. That's different than like exercising military power. Exactly. So you prefer the military way. They build their empire should operate.

They're actually building an empire as well, but they're just doing it economically. They're doing it in like fairly inconsequential places and very sloppily like Sri Lanka. And the United States, the United States absolutely is. Look, all you have to do is look at how many countries have McDonald's to know that the United States did it economically. Right? Like the United States has built the liberal economic order. It's since World War II. Venezuela is one of the few countries that doesn't have a Rothschilds bank.

Iran, another country that doesn't have a Rothschild bank. And it's very important to these people that all these countries do have Rosschild banks. I mean, that's just a fact. So my thing is this. But my thing is this, I want America to be in charge. I just want it to be done peacefully. Well, I don't think it can. I mean, I understand peace through strength and deterrence.

But China showed you a mode where it can be. Well, the problem is like... And Trump is kind of showing you a mode where it can be. Because Syria, he's kind of created an agreement now where he looks like he's bringing them into the empire. He's not how to kill anyone. So Trump is starting to show in certain aspects you can do. And when Trump negotiates these things is he sets up these convoluted economic...

I know that pro is Trump is going to be on board. Well, I'm saying the way that Trump sets up these things is he sets up these trade deals. then it makes it much more difficult for these countries to, again, like, dissolve their relationships with each other because they're... So economically? Yeah, he's trying to develop economic cooperation. Peacefully...

I think that's better than George Bush. George Bush's solution is just, like, bomb and then hope for the best. Exactly. Because George Bush's situation, what does it do? It creates the military industrial complex to be wealthy. The billionaire class, Zayor's, become richer, and my poor old Uber drivers on to work 60, 70 hours.

I would love for it to be peaceful and for it to be emergent where everybody's like, you know what? Republicanism is the best. I like free speech. We're going to overthrow our governments and do it. I just don't, you know, when you have a totalitarian system preventing that, like the CCP that wants, you know, total authority

or whatever, how is that going to happen peacefully? And also, when you go in and you... What do you mean? How are the Chinese people overthrow the Communist Party and take their country back peacefully? No, they wouldn't. I don't get it. I don't think they would either. I don't think it can happen peacefully. No, but why would they want to the country doing so well?

So that they can say, fuck the government and not get that bullet in their head? Oh, yeah, that's an overstatement. Be normal? No, no. Free speech. I'm not pro-China. I think there's a significant issue, but they are doing well.

They have the LEDs on the side of the building. It's pretty cool. If you look at the military advancement, American military is still the best, like, by far. But if you look at their technological advancement now, because basically they came to the U.S., they stole a lot of U.S. technological secrets, they took them back. But now what's happening is they're developing. Now you're making arguments for deportations. Sorry?

Now you're making arguments for deportations. Well, there was actually a guy that just got sent to 20 years. I've been against CCP infiltration. I'll be talking about for 10 years. Awesome. Well, guys just went to jail for 20 years for giving secrets to China. Let me finish the question. Suva, you said doing it peacefully.

So if you take someone's food supply away, technically that's peaceful, according to the CIA, because there's no kinetic violence. Of course, then they start to starve and die. You've economically strangled and killed them. True. That could be a peaceful way that we take over the world, technically. Or we can take out because that's oppressive.

It is oppressive, but it's peaceful. Oh, yeah. It's nonviolent. Yeah, I appreciate you saying that. So it has to be peaceful and non-oppressive. That's a big glass of fill. I'm open to talking about that. Ian, because I feel like you are changing, you know, your stance a little bit.

Because I think in your heart, you know that as human beings, like, we are evolved. Like, we should be able to solve our problems. Disagree. Well, just really, let me make a point. This is why the fact is we've been desensitized to violence. We've seen 9-11. We've seen Charlie's death. So now we think it's okay because we've seen other people die.

But in a real, you know, utopia society. and I know we're never going to have a utopia. We wouldn't be killing each other over lines in the sand. Humans, like, we have two parts of us. We have the person, the name, the kingdom of love. But then we have the animal that needs to eat. And when that thing starts to suffer, it goes haywire. And we have to plan for that.

And that's where military force comes in. Well, people also just have, like, people, depending on where you are from and the world, you just have completely different perspectives on morality too. Like, morality is universal, but people have differentiating views on it. This is why immigration is, like, so flawed because you're like, you're just bringing people into a country that just have a different conception of morality and different conception of ethics and then it breaks apart. Would you say Switzerland is a country that's ran well? Yeah, Switzerland.

The United States can't be Switzerland, though. Why not, though? Because it's a totally... Switzerland is like three European people groups that are neighbors. So you're telling me America cannot copy Switzerland. No, no. That's because you guys are... That's propaganda.

You guys have fallen for war propaganda. It's like when you want to save for everyone, you get a phone or... No, it's not. The Switzerland is only Switzerland because the world is a... violent place. Yeah, like, if everyone were Switzerland, then no one would be great. If everything was Switzerland, eventually the idea that the idea that, everyone's self-interested. Yeah, that's true. The idea that we're desensitized to violence, this is a totally novel period in human society. What are you talking about? There's people that were drafted. Vietnam was

incredibly violent. Every era of the American history has been violence. The Civil War is violent. We have, we have, hold on. What era of American history was not violent? That's the point that I'm making. Like, we are less violent now in this point in human history. than human beings have ever been in all of human history. How many people have been in the last hundred years? In the last hundred years because of government's probably 200 million. But the point that I'm making is the average the average person in the Western world is is far less likely to engage with violence than they have ever

than other people in other points in history ever. Like people at a far- People have died. Absolutely. We're definitely like because of because of of industrialized war, not because there's more war. Like, war was a constant prior to World War, the end of world. It's been a constant throughout all of human history. War existed before human beings or human beings. We're conditioned to less like battlefield deaths. But as far as like the culture of violence, I would agree that we are desensitized to it. I mean, because you look

across the West, like what we tolerate. Like abortion is just murder at the highest degree that's just occurring like, and like we're just battery farming it. You have like, just the cities are just, we just accept, like, insane levels of violent crime. I mean, like, in the UK, you have, like, these grooming games going everywhere. So it's like, no matter where you look, we are just conditioned to accept just, like, carnage, just right below our very noses. So it's like, okay, it doesn't manifest in the battlefield. But the West is still an exceptionally, we still accept an exceptional level of violence.

I think the reason that we see. I think that we, I think that we, I think that we, I think that we, I think that we, I think that we, there is, there is grooming gangs in the UK. Yes. Right. And there is grooming gangs. in specific areas, which were largely Muslim and Pakistani, rather than being one, Rochdale being one,

Telfred being another one, and maybe one or two others. But if you look at it holistically in the entirety of the UK, when it came to, I don't know if you like to say the P word, the P word, if you look at that, Peter. Oh, right. Yeah, and, you know, abusive women. Well, you know what I mean by that.

Then if you look at the entirety of the UK, it's actually a proportionate. Well, I want to say this point, it's actually this is why America, this is why I have problems, and I love this country, have problems with the country and you know you might get offended of this but during you know the war in the middle east there's thing called the bakabazi boys where there's men in afghanistan and and where

they still have it where they have sex with little boys they'll be their you know little servant they have sex with children and the united states military walked in on this and instead of killing instead of hurting the pdf file what they did was is they protected them because they were our allies so we have instances where our government is not only protecting geoffrey epstein right now but we've actually protected pedophiles in the middle east so i think that's what's what's happened in the UK with the grooming gays is the civil service just completely justify I'm anti-violence but if somebody does deserve that violence under them I would say it would be somebody that harms children there are plenty of people

deserve violence protects pedophiles no but they didn't justify what was there was serious failures amongst the government and this happened throughout the board so for example now like Tommy Robinson if you look I added a thread of like a hundred people that were either his friends connected to him had the same position as him I was part of his group that all part took in this PDF and all that kind of stuff. So what I'm trying to say is when you look at it, of course, there was massive failures within the institution level in terms of protecting any of those children or women. But yeah, but like, I mean, even in the like it was the Jay Roberts report where it's like,

even in that the, the, the Jay Robert report, that was the, that was the report that was the report, that was the, that was the report, that was the mass of grooming, levels of grooming that was going on. It was like 1,400 kids that were that were taken advantage of. And the police and other civil servants were like literally afraid to report it because they want to be perceived as like Islamophobic. No, but that's my point I'm trying to say that you're right about Rotherham, but I'm saying if you look at the UK as a whole, if this issue and this problem, because what you're basically saying is,

I have an issue with Rotherham because it was Muslims, but I'm saying I have a problem with every single town, irrespective it was Muslim, Christian, Jew, white. So I think where we differ is I'm saying I have a problem with all of them doing it. You're focused on. I totally agree. I'm just saying failures happen across the board,

but you're saying I only care about Rotherham. Well, it's like saying, okay, instead of just addressing like aggravated, assault, theft, these sorts of things, we should just focus on death. I'm talking about PDF. I'm talking about PDF. I agree, but I'm just saying there's a difference between like an institutionalized like system of grooming gangs.

That needs to be broken up. And that is a separate issue from like, yeah, like pedophilia writ large. No, no. So it was institutionalized. It was happening across the board. Now, in terms of those specific grooming gangs, what Tommy Robinson did was he created a new category where he said if it's three people are higher doing the abuse, then it's, we'll create a new category.

And it'll be for only, um, over 14 year olds and it'll only be because they want to take the children out because that becomes just partially not them and we want to we don't take the children out because we know we don't care about paedophilia and we want to do it whereas three or more because we don't want to care about two or one so what you did was create this fair category to maybe say look everybody falls into that category and i'm saying that's ridiculous you abuse someone you know whether it's a PDF and someone and i think doing it to children's worse but obviously may disagree but the thing is all of that is bad all of that was i covered up in an industry level and all it should be called out, irrespective who it is. And I think this has been

done intentionally in order to cause like wars between people. Well, I think it's just like there's a difference between again, like just your, that sounds weird, but like your everyday sort of grooming situation, which happens all the time, there's no question about that. And actual groups, actual roving bands that operated for dozens of years. So you think like, for example, let's say one guy abused a five-year-old. Right. That's less worse than less. Let's say. say three guys who abused a 16-year-old. No, I'm saying those are two separate things. I mean, that warrants execution.

There's no question about that. Which one? Well, both, but I'm saying... So you said they're both the same? Well, the actual individual instance, but I'm saying when you have gangs, like actual groups... So his category of gang is three or higher. So I'm giving again,

right. Three guys abusing... Within a specific community as well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so three... Let's do your community. Three Pakistani guys who abuse a 16-year-old and two white guys who abuse a five-year-old.

Which one's worse? They're both equally bad. Exactly, that's my point. But he doesn't believe that. No, we're saying, I'm talking about specific grooming gangs. And it's like because we've brought like massive amounts of Pakistanis in the UK, we wouldn't have these if it weren't for the mass migration to the UK. And this is-

So what you're saying is- There's not grooming gangs of like, like scousers running around. I just explained to you that proportionally is all the same. Why do Muslim women- Yes, it is. No, it is. No, it's not. No, they're outsized in sexual crimes.

United States. No, they're not. No, they're not. Well, that we need evidence to prove it. Because I'm saying in Rotherham, then it's the chaos. But for the entirety of the United Kingdom, it's not. We just need to pull up the data because you just said yes, no, yes, no. We need the data.

You're pulling my thread. And this is going out. This is going out of reason. Why do women have to cover their face? Why do they have to cover their face? Why do they have to cover their face, Sue? Well, let's do with this. So no one can see it.

Well, no. It's because it's a sexual thing. No, no. So the reason women First of all, I don't agree with covenant first. So I think it's not within Islam. But those who believe it, so I don't believe in it, by the way.

But those Muslims who do believe in it, like why don't women have the freedom of choice to wear it? Well, I guess if a woman wants to wear it, I think they can. I mean, if they want to choose to wear it. But my point is, there's a reason why, because in some cultures, if a woman does that, they say that the woman is asking for it by even showing her face.

So I think that culturally, that is not good. What are the top is there? I'm trying to get out of it. Do you, do you, so women, do you think that Islam? Yeah, I think you're just ignoring it. Is due for a reformation? Oh, that's America, though, yeah. Yeah, this is the U.S.

I mean, and also, like, the thing with Rotherham specifically, it was like... So you remember you're saying one specific town, but yeah. Well, I mean, that's just the biggest, most high-profile case. And this was the case with some of the other, like, Rochdale and the other gangs, is the Pakistani grooming gangs were targeting white children. And then there's no, like, instances of white grooming gangs to begin with, but then let alone white grooming games targeting, like, Pakistani girls. Okay, so first of all, there was white grooming gangs.

This is what I'm trying to tell you. And the second thing is... Even if there was, which I mean, we would have found it, but were they targeting Pakistani girls? So, no, these Pakistanis came here and then they had like this weird sexual fixation where they were to take it out of white girls. I don't think you read the report.

So what actually happened was, unfortunately, what these evil people were doing, these Pakistanis, was they were going to, you know, people who were in social services and people who lost their parents, maybe because of drugs or whatever it may be. So they were going for these vulnerable, 14, 16, 17, 17 drugs.

Yeah. Yeah, like people who were in social, social services. Like, I don't know if you have the same thing in the U.S. But in the U.S. where the kids are taken away and they live in a child protective services. Yeah, that's it. So they were basically there.

And then what that is, is those social services, largely speak in areas, white girls. And that's where they were targeted them. Yes. So the Pakistanis were, again, the results was it was primarily white girls. Yeah. So both were. Byctomized by Pakistani agreement. And the other one was white guys victimized and white girls because, again, they were easy access.

Yeah. Again, I mean, I don't know of any instances of this occur. I mean, if you have a, I'm happy to look it up if you have a name. Put my name in on X. Oh, go, Tom Robinson. You'll get 100 people. I would have a third part. Yeah, it's a research and that's got the data.

To take, though, was it, do you agree with Donald Trump that the Epstein files are a total hoax? No, no, if the Epstein files were real, but I just don't, I think all the... Why would he say it was a hoax, then? Because it's, it's just politics. I think, I think the reality is any incriminating information on the Epstein files, there's none. Because any powerful people, like, what would you think Bill Clinton, like, did? this or whoever did this and then they don't erase all information related to it. Just leave it.

Well, I think there's evidence. I think with any crime in this modern era, like there's always going to be residue of a crime. Well, the problem is that you can't kill the people that would testify. Well, they couldn't. You know, Hillary Clinton has a lot of people that are associated with her that have died under mysterious circumstances. So I'm just saying that... Well, you think that Epstein filed a fake? No.

Oh, well, what's your position on it? My position is that any incriminating information is probably gone by now. Oh, okay. You think it's just destroyed by the FBI? See, that's where I disagree because I get first in the fact that. frustrated and people tell me that, you know, Jeffrey Epstein, you know, killed himself, even though he was like at the vending machine, you know, buying M&Ms right before. I think that, you know, he just met with his attorney. His attorney said he was in great spirit. So I just think it's odd that a billionaire that probably did have inside information and probably could have been a witness to these people, you know, by killing himself. I think that, like you said, they would cover their tracks and they would kill them. But yet we have people that lead the FBI or leaving the FBI telling us, oh, no, the official story is right. Like, do you believe the official story? Do you think he hung himself by jumping off this? second story of a no no I'm not I'm the first person I think that especially the Trump led DOJ fumbled the I mean they couldn't fumbled it any worse they gave those fake binders so it just sucks because

it gives me the impression that they're protecting pedophiles and people think like oh pizza gate is some Q and on thing no it wasn't these are the wiki leaks when we got Hillary Clint's emails and we see all these weird emails about pizza and maps and just a lot of weird stuff James Elephantist and maybe he wasn't doing a child sex ring out of a pizza shop but they were doing weird stuff on islands with children and I just get a little frustrated that they're not going to give his transparency because it feels like they're protecting pedophiles. Do you know how young the youngest victim was by any chance? Well, if you're going to do the Nick Fuentes argument that they're like preteens. I heard the

pubescent is peto. Yeah, I agree. Otherwise it's hebofeely, I believe. Well, but I heard this rumor and, you know, is this true or not that people would ask Jeffrey Epstein that was in his circles, his favorite sexual conquest and supposedly Jean-Luc Brunel, who was a modeling, a talent agent that had, you know, a bunch of models, is that Jeffrey Epstein would tell people that his favorite sexual conquest was how he slept with three 11-year-old triplets and then flew him back. And that's, you can look that up. That's not slept with, I don't know if his term.

Whatever. He had, you know what I mean? He just did the deed with three 11-olds. He abused them. And yeah, I just get frustrated because it's so obvious that there are important people that are doing stuff. And maybe they have to do it. Maybe, you know, it's part to get in the club.

You have to do it. You know, you have to touch a kid or whatever it is. But we're not going to get transparency. And I love Donald Trump, but he campaigned on transparency. I'm going to give you transparency. you and then they totally flip the script. It's just making me kind of lose faith and ever actually finding the truth. And that sucks. It's the one ring. They can't, I mean, they can get rid of it, but it's the data is so valuable. All that blackmail data, they're using it right now, I think.

That's part of it probably. I wonder who is fault. It's probably keeping Trump alive. Well, I would say, I would say that you know how we do want to blame everything on Israel, but if you look at Mossad and you look at our CIA and you're going to say Mossad controls the CIA, but they work in concert together. They share all information. As a matter of fact, they fly. because supposedly Israel holds information from America and vice versa. So when both agencies are basically, you know, tied together like that, same with the United States. So give me so.

I'm saying, so they protect their own agency as well because there's probably CIA involved in Jeffrey Epstein as well. So we've got instances of Israeli spies stealing American secrets and either given it to Israel or taking Russia. But there's American spies that are given. Hold on. There's one thing that I want to put in there. The idea that it's only Israel stealing from the United States.

That is a naive perspective. Every country does everything they can to spy on every other country. I thought they were the greatest ally, a special relationship. I don't care. Every country does everything they can to spy on every other country. And so that's why it's pertinent that you don't make claims that a specific country has a special relationship or they are given special access. Because when you do, then you're right.

Yeah, I disagree with that. I think that. And not that I think that Israel should be a special country. I do think to the United States. the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have a unique relationship because we all spawned from the UK. So I think that the United, what is the five eyes is what they call it. English speaking. Yeah, I think that I would not just English speaking, but yeah, Israel is not part of the five eyes.

I, that's exactly what I said, but the point that I'm making, you said not Israel. Okay. The five countries that basically respond from the United States, even with the UK. No, because the United, in my opinion, the United States is actually the fruition of what, of what was started with the Magna Card in the UK. I mean, that's so. So, so I think. that the United States have changed so much now. Certainly the UK. Yeah, definitely. But I still think that the United States and the countries that, you know, basically

our sister countries or other countries, whatever you want to call them, I think that we do have a special relationship that should be held above all other countries in the world. So, anyhow. Well, we do let them have a nuclear weapons and I think that's kind of... The UK, they... I actually kind of, you know, if I'm really going to go crazy, people are going to call me Candace Owen, so I think nuclear weapons are totally fake. The idea that like they split the atom and this big bomb goes off.

And if you look at Hiroshima Nagasaki, you can basically tell that those were fire bombs. And you can look at it. And there's a lot of good documents. So what do you think the Castle Bravo test was? It's fake. Why did the house fall down with the car sitting there? That wasn't the cat. That wasn't the Casas of Bravo.

I'm saying the footage that they gave us. I understand. I understand what you're talking about. The that was edited. I'm not, I'm not making the argument that it wasn't. All of a sudden everything's different. The Castle brought there are multiple tests where there's footage. You think they're all think.

I'm saying lipid bombs, but it's funny because Donald Trump, he's dropped the Moab, the mother of all bombs, which is arguably. the second biggest bomb besides a nuclear weapon. It just seems like in order to scare the civilians, and this is what they tell us in school, and they told me this. I don't know if you guys agreed, but maybe Tate was in school sooner than all of us, but they told me in history class that we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the earth 10 times over. That's just provably false.

It doesn't matter if you set up every bomb that we had. The earth is going to outlive humanity, and we can't just blow up the world like that. That's just fake news. So they use the threat of nuclear weapons to scare us. And the idea that you split the atom and everything blows out. I actually think it goes, it's such a lie. It goes back to the Bible. It's kind of like how they're trying to, you know, play like their God. Do you believe in Adams? I believe in Adams, but I don't believe if you split an atom, it causes this mushroom cloud. So then you think that Einstein is wrong?

I think Einstein has had some crazy theories. I think some was right. He talked about the ether. Now that, you know, you probably don't believe in the ether. He talks about the ether. And now that's been totally taken out of science. So I think there is energy that we cannot see around us. And yeah, so I think Einstein was right about some stuff, probably wrong about other stuff.

But the idea that the Manhattan project, they just built this bomb. Do you think that basically all matter and energy are the same things? They're just different manifestations of the same thing? What is? As that question, do I think matter? Do you think matter? and energy are the same thing. Because the essential argument in E equals MC squared is that matter and energy are actually the same thing. It's just there are different manifestations of the same thing.

I think matter has energy, but I don't know if, yeah, I mean, I guess I could say that energy has matter because if there is an ether, like we can't see it, but there's oxygen in the air. There's stuff that is, you know, the ether. He bleeds in it. Now natural science has taken it away. It's like, what is it? They say, what are the fire, rain, what are the elements? Oh, five, water, metal, earth. But there's really six. ether and they took that off according to Einstein you can look this up he thought ether was the six eleanor they a nasum herman seems to believe it's the vacuum he calls it the vacuum of spacetime itself it is equally dense so there i think Einstein was right that there is what we think is nothing is actually

something even though we don't necessarily classically determine it with our tools yet so in 1905 the special theory of relativity Einstein rejected the classical ether as unnecessary and detectable well he changed his opinion on it when it became not scientifically you know accepted I just want to figure out how the nuclear bond works. So what happened is essentially when he says, when Einstein said ether, what he's talking about is space time. So the ether was thought of as, but now we just call it the field, right? So that's what I'm saying? So that we agree that there is an electromagnetic field.

Well, no, it's not electromagnetic. It's basically like so you can go forward, backward, up or down, left, right? That's a field, right? That's the field that we're talking about an energy that we can not see. No, he said, he says, however, at least this is what the. The AI says, however, in his general theory of relativity, Einstein reintroduced the concept of an ether, not as a material medium, but as space time itself endowed with physical properties. So basically space, you know how, you know how like that. I understand space time. I understand that, but, well, I would just argue that we're all in the ether.

I just, I had a fact check on nuclear bombs. This internet says nuclear bombs work by releasing massive amounts of energy through nuclear reactions, either fission or fusion. Yeah. So I guess that's what the, I mean, the evidence that that nuclear bombs are, listen, the evidence that nuclear. bombs are real as stars. I mean, the internet said it. Because stars? Stars are, well, that it's possible at the very least, because stars fuse together atoms into heavier elements. They fuse hydrogen

into... Nuclear bombs are real, Israel would already dropped. When a neutron hits the nucleus. If that's your evidence, then we can move on. Are we, do we have callers today? Yeah, we do. Let's see it. We got the Discord. We got some great chats from you guys in the Discord watching live right now. Oh, this is Rob. Okay, I like this.

Question for you, Suleiman. What is your perspective on abortion. If you are pro-choice, do you believe it's a bad thing, but women need the option because of their situation? Yeah, I'm anti-abortion, so I've got the Jewish position on it. I'm like full on against it. I think Margaret Sanger created Planned Parenthood and she was Jewish. I guess they do both sides. But anyway, but I'm talking about in terms of like the theological, the actual legal position. So I, yeah, I believe it's like life from from conception. Yeah, I agree too. I think abortion is murder and what is it? I saw this viral TikTok where they were talking about, you know, how many people in Jinzi had died and they asked everybody,

and they're like, 30%. Yeah, it was 30%. So the Christian Muslim Alliance is back on. It's back on. Dude, believe it or not, there's a lot of similarities with Christianity and Islam. The West. Let's not get crazy. Real quick, Islam speaks of Jesus very highly.

They don't consider him just a, you know, a magician like some other, you know, religions do. And so the fact that they respect Jesus, I think that. Which Christian, like, which are you orthodox? Protestant. Evangelical. She a kitchy evangelical, yeah. The, listen, the amount of the amount of the LARPAs, I'm an OG American. The amount of abortions that have been performed in the United States dwarfs the amount of children sacrificed by the Aztecs. Yeah, that's what I pointed out is, so the Spanish literally exterminated the Aztecs from the face of the globe for a child sacrifice level of about 2%.

Meanwhile, like in Britain, not the pick on Britain here, but in Britain, a third of all children conceived in Britain are aborted. So a magnitude, higher degree, the Spanish literally exterminated a civilization for childtage in the U.S.? I think it's about 25% as well. You say one out of every four conceptions is terminated? I want it to be three. I think it's even high. This is last year's number. He said in the UK. UK is one third. And then America is one quarter. And then it's projected to hit half in Britain at this rate in the next like 20 years. Are those like including miscarriage abortions? No, those are just abortion. Because those are technical. Terminations of pregnancy. Yeah. Those are considered involuntary terminations. In

involuntary abortions. I don't know what the number is on that. This is just talking about like gone into an abortion clinic and aborted the child. Remember, UK has almost become like an atheist country. It's grim. It's like, it used to be 75% Christian and the last census, which was five years ago, went down to 45%. Church of England's asleep at the wheel, too.

They're basically alternate atheist. There has been a little, you know, resurgence of Christianity in America. In America, for sure. But Europe is not. Europe's completely. It's just got to be real Christianity. Like not, I believe in it. What's rare?

Like you abide by the tenets of the faith, the virtues. you actually embody the seven virtues of Catholicism, humility. Well, Ian, this is the problem is I think that modern Christianity that actually been hijacked because if you look at, even though that's not in the, you know, they don't consider it a book of the Bible, but the book of Thomas. And even though it says in the Bible,

in order to follow Jesus, you or how to get into heaven, you would give every, basically Jesus had a lot of socialism views because you would have to give up everything to follow him. He even said it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. So what we've done now is we have a lot of these prosperity gospels. Druski had a great sketch. You should pull out the Drusky sketch.

We should watch that. And modern day Christianity has been hijacked. It is not what Jesus taught. I would say that it's the opposite of what Jesus taught. I thought Islam also, and this would be interesting that your take, had been hijacked at some point in the history of the faith by government. And it got twisted. Let's watch this video.

This is like this is why Christianity and this is what it has become. And sadly, this is not what Jesus taught. This is the opposite of Jesus. but there is a church like this, multiple churches, in every city in America. So let's walk. I'm going to have Wanda stand up here, Wanda, please. Wanda told us earlier this month that she could not have a baby anymore. So I impregnated her with the word of God.

I'm going to impregnate everyone with the word of God. You're going to get pregnant with the word of God. You're going to get pregnant with the word of God. You're going to get pregnant with the word of God. This is like the moderate Christian is not. And pregnant. I had somebody in the congregation as while we're in Christian.

This is the collective cultism that can be very dangerous. Because I'm a Christian and I walk in the blood of deep. Give them some praise. I'm a Christian first. And I walk in the blood of Jesus. Give them some praise. Give them some praise. We are raising faith.

I think like Islam has been made me I don't know enough about it, but it got taken, used it by a government for purposes, just like the Catholicism was by the Holy Roman ever. And then they got militarized almost. So I don't think Islam militarized, but the thing is, I mean, my opinion is too controversial on this. Muslims are not going to like it, but I do think that Islam was,

you're going to probably getting canceled, but I do think Islam was judified a while ago, yeah. Judified? Yeah. I've been saying for years, there's a blend of, Islam is Jewish. Yeah. Like, Jew is a Jewish. It is. I mean, if you're really looking at it, there's are a lot of connections.

So I believe that when it comes to original Islam, whether it is the Quran, it's not. But I think all the time, because Islam isn't just the Quran, obviously, had other sources. Because Muhammad didn't write the Quran. It was written after. No, no. In my view, he wrote it, yeah. Okay, well, whatever. He wrote part of it. But okay, let's just say he wrote it all. There were a lot of connections and everybody needs to go watch these videos. There's some great videos on it.

If you look at the origins of Islam, it has a lot of Jewish connections. Let's get some more Discord colors. Okay, yeah. Like what? We got, let's get some more Discord callers. Okay. We'll get to the Discord. I don't think so.

I mean afterwards, but not. You don't think before? I think, yeah. No. I would say Christianity, if you look at Paul, he was Jewish. And I would say Christianity is kind of a hijacked version of... I think Christianity is so different to Judaism as well. Well, I think there's a lot of aspects.

The way I see it is like the Jesus in the New Testament is very different to like Jesus God in the... Old Testament. Well, Jesus, I mean, I guess we can argue about it, but Paul, you know, I was basically the author of Christianity and Paul never even met Jesus. Okay, all right. If Alex was in a plane crash, like the movie Alive, would he eat a paralyzed person in order to survive since they are both a vegetable and meat? I want to know where he stands. Also, would his answer changed if the person was also gay since they would be a vegetable of fruit and a meat. Ooh, man, this guy's a comedy, right? I need to steal this one. Who was that by from? That was Avid. That was very good, Avid. You know, actually,

Well, I think about this all the time, like, because I don't eat meat. Well, no, I get, no, not eating people, but I'm talking about eating meat. And I always think, like, you know, if we do have another pandemic and they turn off the internet and they turned off our power and my cats died, maybe I would eat my cat if it was already dead. But I wouldn't kill my cat to eat it. So if I was in the movie alive, I saw that when I was a young kid. Have you guys seen that movie? No. Tate, you're too young.

So it's about the soccer team. I think they're in Buenos Aires or wherever they were. They crashed. All in the mountains. And they were stuck in a mountain. And what happened was is people started to die and they were all starving. So they had this moral conundrum. They had no food.

They could start a fire and there was a couple dead bodies. So what they did to survive, they ended up eating the bodies. None of them wanted to do it. They're like eating in the movie crying while they're eating their friend. That's rough. And two survived, right? Or something if I remember right. I think it was maybe more than two people survived.

But yeah, I think it was only two? Yeah, it was more than two. I think it was like five or six. They ate each other and it was like a day. And then they gave up, what did you guys do? So my point is, if I was on a mountain and that's the only way I could survive and I had to do it. I watched that movie. Yes, but I mean, not unless that was in that situation where it was life or death. I mean, I'm not a cannibal. I'm not. What's that?

Chrissy Teigen said, oh, I'd like to try human meat. Now, I'm not like that crazy. But as a vegetarian, if the person is paralyzed already and their brain dead, that's technically vegetable. So in that weird circumstance, stuck in a mountain trying to survive, I would eat the person. Would you still tell people you're a vegetarian because they were like vegetable status? I wouldn't count as a violation. All right. Next question, prior Lurizer de baby daddy. Okay, well, that's great.

This is for you, Suleiman. Should law enforcement enforce laws? If so, what difference does it make if they do it in one city or all? No, so law enforcement should definitely enforce laws. I think they're referring to the point I made earlier about being a bit more harsher. I don't think that the U.S. has the capability to go into every single city at the same time and basically round up all the illegal immigrants without causing the issues that happen in Minneapolis.

That's why I'd make it targeted where I'd target specific area first and then bill from there. What do you say to that, Tate? What do you think that law enforcement shouldn't enforce the law? Yeah. I agree.

I agree. It's just if it's an evil law, law enforcement has a duty to defy the order, you know? But see, they won't. During the pandemic, we learned that they won't. They'll arrest you for not wearing a mask. They'll literally not let you go to church. And the people will join them.

And people will join, yeah. And people will be like, well, Now my opinion is that's an evil law, so I'm going to ignore that. And it's like, that's a slippery slope. But Thomas Jefferson was very clear about it. The founding fathers were very clear about tyrannical law and evil law. But it's like, who decides, you know, the masses of the community, essentially. Well, we're looking up some more questions.

Thank you guys in the Discord. Please give us some questions right now. You know, this has been an interesting Timcast, IRL. We just want to say that we love Israel so much. Thank you for all the support you have given us. B.V. Netanyahu, you're justified in everything. that you do and I hope that you get pardoned very soon by President Trump. I want to talk about the Abrahamification of society.

I think it's society's got pretty Abrahamified over the last You mean Jewish? Four or five thousand years. All of it. Christian got Jude got Islam to get just got. So we got the secret sauce, Abraham, man. What about Taoism? I mean, ain't that the one?

Oh, there's a lot of Hindus now. It's kind of part of the problem in America. Big monkey statues. They got their action figures that they pray with. It's getting crazy. I don't know what's going on Dallas. Hinduism aside. What is it about Dawson?

me like the flow of nature I think they they figured out what magnet they were talking about the flow of magnetism in in the universe but they didn't have the tools to measure that it magnetism was actually a thing so they just talked about it but it's flowing through you you can you can feel it even literally so we have that in Islam so we have like um there's three components of Islam and I think might be some I don't know about semi-christian it definitely same in Judaism but basically it's um what you call it again you've got the theology so like believe in god of you know how is god or theology Then you got the law, which is the legal aspect, and then you got the spiritual aspect. And the spiritual aspect of Islam is that type of stuff, like meditation and doing these type of, like, meditated acts and, you know, trying to become spiritually elevated and becoming one with the world and one with God.

Okay. Is that, I got more questions. Is that, so there's three, like, just vector, or three, like, areas of Islam. There's law, the theology and then the actual spirit, the spiritual practice itself? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

It's interesting thing. I like the spiritual practice. What? Yeah, let's go with more questions. We got another one. We need to have a Supreme Court case on gun-free zones since the Supreme Court ruled twice. The police have no duty to protect. How can they also make it illegal for you to protect yourself and others?

Who is that? It's good. Shut up their names. E-Greger. Sorry, Alex. Can you say that one more time? No, no, I do need to shout out of their name. I-G-R-E-G-G-O-R.

I don't know, E-I-G-R-E-G-O-R. Yeah, I mean, obviously, Phil, believes that we should have a right to carry guns. I mean, gun-free zones, I think, are just dangerous for people that are law-abiding citizens because there's always going to be people breaking the law that have a gun in a gun-free zone. My experience in Florida I've spent months here is

I feel so much better walking around outside, looking around thinking all these people could have guns on them. And they all think I could have a gun on me. And it's really peaceful. So obviously, random bursts of crime are always possible. It feels very secure, knowing, believing everyone's armed, walking down the street.

New Hampshire has one of the highest per capita gun ownership and they got a murder rate that's lower than Canada. Same thing with Maine. In fact, not only that, there are more machine guns in the civilian population in New Hampshire than any other state and the murder rates lower than Canada. Sooner they probably disagrees, but I would argue the more guns you have, the safer you are because people are more afraid of actually using their gun because somebody, you know, returning the favor.

Let's not beat around the bush, too. I mean, the demographics of New Hampshire certainly help with the murder rate as well. It definitely helps. Like, let's not, you know, let's be honest here. I mean, okay, let me answer that one because that one I disagree with. But in terms of the first one, the guns, yeah, I think that irrespective, yeah, I'm going to answer that one second. But irrespective of what the mode is, people are violent. So I don't think there's any issue with gun.

If in the UK, like, we don't have guns, but we've got a knife crime instead. So it just ends up being a substitute. And I do agree, actually, I think guns, well, as I've been a smaller guy, I mean, I'd much prefer having a gun if someone's going to come out of me, right? Now, in terms of, um. Same, brother. Same, same. That's what I carry a gun. In terms of what you said, look, I obviously don't agree.

I don't think it's just because of race. I think there's a multitude of factors. It's a factor. It's not everything, but it's not nothing. Well, you know, they always say like Betty White, you know, when there's like a mass shooting. And I'm sure, you know, maybe there are, you know, white people to do shootings, but I would argue that lately it's been more trans. And it's the same thing in the UK.

It's like knife crime by whom? Yeah, exactly. The term mass shooting, though, has been twisted out of his... been twisted outside of what it really means. It used to be in the 90s. There was this phrase that you might not remember. Going postal, of course. Yeah, going postal.

Because it was people that would take a gun to work and kill multiple people. Then the left has taken the idea of a mass shooting and say, well, any time there's a shooting and more than two people are shot, it's a mass shooting. But that could don't do. That's the problem. If they did do that, then we would have like, it wouldn't be like a distinctly, because they say it's like, oh, only white people get mass shootings. But it's like, because theirs is like, it has to be like purely ideologically driven. But they flip-flop on it because they'll see when they're when they're arguing against guns. Well, because like in Chicago, there's mass shootings all the time, but it doesn't make the news headlines the same way as if it was like at a work.

So who does more school shootings? Well, if you can if you fact-trans people now. Well, no, it's a lot of it's black. Like a lot of it's black. No, I mean actual school shooting, not mass shootings. Because you said mass shootings, they're just at two or higher. That's what I mean. So I'm saying, but the left when they're trying to say like it's only white people that commit mass shootings, it's because they have a very narrow definition.

Yeah. Yeah, they don't count. The definition of a mass shooting is just. Multiple people shot. No, but that's, that's the point. So if they'll use the term, they'll use the phrase mass shooting when they're talking about gun violence or when they were actually talking about we want to strengthen gun laws because they'll say anytime it's more than two people. But there's a distinct difference between a mass shooting at a school. And the term mass shooting brings to mind Columbine, Parkland, people, you know, a bunch of kids getting shot.

That's what people think of when you hear mass shooting. But what they're talking about is people at a party at night. Someone, someone shoots at a, someone at a party. and two people get hit because there's a dude behind him. And they say, well, that was a mass shooting because multiple people got hit. There was one intended target, right? Or maybe it was gang violence. But they say that's a mass shooting when it's convenient.

But then when it's not convenient in your context, they'll switch the meaning to be. Two groups. Sorry, two groups and they shoot at each other and three people get hit. Is it still mass? They would call that a mass shooting because, again, but it depends on the context. If it's in the context of we want to pass laws, we want to pass gun control laws, then they'll use that as a mass shooting. I just answer your point,

I think it's because of social, I think it's based on poverty and a few other reasons. Everybody exhibits violence, but in different ways. We have a question for you. Somebody said, if you're not American, why do you feel like you have the right to tell us how to run our country?

I'm going to tell you because I teach you better, but no, jokes aside, I think it's... What I said in the last thing is, why I want to focus on the UK? Yeah, so I do focus on the UK, but I think what it is with the United States of America, it is just so important from a number perspectives, whatever America decides impacts the whole world. America has decided to

value Christianity a lot more. UK start following Sue. America starts speaking about illegal immigration, UK's copying them. Anything America does, the world follows. In addition to that, so that that's from a cultural perspective, then from a political perspective, anything that America decides, whether it goes to war, whether it doesn't, UK follows Sue. UK is basically America's puppy dog. And then the third thing is when whatever decisions America makes impacts the global market and we're all part of the global market. All right. Good answer. All right. Last question. Somebody said, Alex can get more

videos of you at city councils and what is a school board meetings? Yes, on the pen bonnet blimp. I got a new show on Real America's voice where I'll be going all over the country, city councils, school boards, you name it. I'll be there in my tug-friendly bathing, so you're going insane for the Ukraine. All right, guys, this has been the episode so far, you know,

I think we've had some spirited debates, you know, but I would like to, I guess, give all of us a chance to kind of wrap things up. So with that being said, Suleman, you have the floor. Yeah, thanks to have me. Really appreciate it. It's been fun. It's been enjoyable.

Really good conversation. You can find me on YouTube. I started like a new YouTube channel, quite new anyway. I've only been doing it for a few, like a month, I think, or two months. Soleiman Ahmed X, where I give the latest geopolitical news. And obviously, I room my spaces on there as well. Yeah, so find me on there. That'd be brilliant.

Well, thank you, Sutherland. What do you got, I got, graphene. Dot movie. If you haven't been there yet, go to graphene. Dot movie and check out the trailer for the upcoming nanotechnology documentary. I'm working on Graphene Movie. That's Graphene. movie. Also, sign up for the mailing list if you haven't yet. Put your email address in there.

And follow me at Ian Crossland. It has indeed been a spirited debate. Here's too many more to come. Wait, why is graphene bad again? It's black. He's going to jump over the table. What? It's dark, dark. Graphene, it's really graphite. Graphene is the red herring graphite is really where it's at right now. It's all hot, though. Didn't, didn't Tim have on that Augustus DeRico guy that, you know, they're just spraying in a soda in a... Oh, if people thought it was in the back... You like that guy?

Oh, he's a buddy of mine. You see, that, see, I can already tell why it takes retarded because he's so young, because first of all, basically... Well, that's part of it. That's primarily, yeah. He's kind of a globalist, which I... Have you heard about that way? Anesthesia doesn't work on you guys. Yeah, also our temperature sensitivity is much higher, so, like, I can't handle, like, hot plates or cold.

Is that true? I mean, you might not know this about me, but I'm the biggest advocate of ginger's because they get a lot of abuse and a lot of hair. I kind of like... They say the solace. Some chicks are kind of hot. I'm sorry. Thank you for going to bed.

I'll lighten up my Pakistan. Yeah. Real quick, because it shows how's how do you like a guy spraying stuff into the sky? You don't know about Kim Trails? You know, you think that's cool? And then he was cloud-seating. This would be a whole different debate. Well, I'm just saying he was cloud-seating less than 24 hours after a horrible flood that killed a bunch of children.

And he went on a podcast tour saying, oh, we had nothing to do it. We were just cloud-seating right before it. It's like, dude, I don't want anybody manipulating the weather. I don't want Israel doing it. I don't want Augustus DeRico. I don't want anybody doing it. So, yeah, I mean, he's not base at all. He's a fag.

Augustus is doing it. So then Israel doesn't have it where he's supplanting Israeli clouds. He's attacking Israeli dominance. You know, it's funny because if you're anti-Israel, I'm just kidding. I'm a lot older than you, but I remember in the summers in Texas when I played high school football, it didn't rain for like 70 days. And then now the summers in Texas is raining like crazy. So something's up about people messing around the weather.

They're definitely manipulating the weather. And I think that that's very dangerous for human beings to play God. Yeah, true. I agree. Phil. Tate. Oh, is it T. X and Instagram at Real Tate.

Brown. We got two installations of across the pond coming up for the weekend with Connor Tomlinson. And on Sunday we had Nathan Halberstead join us and we discussed sort of general Zumer nihilism, especially with the discussion of Trump, obviously, you know, barring institutional buyers from the housing market potentially.

So we broke that down and sort of the fact that Zomers can't actually feel like they can own homes, the implication that has on Zumers and contributes to nihilism that's just plaguing our generation. So be on the look up for those two episodes. Again, they're going up on the Culture War channel. Tomorrow, the episode goes up on Connors and then Sunday goes up on the Culture

War channel. So do not miss it. It's going to be great. I am Phil that remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. We are going on tour this spring. In May or in April, we start, April 29th, we'll be in Albany. We're going to go out with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes. The band is all that remains. Check us out on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. And we want to thank our sponsor is Bearskin. Is that correct yeah bearskin everybody go by bearskin and i just want to say thank you to bvina one last time for everything you do for our country um sorry we haven't started that war with iran i hope we turn into a parking lot very soon for you and uh you know maybe you guys do run the world but hey you guys

are the ones that deserve to do it because you're the smartest most beautiful and the most talented so we love you Israel say you love Israel suleman one time will never ever say it why not you can't Dude, we're going to get canceled. Just say it. Are they going to... We're going to get canceled, see what? That's like...

You know, God. Galgadadat is very hot. You're going to go to touch the wall. You need to go to the wall. Do not go to the wall. Go to Hadrian's wall and pray on that. That's the middle ground. It's a great wall.

Gallagado is very hot. Go to the one in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or wherever it is. I don't even know where in L.A. Go to it and kiss it. No, your soul gets into heaven by kissing it. Or do they believe in heaven? I don't know. I forget.

You don't have a soul. You don't have a soul. Maybe not, but I'll tell you what I do have is I have love for you, the viewer at home. Make sure to hit that like button, hit that subscribe button. And Tim is in jail when he gets bonded out. He's going to be back on this show. He's in jail for murder. Somebody who's in front of his car and he actually ran him over.

Unlike that bitch, Renee, good. Tim doesn't mess around. He hits the gas hard and he does not stop to the person. It's smashed like a bug. So, with all that being said, thank you for watching Tim Cass R.R. We love you. Peace and good night.