Timcast IRL - Police ARREST "MR SATAN" For Threatening To ASSASSINATE Trump, KILL ICE Agents w/ Brick Suit

Episode Date: April 12, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Brett are joined by Brick Suit to discuss police arresting 'Mr Satan' for threatening assassination against Trump, a judge ruling that Mahmoud Khalil can be deported in a victory for the Trump administration, the far right & far left's united stance against Israel, and the dating nightmare facing Gen Z. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Brett ⁨@PopCultureCrisis⁩ (YouTube) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Brick Suit @Brick_Suit (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun.

And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Today, a man was arrested for threatening to assassinate the president, Elon Musk, U.S. officials, ICE agents, and he goes by the name Mr. Satan. Now, the question is, is he like a heavy metal guy or a Dragon Ball Z anime guy? Not entirely sure. I honestly thought both of those would be more right wing. Could be a horror movie guy. I guess. Was that more left wing? Well, I don't know. So that's the big news right now as left gets increasingly violent. The culture on the left has gotten to the point where they're

actively going online. And this guy was not just saying he was going to do it. He was telling others to as well. So it's a pretty crazy case. The DOJ has put out a statement press release on this. We've also got big news. Trump has won on two major immigration fronts. Mahmoud Khalil will be deported. There's an appeal, but the court said, yeah, deport him. And a judge has ruled Donald Trump can require all illegal immigrants to register with the government, which is kind of funny because it's basically saying you've got to turn yourself in. No one's going to do it. So we'll talk about that. Plus, there's an FEC investigation into Jasmine Crockett. And I don't know, some other news. South Carolina is killing people by firing squad.

And, you know, I've been changing my mind on the death penalty a little bit. I've been thinking about it. I think I have a solution. I think I have a solution. Before we get started, my friends, head over to Tax Network USA, T-N-U-S-A dot com. Tax season's live. It is here. And the IRS is turning up the heat. With the April 15th deadline fast approaching, now is the time to act. If you've fallen behind on filing or owe back taxes, delay will only make things worse. Every day you wait increases your risk and the consequences.

With over 5,000 new tax liens filed every single day and powerful enforcement tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments at its disposal. The IRS is applying pressure at a level we haven't seen in years, driven by heightened administrative scrutiny. Don't make the mistake of facing the IRS alone. Tax Network USA is here to help you take control. Whether your tax issue is ten thousand dollars or ten million dollars, their team of skilled attorneys and seasoned negotiators has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt using proven strategies. Your consultation is absolutely free. Don't wait for another letter or surprise levy. Put a stop to the growing interest penalties and threats

and take back control of your finances. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Tim. Tax season is here. Don't wait for April 15th to make a move. Beat the IRS to it. Shout out to Tax Network USA. Don't forget to head over to casprew.com and buy some coffee. We got a bunch of coffee. It's delicious coffee. Ian's Graphene Dream, of course, is back in stock. I was talking to my buddy Andy, and he said, I'm going to order some. What's the best one? I said, well, everybody likes Appalachian Nights, but that Ian's Graphene Dream, of course, is back in stock. You know, I was talking to my buddy Andy, and he said, I'm going to order some. What's the best one? I said, well, everybody likes Appalachian Nights, but that Ian's Graphene Dream is low acidity. And he went, I want that one. And that's the key.

That's why everybody's buying it. It's low acidity, and it tastes great. So I recommend it. Also, when you buy the coffee, you're helping put Ian through college. Not really. You know he needs it. But, you know, you're giving him money, I guess. You're buying from us.

So don't forget to smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Join our Discord over at TimCast.com. We got big news coming up with the in-person live Culture War shows. May 3rd is the first one. I think tickets are out already. They're probably sold out already. I'm not entirely sure, but it's for the Discord members only. First come, first serve. And tickets are free. They'll be in the D.C. area. I'm hoping that our second event will be a much larger venue, maybe a couple hundred seats, and we can find a permanent home to do the show. But we're doing a pilot first. So it's going to be a lot of fun. If you are a member of the TimCast Discord, you can actually get up on stage, join the show, and debate all of us. It's going to be fun.

Don't forget to follow me on accident instagram at timcast joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is brick suit how you doing great to be back who are you what do you do well uh i'm a guy who wears a brick suit that's the most immediate apparent thing but i think the the best way to uh describe me is i'm you know certainly a fan of president Trump who accidentally stumbled into politics because I wore this to a rally, got called up on stage. And, you know, I think that that when that first happened and coming up on six year anniversary of that, actually, it's just kind of an unusual thing. It's not very many places on the planet where the leader of a country just takes somebody out of the audience and brings them up on stage. And I think that what people see in me from that recognition is

just kind of emblematic of how President Trump treats his supporters. Not necessarily anything about me personally, but just I'm just a proxy for Trump supporters. Right on. Well, it should be fun. Thanks for hanging out. We got Brett hanging out. That was easy. I'm convinced. Hey, what's up, everybody? My name is Phil Abante. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains on Anti-Communist and Counter-Revolutionary. Let's go. I'm just so excited to get started.

I can see it. I can see it in your face. Here's the press release from the Department of Justice. Pennsylvania man charged with making threats to assault and murder President Donald J. Trump, other U.S. officials, and immigration and customs enforcement agents. Now, the crazy thing is they don't mention Elon Musk in that

because the guy literally called for others to do the same. They say Sean Monper, 32, a resident of Butler, Pennsylvania. Crazy, right? Has been charged by federal criminal complaint with making threats to assault and murder President Donald J. Trump, other U.S. officials in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Quote, I want to applaud the outstanding and courageous investigative

work of the FBI and the Butler Township Police Department, who thankfully identified and apprehended this individual before he could carry out his threats against President Trump's life and the lives of other innocent Americans, said Pam Bondi. Rest assured that whatever and whenever and wherever threats of assassination or mass violence occur, the Department of Justice will find, arrest and prosecute the suspect to the fullest extent of the law and seek the maximum appropriate punishment. Acting Attorney Troy Rivetti for the Western District of Pennsylvania joined Attorney General Bondi at making making today's announcement. Now, they're going to give examples of what he said. I'm not going to read them. But he basically says on February 17th on YouTube, he calls for the left to start committing acts of

murder, targeting Trump and Elon Trump's agencies. He says we are the majority. MAGA is the minority. And by the time they make their move, they will be weakened. He calls for American Revolution 2.0. On March 4th, he said he was going to do it himself. On March 18th, he called ICE terrorists and said people need to start ending their lives. And on April 1st, he says if he sees an armed ICE agent, he will consider them a terrorist and then he will take action against them. He's not the only person we've seen do this. There's another viral video where the guy was saying two people telling them to attack, to shoot law enforcement. Yeah, like the real estate agent guy. That's right.

Yeah. What is in the water over there in Butler, Pennsylvania? Well, they weren't all in Butler, Pennsylvania. I'm saying, but like we've got now two going from Butler, Pennsylvania. Like every time we drive through there, now I'm going to have to wear a bulletproof vest every time we go through there. Yeah, I think what's happening. It's a nice town. It's not that bad.

These guys aren't. They're not the whole thing. I think the left is hyper radicalized and it's going to keep getting worse. It's got to be weird to call for revolution while also saying we should ban guns. But at the same time, not really, because they actually want to do that, as we all know. This is the free speech double-edged sword. The right is getting censored throughout Trump's first term and screams no more censorship. Now Trump is president and the big platforms go, OK, OK, you guys win. OK, left, let her rip. And now the left is calling for murder,

death, violence, escalating the conflict. And they're saying, but you said no censorship. Was this the Mr. Satan guy? This is Mr. Satan. This is Mr. Satan. And he said he was buying one gun per month now. I mean, that's also in there too. Like some of his posts saying buying one gun per month and ammo. So he was escalating. He says, I have been buying a gun, one gun every month since the election. And he went by the name Mr. Satan. I saw the Church of Satan was going on like a parade with, like a pride parade with LGBTQ groups today. That's their thing. Yeah. So Mr. Satan could go hang out with the Church of Satan.

Should we ban these people? I mean, no. And the reason no is so that way the government can pick them up for terroristic threats and put them in jail. Can the government pick up enough people to stop the meme, the the terror, the terrorism ice bucket challenge? I don't know. I don't know. But I don't I think that that the number of people that will get picked up for making remarks like this is, I mean, I think that when people see that you're actually getting arrested, people will stop doing it. You think so?

Rational people will. I think so. And you can never stop irrational people. Right. And there's no way I'd be in favor of restricting speech beforehand. You've got to have the freedom to say things, even if they're unpalatable, even if they're improper, even if they're unpalatable even if they're improper even if they're just something you know until it rises to the action level where it's illegal you need

to be able to say it so even you can't put restrictions on it i don't i don't i think that it's good when people tell on themselves people like this guy but we understand that the question is on the left you have an ice bucket challenge escalation are you saying censorship are you saying should the platforms censor yes okay that's what you're asking right so so the question is not obviously anybody who breaks the law calling for an assassination you arrest we get it but on the left they have made it into a trend should the the platforms de-boost these things? De-boost as in like Shadow Man? If you are advocating for violence but not breaking the law, you could boost it in the

algorithm. What would be an example of that, of one that's advocating for violence but it doesn't? There's that viral video where the woman says, someone's got to do it. Why won't someone do it? Someone's got to do it over and over again. That's up for the platforms. They can do that on their independent companies. They get to make the decision as to what they want to do. There's no guaranteed for free speech on the Internet. So if you want to have that as your platform and make your policy to throttle that kind of thing, you just need to live with the consequences that will have for your platform. I don't think that, you know, if, say, Instagram wants to have one level of throttling where if you go to this, we're not going to boost it. And X is another one. Every company is going to have to set their own internal thing on that. And I don't have a problem with them doing it.

I really don't. But it just I would tend to use platforms that have the widest amount of latitude and the most amount of viewpoints out there. I feel like the the issue we've had over the past 10 years is that the real concern people on the right had was that sanity was being banned and insanity was being protected. But in the process of trying to protect sanity, the right has called for the protection of insanity as well. So, for instance, the left advocates for violence. They build cultures around violence. They encourage others to do it and then say that's their free speech. They've been protected the whole time. But now that we're in this position where we're like, no, no, don't let everybody do

it. The right is still in a position where they're saying, don't do these things, don't engage in this behavior. And the left is still getting getting slack. They're still getting a free pass. They've never been censored for escalating calls for violence or extremism. They're still not going to. I'm I'm not saying I think the platform should ban people, but I am I am much to the point, I suppose, where I can recognize if you allow the left to expand and organize on ideas of murder, violence and terror, you will get it. So the left made that argument of the right. The problem with their argument was that they were talking about Ben Shapiro. And it's like, yeah, I'm sure Ben is like, like the argument I made is,

do you ever, do you think you would ever see Dave Rubin marching on Berkeley with torches and crow bars and a bunch of, uh, you know, classical liberals. Never going to happen. So when they argued that Rubin should be censored, that Carl Benjamin should be censored, I should be censored because we're escalating this rhetoric, it wasn't true. They were lying. They actually are doing that, as we can see now with this arrest, with all of the other things. So I can certainly

understand the argument of the principle, we're not going to shut down their speech if they want to advocate for murder. They can, so long as they don't create an imminent threat and state that they intend to do it. That's the line, right? As long as we recognize that will foment a large escalation, a large population growing and being influenced by those by those memes that will become reality so yeah i mean i think that you know especially when you're articulating it like this i think that it's it's we let them speak when they break the law or they make threats you pick them up and if they do organize right and they say okay we're going to actually do something well they're breaking the law too so then they can actually

get into kinetic fights with the with the government but i'm not referring to again one person crossing the line i'm referring to 3 000 people showing up and burning down minneapolis that's why i said then they can get into a kinetic fight with the government right but let them because like this is a conversation that we had before if there is going to be a confrontation with the government let the confrontation with the government be by the left when the right is in control of the government when i take when the far left righted across this country law enforcement did nothing okay well that's that that that should not be the case i mean these are all hypotheticals that we're talking about but this is my take on it is if you we should not change the policy of free speech in order to protect people that want to be or, you know, by banning them.

You're just putting them underground. Let them speak when they break the law. Let them face the law. The left could not get away with a summer of love again like they did in 2020. I think that they could do that again. They could try those tactics. They would not be as successful and free from persecution or prosecution as they were. I mean, I think they were doing that in cities. I don't necessarily agree.

Right. Yeah, I don't agree. Like if they go to Minneapolis, they're going to do the same thing. But you're going to see you'll see the National Guard come out sooner. You will see a much more telescope and telescope, you know, response time from the administration, if you had that degree of writing that we had post-George Floyd again in our country, they wouldn't let it go on as long as it did back then. Why do you think that? Because he's not running for re-election. Yeah, but there's going to be an election with somebody on the right. There's going to be an election, but it's not the person making the call.

It's not an election year, and it's not the person making the call. It's not an election year, and it's not the same person up for election. You've got much wider latitude and much less patience, plus the lessons have been learned. And that's really the biggest thing. The lessons have been learned. We benefited nothing by allowing them to run roughshod over our communities, by allowing them to burn down entire swaths of neighborhoods. We didn't get any benefit from allowing them to run roughshod over our communities, by allowing them to burn down entire swaths of neighborhoods, we didn't get any benefit from allowing them to do that. All we got was disastrous consequences. So if that same thing comes up again today or in the near future, they're just not going to let it go on as long. There's just no way. So you're saying, speaking solely of like

federal intervention on the level of, if this is happening at a state level in a state level case, right? They're burning down Minneapolis. They're burning down San Francisco and Trump. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. But in 2020, when this happened, he offered help to these cities and they all rejected it. And what I would imagine is the same thing would happen this time around, unless you're saying that he would just simply force through federalized and you know federalized help look we've got how many how many arcane laws are we that are laws so they're not like new laws but we've got like alien sedition and we got all these things that are on the books and they will find the justification to use federal troops if there's

some form of disorder in the united states and it's appropriate to do so. Do you think that's what would happen? I don't know for sure that that's what would happen, but I would probably endorse it. Look, they should have called out the National Guard during the Summer of Love in multiple cities. I would advocate for like the Earth Crisis song, Firestorm, street by street, block by block. We're taking it all back. Wrap those dudes up and get them off the streets. And the states rejected the help and he didn't want to seem as if he was overstepping because he was up for reelection. Right. But the thing is, is if you're going into 2028 and right now, I mean, I don't know, it's too early to tell. But if you're talking Vance being your front runner to run for office in 2028, he's still second in command of that administration.

And that will bring up questions during those events. Again, this is all hypothetical. To the extent advance would be involved in that, yes. But the American public, I think, is not going to be determining, you know, if something happens in the next six months, that's not going to be the deciding issue for 2028. Okay. Yeah, but midterms would be sooner than 2028 do you think there are a lot of people that are that would look back at the summer of love and say we're not doing that again 100% agree i really do because people were people feel like they were lied to a lot because they were lied to especially around that time they

remember the covid stuff and they were like that turned out to be bs blah blah blah you know like people aren't i don't think people are as forgiving of those kind of behaviors anymore. BLM turned out to be a complete lie. I don't know if I buy that big cities, big blue cities have learned their lesson. I don't. I'd agree with you there, but. Which is where this was happening. And then you have the issue of like, you know, is there a Democratic governor in the state?

So on a state by state basis, you're 100're 100 right democrat controlled would be slower to respond but i i believe that the federal government would respond quicker and not necessarily wait for you know not necessarily wait for the governments to uh governors to say come help us then let the people of those cities deal with the repercussions of not having a functioning government. And if the people are okay with it, hey, self-government, man. You can have a burnt-down husk of a city. You can make your city like Detroit had been for decades. Or Minneapolis rebuilding itself.

Yeah, like everybody left. If you don't have law and order that protects property, people do not invest, people don't start businesses, and you end up with a shell, a husk of a city. You lose your tax base, the whole city falls apart. If that's what the cities in this country want to do, be my guest. It's not my place to say that you must do something. I mean, maybe I'm just not paying as close of attention, but I just don't feel like those big cities that are in those liberal strongholds have learned their lesson. At least it doesn't

feel that way. That's okay. That's okay. They get to make those decisions. And when people say, I'm out of here, it happened in 2020 and it happened again five years later. I'm not putting up with this stuff. I'm leaving. I'm moving. Look at the amount of people that left New York City or that left New York State, that left California and moved to Texas and moved to Florida. Florida's not going to tolerate that. You're not going to see that happening in Tampa. You're not going to see that happening in Texas either. in those places, if the city doesn't respond and protect the property and the rights of the peaceful people, they will continue to leave just like they did after, just like so many people did after 2020. And I think the other thing too is that if you look at what happened in 2020,

you had Democratic governors and mayors just saying like, okay, we're going to let this go so long because they really, they wanted Trump to intervene. They wanted him to become the bad man and have to call in the troops. They wanted to create that situation. So I think in some cases they probably let things go even further than they were comfortable with because they wanted to create that reaction. President Trump wisely didn't give it to them. Okay. And I think that if that same set of circumstances, that same level of civil unrest, not even civil unrest, criminal activity, let's call it what it was. That's what it was. If that happened again today, you would see a different

response pattern. It would be vastly different and it'd be much quicker. Governments and cities have a responsibility to protect the peaceful people and protect property and if they don't want to who are we to say you know you know that you can't but i don't think that we should say hey we need to censor what people say on the internet because it could escalate to terrible things we shouldn't censor because we should use the internet as a means to wrap up people that would do nefarious things. If you're out there, if you're involved in criminal conspiracy, like Tim's talking about criminal conspiracy to do things like escalate into violence, there are laws against that.

Let them speak and let them get arrested. But again, the point is not that individual people will decide to break the law. It's that 50,000 young people would be dumping buckets of ice water on their head if not for these platforms. Now 50,000 people will be going out and throwing bricks through windows. Like I said, that's criminal. What's wrong with bricks? They're going to bring bricks into this. No, no, no. When bricks are placed into a wall, we're very fond of them.

We just don't like pilots on the street. My question is about the shifting narrative from dump a bucket of ice over your head and do a dance. And what these young kids used to do was dance. I remember I saw some like preteen girl. I was driving down the road and she's in the middle of the street with a phone like propped in the street. And she was dancing in the middle of the street in like a suburban neighborhood was in Jersey. And I'm just like, what is going on? And my friend was like,

Oh, it's a tick tock thing. And I was like, what is this? That used to be the trend. Now the trend is read the Osama bin Laden letter. Now the trend is advocate for murder, death and assassination.

Well, let me ask you this, Tim, maybe it's the problem of tick tock. That's a whole separate thing. I agree. But do you think that the youth of America right now is in a much different space than they were in 2020? Do you see a shift between what you would call the youth back then and youth now? Do you see anything there that's different?

It's a different youth. Right. So in 2020, we're talking about it's been five years. Right. So the young people that have the people that that are now 15 were not 15 then. Correct. So we are seeing a substantial difference, and it looks politically bifurcated. You've got—I mean, I would imagine most young people are anti-Israel. I think there's all anti-war and anti-killing, for sure. I can understand that. But I look at college campuses now, and I'm encouraged by what I see

in college campuses today versus what I saw then. And I think that one thing that the people that are in college right now have is the benefit of even when they were younger in 2020, they've seen what transpired and where we've gotten to. And I think that some of them have a sense of the lies that happened.

Well, let's do this. Here's the story from Fox News. Columbia anti-Israel protester Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, judge rules. He faces deportation for his role in the Columbia University campus protests against Israel. So that's the story. Judge Jamie Comins ruled in Louisiana on Friday that Khalil can be deported, saying the U.S. government met its burden of proof to remove him. Quote, I would like to quote what you said the last time that there's nothing that's more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness.

Clearly, what we witnessed, Khalil told the court, clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process. This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court 1000 miles away from my family. I just hope that the urgency that you deemed fit for me are afforded to the hundreds of others who have been here without hearings without hearing for months. So he's out. Fox News calls it anti-Semitism exposed. I think the the big question here is not actually whether or not Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, because typically when the debate actually begins over whether or not he can be deported, the issue of Israel-Palestine takes over in the sense that the only reason he's had his visa revoked and is being deported is because he opposed Israel. They've not alleged that his protest activities were criminal in any sense. It's specifically that his views against Israel are a threat to our national security.

Didn't he also, though, have like anti-United States and anti-Western bias in addition to his pro-Palestinian points, though? It wasn't exclusively that. He was also advocating for like downfall of the United States. I don't know exactly he said that, but there were other things he said that were... The argument brought up by the anti-Israel side is that the other people targeted by the Trump administration, it's all Israel. Like Romesia Ataturk, was that her name? Was her name?

Yeah. I think, Azturk or something. I got it wrong. But she had written a paper that was anti-Israel, pro-Palestine or depending on people interpret it, pro-Hamas. So the argument is not that the doctor who has refused entry. No, no. Ramizio was a student. OK. All right. OK. Yeah. The one in the ice came up to her and they were playing close and everyone said it was. Oh, yes. I remember that. OK. Right. Right. So clearly the trend. And now the DHS has announced that they're going to be screening social media of visa applicants for anti-Semitism. So it's not, the argument specifically is, I think there's evidence to suggest the government is concerned about anti-Israel sentiment among people coming into this country. And that's why they're being deported. So he can be deported. Of course he can.

The government has the right to deport anybody who's not a citizen. But again, what typically comes up from those defending Mahmoud is not immigration law. They just use that because they're actually saying you should be allowed to speak out against Israel. Similarly with TikTok, the argument tends to be the only reason TikTok is getting banned is because of Israel. So the merits of the case are often overlooked. Yeah, I wish that they weren't relying so heavily on the anti-Israel narrative. I'm sure that there are a lot of people that are like, hey, he's speaking out against Israel and we should send him out of here. I don't care that he speaks out against Israel, but he's an anti-Western, anti-American. He said things like, I want to see Western society destroyed.

He said things like, America's a bad place. So it sucks that Israel gets brought up because people are going to be like, oh, you can't say anything about Israel. And I don't give a crap if people are saying anything about Israel. But there is no reason we should allow people that are anti-America to be in the United states on a green card like get them out if you're anti-american get out i don't care if you're anti-israel i don't give a crap about that you should be able to say whatever you want about israel i don't care but if you're

anti-american beat it send them out of here i mean is this coming back to the same argument people i mean i know that it's different because we're talking about somebody on a green card and not somebody with u.s citizenship therefore not offered the same protections of the amendments. But like it's like when they have the debate about burning flags. Right. And people go on and on about whether you should be allowed through your free speech to be to burn a symbol of the United States, which I think which I think you should be allowed. Exactly. So you should be allowed.

I understand. There's there's one thing that I want to point out. Like you're you're saying that it doesn't protect people that aren't citizens. No, no. I'm just I'm just I'm just following through here. So the legal alien does not have or someone here on a green card doesn't have the broad range, a full range of First Amendment bill of rights. The bill of rights doesn't doesn't the bill of rights doesn't do anything to people. It only limits the government. So that's wrong. The point that I'm making here is that when we're talking about this here, then we get into the same debate that we were having in the previous topic where we're talking about people who might be free speech absolutists or people who become – it becomes a purity spiral for people on the right who want to talk about who's the most free speech and who believes that we should limit the government the most. And a lot of people are ignoring the fact that, simply speaking,

somebody here on a green card isn't afforded the same rights as somebody who's a citizen of the United States of America. I would agree with you. If you're here on a green card, the government can say, nope, we want you out for a whole slew. Any reason that INA says at the discretion of the Secretary of State. If it's at the Secretary of State's discretion, get him out. They additionally have a secondary provision,

which is what they, I think it was Section 237, which is what they use to remove the visa of Mahmoud Khalil, which is a threat to national security. Can we screen people for being furries? Can we do that? Just keep them out. I honestly mean like... So their logic here is that because he's speaking things

that make him, that are anti-Western, that he's a threat to the United States. Phil was saying he was anti-the West. All right, but the point is that's not why he was targeted. The reason he was targeted, along with all of the other students, is their anti-Israel sentiment. I think it's silly to argue it's the West when they've literally pulled the visas of a doctor. They've denied one guy and another student. And the only thing they have in common is that they criticize Israel. Well, that is a bet.

Like if we're talking right now, you're talking about the bifurcation of politics in America right now. And you're saying that young people are becoming increasingly anti-Israel. I mean, we could also talk about the fact that it's falling on gendered lines a lot in the United States right now. Women go heavily for Democrats. Young men are becoming increasingly right-wing. Sure, but if there is a through line here that it's increasingly true that young people in America don't understand the connection between the U.S. and Israel, then the fact that so many of these cases,

so many of these deportations relate back to speaking out against Israel, that's a problem because it makes people feel like they're being targeted. And a lot of those people are citizens of the United States and they see something wrong there, whether true or not. Wait, what? All I'm saying is that like, if young people who are anti-Israel see people being deported because they are speaking out against Israel, they're saying, why is this happening? Now, we're talking about green cards. Fine.

That makes perfect sense. But a lot of U.S. citizens who are speaking out of it feel as if they're going to have their speech stifled. Yeah, that's a good point. And that's why making this about Israel is a bad idea. I've said it. I've said it multiple times. It shouldn't be. But even it shouldn't be about Israel.

It should be the fact that you have a green card and you should not be allowed to S-talk the United States. Even going back to that example, if you are a citizen and you want to talk smack about the United States, downfall of the United States, you have the right to be able to do that as long as you're not advocating for violence. So, you know, it goes back to what you're saying. You've got the first. But Phil, we can't we can't deport citizens if they say that you are you are correct it should be but that's not what it is the dhs announced specifically anti-semitism yeah it's i i was like that's that's insane stupid it's so so we also we covered this story today about a comedian from australia who was going to come to the u.s to perform and decided not to because she's done like anti-trump bits in the past

and she was afraid that they wouldn't let her in or they'd stop her at the border because she was going to file for a visa and they wouldn't let her in because she said things that were anti-Trump. And the way, the reason that they're reporting on this is they're framing it as the president is turning, you know, he's stopping people from speaking out against him, which is designed to make the administration look a certain way. And when you do have these type of topics, like you're saying, where it's specifically against anti-Semitism, that does frame it that way for a lot of people. So someone commented that it's me who's making it about Israel.

Here's ABC News. DHS to screen social media of visa applicants for anti-Semitic activity. Like the DHS guidelines specifically state, and of course, what guidelines are they using? They're using the IHRA, which states that arguing that Jews don't have a right to an ancestral homeland is anti-Semitic. So they're likely going to be pulling up social media activity from individuals who are in defense, who are against Israel or pro-Palestine, or they're going to argue that Israel doesn't exist. And that's going to be a basis for barring people.

Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I mean, I agree with you, Phil, that if they are against the United States, why the hell would we let them in? And so we did a Culture War episode. We had a lawyer who was in defense of Mahmoud Khalil, and I asked him, is it within the U.S. foreign interest to support Israel? He said, yes. OK, is it a threat to their interests to have protests against U.S. support for Israel? Yes. So Mahmoud Khalil was a threat by leading these protests. And that's why they deported him. And he was like, yes, but but but it's a free speech issue he should be allowed to say it so the ultimately the what i criticize the dhs uh issue on is that it's over the top if they said anti-american activity and then lumped in all that stuff with it i'd say i guess but to make

it specifically about anti-semitism is like guys, can I get a special provision for Asians? Are there other allies to the U.S. that we should specifically be seeking out there, people speaking out against them? It would never come up for anyone else. It would never come up for anyone else. The way that the – when it comes to Israel and when it comes to Jewish people, it's nothing but like specifically we need these special protections for israel blah blah blah the whole you know israel's the u.s greatest ally and blah blah blah that stuff is all just it's all just propaganda also don't forget that the people who'd be speaking the most about this would be far far leftists who are suddenly going to talk about how important free speech is because these things are

going on despite the fact that they would gladly censor you at a moment's notice if they had the ability to toss you in gulag yeah i i want to i want to stress this point too um just because i would i would like to get your opinion on this brick suit uh one of the issues that has come up this week consistently is u.s support for israel uh partly because of netanyahu's meeting with donald trump but also because i got invited to meet with Netanyahu. I heard about that. Some other people. One of the ideas I expressed in the meeting was that in 10 years, based on the trends we're seeing from the younger generation,

in 10 years, support for Israel politically in Congress will be in heavy dispute. In 20 years, the U.S. will not be aligned with Israel. I'm curious your thoughts on the young vote and what you think of the situation. Well, that's a long time window. And yeah, to really, are you saying extrapolating like the type of what's going on in the Middle East now and that kind of conflict continues, Like that level of discord continues in the Middle East? Or is there going to be fatigue on it? Because if they turn it around

and somehow get that situation under control where there aren't continued hostilities, then I think that politically in 20 years it's going to be somewhat different. But if what's happening now continues and there's as much violence there, you're going to have a different issue. I don't think it has anything to do with the region itself.

America on the right is largely America first. And on the left is anti-Israel. So the left, I mean, these are people who are in New York City who are cheering for Hamas. And they're chanting from the river to the sea. When these people like AOC, and she's beating Chuck Schumer in the polls in New York for the Senate. Well, he doesn't know how to grill a hamburger. Indeed. beating Chuck Schumer in the polls in New York for the Senate. Well, he doesn't know how to grill a hamburger. So indeed. But AOC was very much on that same train until she got elected. And then she tried to moderate. Yeah, they're the supporters she has for this. They are the people who are in

New York chanting from the river to the sea. When when when we move forward 10 years, AOC is going to be a senator, if not a higher position. And these young people on the left are not just we don't want to fund Israel. They're anti-Israel itself. Now, aside from that, on the right, you are split between you've got a few different groups. You've got the pro-Mega Trump faction, which are very pro-Israel. They tend to be older. You've got the more libertarian leaning millennial types, which tend to be we should not be funding wars overseas. And then you have the Gropers. We hate Israel, too. I don't see how these prominent factions in the next 10 years.

You also have conservatives who just aren't in favor of any type of foreign aid. That's what I'm saying. They don't have to be Gropers. They don't have to be libertarians. That's the group I mentioned. The left isn't just anti-Israel. They're anti-Western. They're anti-America.

So the point is, that was one of the, so the right is comprised of those three three groups principally. How then, as we move forward with with the young older generations pro-Israel, younger generation is is either we don't want to fund anybody or anti-Israel? You've got to come from a standpoint where you realize that the United States does have interest in supporting select governments and select positions overseas for the security of the United States. We do not live in an isolationist island. And even I, who am completely 100% America first, believe that there are certain cases overseas where we should be helping our allies. We're not going to retreat to complete isolationism. We're not going to get back to that. So the message has to go out there. And people who are maybe seeing as America first means America only, my position is no, it does not.

It means America first, and then we help our allies as needed and warranted. And so that position of what's appropriate and who gets that level of aid and who gets that level of material support, then that gets allocated. And I think that that's really, that would be the mission going forward over the next 20 years is to take that segment of the conservative movement that is maybe newer to politics or doesn't have that historical perspective and kind of try and convince them that that's the way it should be. I think the hard part about that is a big part of that millennial, like what Tim is saying, millennial America first. We shouldn't be funding any wars. It comes back to the fact that at home right now, there is so little help for actual Americans that they don't see a path forward.

And you're right. Look, the world is a very complicated place. It's very hard to understand and explain geopolitics to people and the reason things are the way they are, but they're not seeing that. What they're seeing is every time there's a natural disaster here, there's no help for anyone at home. Every time they look up the debt in the bud, you know, the debt for this country has gotten even greater. Now that's not to say that that necessarily is right, that you can just expect to take an isolationist view of the world. But that's what you need to understand when you see that those people are saying that we don't want to fund foreign wars. We don't want to fund other countries. Certainly with everything going that happened with Doge, we saw so much money being

funneled to programs that have nothing to do with the citizens of the U.S. and everything to do with U.S. governmental interests and people are sick of it. But then you have to find a way to delineate between the young people who are just anti-Israel, like the Groypers, the ones who don't want us funding anything, and older ones who were more pro-Israel, like you say, America first. I don't know how you bring those groups together, but it's going to get harder because the older group is going to start dying off. That's going to change even more. The right is together. Trump is pro-Israel. I think Ian made a great point yesterday, principally because of the Suez Canal.

But younger Trump supporters are, I don't know why we're involved. Then you've got a younger cohort, which is smaller, and they're arguably pro-Trump, but they're probably more right-leaning, like the Groypers. They hate Israel. And they're mad at Trump for supporting Israel. But on the right, you've got half support, half indifference, right? On the left, you have no support. Like the Democrats. Right. And not from an economic standpoint, but from a political dispute standpoint on the left. Yeah. I'm logically oppose to it. I think it's funny because, you know, with all the people online who are talking about how, you know, Jewish power and all this stuff and they control everything. I'm like, why is it that you can go on any social media platform and just get all of these posts that hate Israel but there's nothing in the inverse? What do you mean there's nothing in the inverse? Like pro-Israel stuff? So you go on X, for instance, and you choose a random person who's talking political, and you're going to see

way more anti-Israel than pro-Israel sentiment. There certainly is a lot of pro-Israel sentiment, don't get me wrong. I'm saying the active posts, right? So I've done polls, 80% will say Israel, 20% will say Palestine. So you're saying why are the people that are anti-Israel so vocal? Yeah, why is it – and this is what's swaying young people, right? The fact that the pro-Israel sentiment doesn't appear as pronounced and doesn't pop up in trends and social media posts. Which do you think gets attacked more? The point is that Israel neutral to pro-israel will be inundated with comments saying israel is bad or the jews are bad or something like this so is that just the algorithm

that's why they're called juicebergs well sure because there's but what do you think happens so to the point i was making before about the ice bucket challenge of terrorism what do you think happens to a generation when they're raised on this and so uh the reason this where all this comes from is I think TikTok is bad because they it tells children to cut off their genitals. Dylan Mulvaney has 13 million followers. Riley Gaines has 600,000. Clearly, there's a there's a shift in the algorithm of TikTok to promote ideas that are bad for American youth. However, every time I have a conversation with a young person, they are pro TikTok and do not want to see it purchased, sold or otherwise.

They want it left alone. And they almost always say the only reason that the U.S. is doing this is because of Israel. That's not wrong. That's where the support came from. But TikTok is still bad. I find it fascinating that when I speak to the younger generation, they like TikTok because they use it, and they think the only reason it's being targeted is because of anti-Israel sentiment, which they view as their speech. So whether it's legitimate sentiment now, coordinated campaigns, or whatever you want to believe, it doesn't matter. That's not the point. The point is there is no coordinated pro-Israel spam blasting of people at this degree.

The younger generation will be surrounded by anti-Israel sentiment. And that means they're going to be scared to speak out against it. For instance, my conversation on the, which I'm not going to get into, my conversation, actually, on Israel, being with Netanyahu. I was getting tweeted at like crazy. And I actually had a friend of mine be like, you all right, dude? And I'm like, why wouldn't I be? And they're like, well, I'm just seeing everybody talk about you and this Netanyahu thing. I'm like, well, that's what happens to me with world leaders.

But imagine a younger person who's online and they're getting inundated with all of these comments saying, you know, you're a Jew or whatever. They're not going to be able to mentally handle that. And they're going to say, I will never speak in favor of this country again. And that's why I look at things like that. I look at the protests. I look at the defense of TikTok and I'm like, I don't see how Israel gets any support from the U.S. in 20 years. Well, I just want to say this. I mean, like, I agree with you that TikTok puts a lot of pressures and a lot of viewpoints on youth. But I feel like maybe I have a little bit more faith that they're going to have discernment to be able to move away from those. They're not simply blank vessels that are going to be programmed and operate on that forever. They've got their own agency.

And I've got faith in them that they're going to develop that and look at things more critically. And because everybody knows that there's bias in news. When I was a kid, I grew up, you had three networks, OK, ABC, CBS, NBC, and all your news was monoculture. These everybody growing up now knows that every viewpoint has a bias. And the youth that uses TikTok now is going to realize that there's bias in tick tock and they're going to be in a different spot and i and i've got i think i've got faith in them that they will be able to look at it more critically as they get older or even now and make make decisions that are not necessarily implanted in their brains by that propaganda i

don't i don't disagree i just think the issue issue then becomes, which is the point I'm getting to, what is the argument for U.S. support of Israel? So you've got a bunch of crazy arguments against Israel. I mean, there's legitimate arguments. I think Dave Smith does a pretty good job of calling out U.S. intervention, why we should be wasting our tax dollars, that libertarian perspective. So there's an obvious, that's why you have on the Trump side, we should be supporting it. You have the left, they hate it. I just, I think you're correct on

critical thought, but I don't think it's going to lead in that direction. I think we're going to become more isolationist. I hate the word isolationist because it's not going to be total isolation, but the U.S. is going to have trade deals, but it's going to largely be pulling out of foreign conflicts, I think. Yeah. And like you were saying, they're kind of coalescing right now around Trump, who is a very, very big personality who is able to bring a lot of people under his umbrella with a lot of different viewpoints, like you said. But past him, they're going to have a problem with a power vacuum of finding someone to fill that space. And I don't know if they will have someone who will be able to bring them together around

Israel in the future necessarily. Yeah. I mean, around Israel, I think that I'm saying around that specific issue. Yeah. But around Israel, I think that there might be no one. I don't think that we have a or there's anyone out there that can articulate a compelling argument for Israel that Generation Z

is going to buy. And I think that even someone like J.D. Vance, who I think he's a pro-Israel guy, but I don't know. I've never heard him actually articulate why the U.S. should be pro-Israel.

The boilerplate ones are like, well, you know, it's a it's a a democracy in the Middle East and there are all these opposing countries. But I don't I don't think that that's going to be something that that's going to be compelling in the future because, you know as compelling because countries like jordan and you see saudi arabia moving towards the u.s and because it's either the u.s or china and a lot of the countries in the middle east you know i see how bad of a deal china actually gives like the we're dealing with china's not take our money now and we're going to nationalize your assets yeah they they don't they do they like they don't meet any of the deals they make. They don't live up to the deals they make ever. So I think that a lot of other countries see that.

Not saying that they won't choose China if they have to or if the U.S. were to be like, well, we're going to pull away from the rest of the world. But I do think that if the option is China or the U.S., I think the people are going to, other countries will go to the U.S. I want to jump to this next story because we're talking all about Gen Z. And one of the issues is that, well, we're just talking about how women were communists. I think that lightly came up.

And there's this funny story from Cosmo. America's more divided than ever, but how is it affecting our love lives? I spent a year dating conservative men to find out. Now, the funny thing is the article originally said alt-right. There's no question that we're living in and looking for love in contentious times where extreme political ideologies have all but divided parts of the dating pool, or have they? And then you have this clearly the art they use is a woman with wine and a MAGA guy in red with the beer.

He's drinking a beer, Tim, of course. Sure. Take a look at this from Axios on HBO. This is from 2019, mind you, so it's been six years. 55% of women prefer socialism. Surprised it wasn't higher even in 2019. You know, we can talk all about Israel all day and every day, but let's get to what people actually care about about getting laid. So for young men right now, we are seeing

a massive increase in virginity. 30 year old men, a third have never had a relationship. Some have never even dated. And interestingly, one poll from a few years ago showed that men under 30, I think like 10 percent hadn't even spoken to a woman in a year or something like that. Some some have never even approached a woman in public. And so then you get articles like this from Cosmo, which literally is a woman writing for Cosmo about how she decided to date conservative men. Now, millennial men lean conservative, five percent, according to Pew Research. Liberal women are I'm sorry, millennial women are 70 percent Democrat. How is this going to manifest? Right. So right now I can tell you exactly how it is manifesting for the sake of privacy. I will

not reveal the identity of my friend, but someone was telling me recently they're in a dating app and it was going great. And then the woman asked real quick, what do you think of Trump? And he gave a kind of, you know, I don't know, whatever, I guess. And she lost her mind and said, F you. This is a fascist state. We got to resist. Go to hell. Unfaught, like unmatch.

That's the best thing that ever happened to him. But what happens when that 70% of women your age is a young man? What's going to happen? Fertility rates already down at like 1.3. What happens to this country when the women are overwhelmingly socialist and communist and leftist, and the young men are overwhelmingly meritocratic and right wing? Well, I think at that point, I would have to invest in litter boxes and cat food. The guys too. Yeah, I'm not saying, I mean, you start a business because you're going to profit in the long run, you know, because that's just like

more cats and more litter. And they talk- I know, I see what you're saying. I make a joke about that, but those are bad trend lines. I imagine that's one of the many reasons why people say that there's a certain amount of nihilism within Gen Z

on top of the economy and all of the ways in which they feel that kind of society pulled their future out from under them. And then you've taken that into account. It's okay. Like you can put up with a bad economy. You can put up with mediocre job prospects if you're in a loving and caring relationship and you have something to go home to. If you have nothing to go home to, you don't have a career to aspire to. You don't have a future where you see yourself retiring. It's like the whole thing that was going on with tariffs and millennials and Gen Z were laughing at the boomers saying like we weren't in the stock market anyway.

None of it mattered. You compound all of those things on top of each other and there's no doubt in my mind that the nihilism that Gen Z felt is going to carry onwards into Gen Alpha unless something changes drastically. Especially considering the promise of socialism, of a world where everybody has super abundance because they don't think of communism as what communism has been in the past. They don't think of it as deprivation. If you listen to people, they say, I want fully automated luxury gay space communism.

That's what they're thinking about. They're thinking we've reached a point and they see robots and they see AI and they think we've reached a point where we're going to cross over into super abundance and everybody's going to have robots and everybody's going to have everything they want and everything's going to be free. There's not going to be any need for work, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what they're thinking of when they say communism. They're not thinking of— They're thinking of utopia. Well, that's exactly what communism is. But they're thinking of superabundance and a governmental system where everything is given to you,

whatever you want to do, you can go ahead and do for free. And so if that's what they're hoping for, it's going to be hard to convince them that that's not going to materialize because there's going to be a lot of people that do have what looks like that on the internet, you know? On Instagram. Are you saying that people on the internet will misrepresent their material success? I mean, it's been known to happen.

There's a whole bunch of bad examples out there. Also, it's fair to point out that as marriage rates plummet and as birth rates plummet, what's happening is a lot of the female intuition and desire for kids into mother has been sublimated into politics where they want to nanny the whole world around them and just they want to do it through governmental force, which is a unique trend at the time. I think that one thing that can fight back against that is the extent that we can improve the economic lot of the people living in the United States. And so we see a lot of pro-family policies coming back.

But I think if you if we're successful in reordering the economy in the United States, so the actual production jobs are reshored to America instead of staying abroad. We're going to increase the amount of income and the amount of upward mobility that people have in this country. And that's going to be a net positive for the raising of families. That has to happen. That's got to be part of it. So one of the things that we've talked about around this table is that the jobs that have been offshored, they're not going to come back. In the same way. In the same way, in the same way. And I don't know that the reshoring of jobs or the reinvigoration of American manufacturing

is going to be something that is labor intensive the way that it used to be because the robots and the automation that exists now. But that's why this is the perfect time for this movement, because there's going to be a paradigm shift in assembly and in manufacture. And if you allow the capital to be invested to construct these new facilities overseas that take advantage of robotics and AI in the production process, if you allow those factories to be established overseas, that's going to be sunk costs and harder to get away from. So shift the paradigm now to get those new facilities built in America.

And yeah, are we going to need as many machinists per capita as we needed in 1950? No. But we're going to need jobs to maintain. The jobs will be different, and they may not be the same amount, but it's important to get those new factories built in America. And that's why President Trump is putting it... If you remember from the campaign trail, he's talking about 15% corporate taxes on goods made in America. And that's the key thing. And that's the carrot that he And that's the break. That's the carrot that he's trying to get them back. I'm with you on the need to manufacture necessities in the United States.

So we should be making our own pharmaceuticals. We should be making our own semiconductors. We should be making our own steel. We should make sure that we have our own battery manufacturers, which Musk is doing a lot of that. But we should make sure that we have our own battery manufacturers, which Musk is doing a lot of that. But we should make sure that we have the manufacturing capability inside the United States to provide for the United States. Everything else, it's no problem to buy from other places. It's no problem to buy surpluses from outside of the U.S. But the U.S., for national security reasons, this is not about – honestly, this isn't about the job market, in my opinion. For national security reasons, we should be able to provide the things

that the United States needs in the United States. Everybody knows what happened when COVID hit. We were going to China for stuff and China was like, we're not selling it, we need it. And that kind of thing can cause a massive problem for the country. We should be able to produce the things that we need inside the U.S. as much as we can. And then for surplus stuff outside, like, go ahead.

No problem. I'm totally fine with trade. It's not like I'm like, oh, we should not trade with anyone. But we should have the industrial base to manufacture the things the United States needs inside the United States. I feel like health care and homes are also a big part of it for Gen Z. Not even that, millennials as well. I was talking to a friend last weekend who, you know, he listens to the show and he's very intelligent. He said, look, I can't have kids.

I can barely afford to live. There is a certain level of desperation. And when every time you drive a car and you're worried that, uh, you break your leg, you're never going to be able to pay off the medical bills. Like there are things where it's hard to start a family. If you're young, when everything feels like you're on the knife's edge of financial ruin on basic issues. Now, I don't know what the fix for that is, whether it's deregulation prior to Obamacare. I don't know how to fix those things, but I do know that I think that those are the issues more than anything. Health care, owning a home are the ones that are actually holding back future generations, maybe even more than what we're talking about with jobs.

Health care is one of the things. Yeah. I mean, look, if you can't own a United States, the United States innovates in the healthcare field more than any other country. So we can always we can always pivot to what other countries are doing. I mean, there are countries in Europe that are actually giving tax breaks for a certain amount of children to the point where if you have like a certain amount, you say no more taxes that you have to pay because

they know that that incentive is going to create more taxpayers down the road. So if we incentivize larger families, that could be a benefit. So I'm reading this story from Cosmo and she writes, I asked every man I messaged with about his relationship expectations and family values. Each seemed to know exactly what he was looking for in a wife and articulated it before he even met. She was typically an unvaccinated Christian white woman willing to quit her job and commit to homeschooling children. Her hobbies might include tending to a garden and feeding animals. She adds, I'm a vaccinated white woman who works and loves exercising at 6 a.m. and going to spas

on Friday nights. Later on, she talks about another man that she dated who said that women should be wives should be submissive to their husbands. Let me actually pull that one. When was this written? 2019 or 2020? This story? Yeah. The story was written a month ago.

A month ago. OK. All right. I got the wrong date. The illustration was 20. No, no. The Axios story. The Axios. Communist women. OK. Now we're back up to speed date. The illustration was 20. No, no. The Axios story of the communist women. OK, now we're back up to speed here. Got it. Right.

So she adds in one date she was dating Tom and she asked him what he thought a biblical woman was. And he said women should be submissive to their husbands. And some people believe they should be trained. It's about knowing your role in nature. It's undesirable for women to be too independent. As a man, I want to take care of you and i believe i believe in that biology the liberal women i've dated emasculate men with their aggressive energy we were no longer holding hands she writes i was thinking about this um so for those that are just tuning in the story is from cosmo about a woman who uh dated a bunch of conservative men and i was thinking why is it that men still very much retain their animalistic nature, their evolutionary psychological drives, that is goal-oriented, meritocratic, these kinds of issues? And why is it that women seem to be acting outside of – let me put it this way.

Men very much still act in accordance with what they need to do to survive. Laziness is actually an evolutionary psychological component of survival. Humans who exuded less energy when they didn't need to were more likely to survive because they would live longer. Humans that waste their energy milling about and doing random things would have less energy when they needed it. So that's why we tend to not want to work if we don't have to. However, when we look to these women, they're talking about communist ideologies. They don't want to have kids. They want to have jobs, things largely not associated with traditional femininity.

And I was thinking I was thinking maybe it's actually because there is no evolutionary psychological drive for women to have to do anything. So if you go back several hundred years, when the pressures on women at the time when we were living in the wilderness or were nomadic or whatever, medieval, men had to be goal-oriented, had to find food, had to work every day, and had to fight for survival. You had to relax when you could to recover and regenerate. But women were within the confines of whatever the men did, meaning women were less likely to survive on their own, were less likely to be able to succeed in hunting, were more likely to be staying at home through natural evolutionary pressures. That is to say, I wonder if the reason we've come to this position where men largely want a traditional biblical reality and women do not, is that evolution never pressured women to want these

things in the same way. They were pressured through external forces by you would just die either way. You know what I mean? Whereas men can survive on their own, a guy can go out in the woods and survive. Women are less likely to. Yeah. That creates a circumstance where women were going to be required – like women required the protection of men until recently. And now with a police state and a heavy militarized state and much lower crime and much more comfortability, you get women's liberation. So there's no evolutionary psychological drive to simply not as much as men, I would say, which results in the modern liberal woman who then wants to just, you know, wake up at 6 a.m., do drugs and masturbate like Chelsea Handler. I mean, yeah, but the fact of the matter is the protection that women used to enjoy from a husband

now society provides generally because we do have like especially in the United States. We live in an anomalous time. We are the incredibly successful, incredibly peaceful because of our success. You don't have to. Most people don't have to struggle to find their next meal. Even people that are poor usually can go to the cupboard and maybe they're eating cereal or ramen, but even still, it's like you've got something, you know? There's also still a certain, like there is a certain societal pressure and expectation. Say

you're even in a happy marriage in both the man and the woman work, right? So the expectation would still be if tomorrow both of them lost their job, the societal expectation would be that the man is the one who finds a job first and provides. And in the back of men's minds, that will always be there, even in a relationship where both of you are working. So it's not like even with society evolving to the place that it is now, like you can't just bury that. It's just going to be there for men. And I don't know if necessarily that rings true for women. I don't think they even think about it as much. Someone brought up a good point in the comments, that meme about if you're in the if you're in the woods, would you rather be alone with a man or a bear? And all of these liberal women were saying a bear. And so this is the question I'm asking. What about the human condition leads a large faction of women to entertain death.

Right. Circumstances not conducive to survival and the expansion of humanity. So I have a theory about this that might come off a little misogynistic, but historically, men have had to interact with reality. Women have to interact with people. But that was kind of my point about evolutionary psychology. Yeah. Men actually have to go fight the reality. Women have to interact with people. That was kind of my point about evolution and psychology. Yeah. Men actually have to go fight the bear.

Women don't. Exactly. And that's why women, when you propose this concept and this idea to them, they're not thinking about the reality of a bear. They're thinking of the fear of a man if you can't calm him down, you can't talk him out of this or whatever. They're thinking of the – they're not thinking of the ramifications of dealing with a bear. Give them a year of Vice articles about the evils of bears and then re-ask the question. What is that? Is it that it's a runaway social cohort?

Yeah. It's a social contagion? There's endless stories. Look, they love true crime, stories about violent men. It's all over the news. It's all over Hollywood. Everywhere they look, they are being shown examples of violence from men. Very rarely, unless they watch Cocaine Bear, the movie Cocaine Bear, they're not getting examples of violent bears but if you give them a year of articles about people who just stumbled into the woods and were killed by a grizzly bear then you

might actually get a different answer if you could if you could if you could make people understand how infrequently an interaction with a wild bear or and i'm talking about a grizzly not a black bear black bears run from people but if you interact with a brown bear in the wild, you die. There's no, like, almost no one comes out okay. The saying goes, what is it? If it's brown, get down. If it's black, fight back.

If it's white, good night. And look, the real answer, they should say, is I want to be stuck in the woods with a man and a bear that way. If I can run faster than the man, I will live and the man will die. think i think you uh articulated better than me phil when you said um they've replaced the protection of men with the state yeah and so essentially what we used to have was the uh i can't remember what what podcast is probably whatever podcast but they were talking about how women are lied to all the time and men are not.

Men are insulted, degraded, berated, and they're not just told the truth, but harsh versions of it. Women, on the other hand, tend to be lied to. Guys will say they're pretty because they're trying to get something out of them. People try not to be rude. They're trying to be mean. They're talking down or whatever. And so in the past, men dealing with actual reality, a guy walks on the property with a gun and he's shooting at him and the guy's got to deal with it and the woman stays inside. Now, in that scenario, that guy would tell the woman, get behind the closet, sit down and shut up, and then she'd be terrified. If this man does not succeed in stopping this burglar, this marauder, she's next. But the state has now taken that over and the state is not telling women what to do and how to do it. It's just there. So you end up with, you know, in this story,

and I'm not saying this woman's wrong to feel the way she does or to live the way she does. I'm saying what created this bifurcation where women not having kids is the end of civilization. End of story. Like, i'm not saying women are forced to have kids or shit i'm just telling you humanity ceases to exist when women stop having children men want to bang anything with legs it's messed up including new york subways i i read that story that story was gross seriously yeah that's guys guys you know it's funny because people say bitches be crazy yo and my wife was like men are crazy and then I looked outside and I saw Special Mike on the mini ramp. And I was like, you know, you're not wrong.

They're crazy in different ways. Men are crazy in the pursuit of glory, whatever. I don't know about that guy banging the corpse. No, no, that is crazy in pursuit of. It's not real reproduction, but it tricks the brain into thinking that it's reproduction. It's not real reproduction, but it tricks the brain into thinking that it's reproduction. It's messed up. Look, everybody knows that evolution experiments in men, and it gets it wrong way more than it gets it right. But still, men are in pursuit of things that will impress women.

That's why dudes want to be rich. They want to be famous. Dudes that do want to be famous. That's it, bro. And women are in pursuit of things that impress women as well. Well, yes, they do. The joke that's been around for a long time, it's not really a joke, but I can't remember which comedian brought it up. He said, who's on the cover of a men's magazine, a man or a woman?

It's a woman. And who's on the cover of a woman's magazine, a man or a woman? It's a woman. Exactly. It's not Melania Trump on a woman's magazine. We know that. Check this out. This is from the article from Cosmo.

She's on a different date. I met up with Jake, 36. He was on his second mezcal Negroni and was sipping a seltzer with lime when I asked him why his last relationship ended. Quote, my previous girlfriend killed our child. He said, like, she's in jail now for murder, I asked. No, but she should

be. She got an abortion and killed our child without asking me. I took a deep breath and tried to listen carefully. That's the end of that story. Honestly, from these two examples that I've gotten so far, I just don't believe it's even realistic. This looks to me like completely contrived caricatures of like worst case scenarios. Now, I'm not saying she's not telling the truth. But when I when I mean, I'm reading along as you read that. So I'm seeing the text on the screen as well.

It doesn't ring true to me. It rings as propaganda. It is playing. Let's take a look at the millennial generation right now. So the last big data set we got was from Pew that found 70 percent of millennial females are Democrat voters. Females, college educated, are the only anti-Trump cohort. So in the OK, so let me let me let me clarify that. You've got white male and female college educated and white male and female non-college educated.

Male college educated are plus one Trump. Correct. Male and female non-college educated are like plus 40 Trump. Females college educated are minus 35 Trump. It's an amazing, amazing skew. I saw those stats. So this means what we have now in the in the millennial left female. I don't know if it's true for Gen Z, but the younger female, they're voting for war. The Democratic Party is overwhelmingly the party of war. Don't get me wrong. Trump is bombing Yemen. He's pro-Israel and all these

things, too. But he's trying he has in his first term and in his campaign, has advocated for and worked towards peace agreements, the Abraham Accords and things like this, negotiating with foreign countries like North Korea and Venezuela. Venezuela is not working out so well. But women are overwhelmingly voting for a party that is in preference to sterilizing children, to aborting children, and to going to war. Things that are antithetical to the expansion and survival of human civilization. So that's what I'm confused about. How does that manifest itself? Like, where does that come from, this destructive energies, destructive ideology?

Just go to the stats you just said. College-educated women, the biggest bias against President Trump. And so college-educated men not having that same disparity there. So there's something happening in our universities that's more successful in convincing women to think one way than it is convincing men to think one way. And I think that if you look at – that gives us an idea as conservatives about where we should be focusing our energies. Let's not maybe fight the losing battle trying to convince people after they graduate. Let's get on the campuses and fight these battles where they're being waged and where the propaganda really is. And I think we're getting better at that.

Yeah. I mean also I think a lot of it is like with the advent of social media and the rise of mainstream media propaganda, they're being sold villains. So it's not that they want to go to war with Russia. It's that they're told that Putin is evil and they want to fight evil and they're not the ones who are sent to fight there. So there may be a disparity there because the men know that if they vote in favor of war, that they're going to be the ones that are going to be sent there. The women don't have to worry about that. Right, right. And they're being sold individual villains in certain places, whether it's Trump in America,

whether it's Putin in Russia. I'm not saying anything about them being good or bad. I'm saying that they're not looking at the horrors of war. They're saying man bad. Go fight man. So so in this context, women are actually trying to save civilization by fighting the bad guy or sending men to do it. I don't believe that they even think of it that deeply so much as they're saying that we need to defeat the evil guy. Are we talking? Actually, I think this aligns with kind of the hypothesis I was just saying that, as Phil pointed out, the protection of men has been replaced by the state. And so where it used to be is the man would tell the woman what to do, right? If there was an animal attack, the guy would tell the woman to go take

the kids and go inside, and then he would deal with the wild animals. The women are telling the government what to do. So the government has replaced them as their protector, but now they're dictating what it does to protect. In fact, they're dictating for decline in fertility, which includes abortion, sterilization, and for death, for war. So I just find this whole package interesting that men are overwhelmingly on the side of preserving and expanding society, and American young women this overwhelmingly on the side of destroying civilization. So we're starting to see some Supreme Court decisions come down on a five, four male, female bias line, too, which is interesting. It's kind of the same lines of that.

We were talking about that the other night. Yeah. Amy Coney Barrett ruling against Trump and siding with the liberals was a big deal. The topic was which which case was it was It was whether or not you could deport? No, it was the Alien Enemies Act. And whether he could deport under that. And she said he can't. They did unanimously agree that you must have a habeas hearing for each individual, which basically is Trump's greatest defeat. Because they're – they keep saying it's a victory for Trump, but they basically, anyone Trump wants to deport gets a hearing now,

which basically means you ain't deporting 10 million people. It's not going to happen. We don't got the courts for that. That's why the move to self-deport is so critical. It's important. And, you know, making people register as aliens is a step in that. It's like, and people are thinking like, what is, you know,

self-deportation and motivating people to do that is going to be the most effective way for the united states to remove illegal aliens from within our borders absolutely it's extreme and that's that's the that's the best case scenario because other point great point women are more likely to support open borders yeah and uh foreign influence coming into the country. Most people have seen the meme, the, oh, no, sad, crying brown child. Throw away the Constitution. It's like, oh, no, the child is crying.

Quick, burn the Constitution. Oh, no. Well, then I guess the next question is, you've got, and you know what? I'm going to cuss, but this is the actual biological term, sneaky fucker. Are you familiar with this term? I am not. In biology, there are certain species of animals that have alphas and sneaky fuckers. I am not making a joke. This is the actual biological term. The alpha is the strong male that dances in front of the woman, the female, and then the female says, okay, I'll have babies with you. In the middle of the night, the sneaky fucker goes underneath the male and is small and then impregnates the woman and flees.

So we call these male feminists. So with the combination of male feminists, as well as the overwhelmingly communist socialist cohort of females is driving us towards self-annihilation perhaps then communist china takes over yeah and the male feminist isn't going to want to get married he's not going to want to support the kids he's just trying to get what he wants to fulfill his needs without actually stepping up and doing what is actually supposed to be done well it it's like we were talking about the other day. Mao offered Kissinger 10 million Chinese women. I didn't know that. 1973. Mao said that what we don't have, we don't have much. What we have is access in women. So if you want, we can give you a few 10 million. If we stay on this path, we are going to be entangled in multiple foreign conflicts.

It's incoherent support for Ukraine, but opposite to Israel, there's no coherent argument other than oppressor oppression, I guess. Like I said, it goes back to framing a single individual as either a hero or villain. So you don't have – they're not thinking about the horrors of war. They're not thinking about mass bodyrors of war they're not thinking about um mass body you know mass graves or anybody dying what they're thinking of is they've been sold that zelinsky is a hero and that putin is a villain and therefore have you seen the meme where it's like um where the the mom says to the kid um no you have to go to war i don't like the president of russia like i don't like who's in charge of russia like that's where we're at now it's american you know at least women on the left are voting for these policies without actually thinking about what it entails whereas for men in the past they would

have had to at least consider it because at that time there was the risk that they would be sent off to war and that's just not going to happen now. Wait, didn't they vote actually on women in the draft like last year? They're not in the draft. Yeah, but didn't they vote on this like last year? So Democrats overwhelmingly want women to be drafted. And when this push happens, Gen Z women freak out on social media and make big trends being like, no! Democrats that are outside of the age of draft. That's's not actual draft registration registration service yeah which they should have to yes yep well actually okay so i don't think that women should have to register for selective

service nor do i think women should be drafted but as long as women are enfranchised then they should if you have the right to vote you should but the people the women that were against the suffrage suffragettes back in the day that were saying no we don't want those same responsibilities there are some there's some you know there's some women out there now that are like repeal the 19th i mean that's like there's some people out there now that are like repeal the 19th. I mean, that's like, there's some people out there that are saying that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's out there being said. There's also so little in the way of when we talk about the way things are now. It's not like women, even, you know, like if we're talking college educated women are getting tons of examples from the media, from Hollywood saying, here's a great example of a happy family.

And here's why marriage is a good thing. Here's why having kids is a good thing. Here's why it's fulfilling. They haven't been given those examples in 20, 30 years. That's not on a mass scale. It's not hard to understand why that sentiment has changed so much. And that's a very, very hard thing to reverse 30 or 40 years of programming in 60 or 70 years of feminism to change people's minds it's not going to happen overnight and to see somebody doing like

think pieces about hey i went and dated a couple of conservative men it's like they don't even see it as a viable option you guys i'm since that uh real quick i'm i'm offended at uh for uh fermi's paradox you guys familiar with Fermi's paradox. You guys familiar with Fermi's paradox? I have heard the name refresh my memory. What is it now? Fermi, the great physicist, he asked, if the universe is so large and expansive, certainly aliens must exist. And if they do, why have we not contacted them? And there's a bunch of propositions. One is the great filter that all civilizations

encounter some kind of devastating event, extinction event. There's the, I forgot the phrases for these, but that civilizations light up and then destroy themselves before. So it's like imagine a bunch of lights on a Christmas tree one at a time. They're never actually existing at the same time to communicate. They grow and then they die off like any other organism. He never proposed that, and I'm not saying this to insult women, but maybe he did. But I would argue it as the natural consequences of evolution that allow a life form to become intelligent and technologically advanced will destroy it as they pursue things antithetical to their own survival. So, for instance, sounds like we need another variable in Drake's equation with with humans. We we like women. Women can see more colors than men because women were more likely to be gathering fruits and berries and veggies. So women can become something called a tetrachromat

where they can actually see more colors than a man can see. They have four rods and cones. In a man, the same genetic component would result in colorblindness. So things like this result in humans making virtual reality video games to effectively gratify themselves to. One of those proposals, of course, I do think he does propose that is a society naturally grows towards liberation. We are fat. We are lazy. We we've eliminated threats and we no longer have a need to pursue things that expand and make humans more successful and interplanetary. That is, all species make it to the point where they become fat and happy and then just isolate themselves in masturbatory machines.

In the example you're saying, though, you know, like just logistically, part of the reason for the increasing obesity in the united states is the change in our diet i know that's not what you're saying about fat and happy but i don't i don't think it is well well the diet certainly changed since the 40s and 50s people have two so it's not it's not just i don't think it's i don't think it's completely attributable to a more sedentary lifestyle but obesity increased at the end of the 90s and into the 2000s, indicating that the internet was actually the principal reason for the rise of obesity. Two things could be happening at the same time. Well, so if there was a change in our diet,

what dietary change happened at the end of the 90s that caused a significant increase in obesity? You know, I'm not a food science expert, so I can't go back to what's going, you know, what new chemicals or new, not necessarily chemicals, but new foodstuffs were introduced into our processed food stream. But there's much, you know, food's changed. It has. And I do think that contributes to chronic illness. But I think one of the principal causes of obesity is that you used to have to walk to the store, you used to have to walk to work.

Man, when I was 20, when I was 20 years old, good luck, you call your friend on the cell phone, he doesn't answer. When I was a kid, and obviously most people listening know this, you'd go to your friends, let's knock on the door,

if they didn't answer, you didn't see them. Then we got cell phones when we were teenagers, and I could text my friend to figure out where he was. Couldn't go to your friends, let's knock on the door. If they didn't answer, you didn't see them. Then we got cell phones when we were teenagers and I could text my friend to figure out where he was. Couldn't go on the internet though. So I still had to go out and do things to meet up with people and have conversations. Once we got ubiquitous internet with the iPhone, things started to go remote. We started communicating while sitting down, ordering food while sitting or sitting down. Now we have delivered to us by Uber. Right. I would agree with you. We've removed walking from

the equation. This is another interesting component of this. Have you noticed that people look younger today than they did in the 90s? Less sun. Exactly. So people ask that question. How come on Seinfeld they all look like they're in their 40s? But I think Elaine was like 28 and George was 30. And it's George's 30. I think. Yeah, I think 30 or 32. George was 30? Was he 30 then? Yeah, I think 30 or 32. Jerry was like 30 or 32. I could be wrong. I think it might have been 35.

But they do look like they're in their mid to late 40s relative to us. It's because we don't go outside anymore. So less skin damage. I mean, look, I've spent a lot of time in clubs and not going outside because of my music career and stuff. People find out my age and they're like, no. Jerry was 30. George was 31 when the show started. What is the meme?

It's like Danny Glover was 38 in Lethal Weapon when he decided he was too old for this shit. Yeah, I'm too old for this shit. Look, the best shape that I was ever in was at a point in time when I didn't have a car. And I had to walk to get to work and to do shopping, right? Because it kept me more. And at that time, I was working a job on my feet. I wasn't working in an office or anything like that. But the need to get up and move around meant that all of the things that got you your food,

that got you everything that you needed in life had to be actually walked to achieve, which keeps you in better shape than if you're driving to get everywhere. Yeah. I think that those two factors combined are both pushing it in the wrong direction. Well, yeah. Also, that's why people are scared to knock on doors now. Now all you do is you send the person the message from the driveway, I'm here.

Nobody has to actually get up the courage to go and knock on someone's door now. Adam Smith superchatted the point I was getting to that the great filter is feminism. Like for us, the thing that's stopping us, like who largely opposes Elon Musk? It's women. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars and create interplanetary, you know, whatever. He wants to get out waste, fraud and abuse. And it is overwhelmingly women that are angry with Elon Musk. go to these protests and you're going to see mostly women she's like they're like we need the extra stuff in the government to keep people safe and we shouldn't go to mars

because that sounds dangerous so you're saying we got to bring bears back apparently women prefer the bears i don't know that's a win-win everybody agrees all right go to the zoo glad we could uh settle all that i suppose answered all the questions all in one night solved solved we figured i mean what do you get but honestly statistically though you're gonna have to argue for the the uh the occurrence of civilization civilizations where uh reproduction is asexual or through just— there are some organisms even on Earth that don't require two sexes to procreate. So given enough, an infinite example, an infinite amount of civilizations, there would be situations where there wouldn't be that bifurcation that would be a filter.

We got time for one more segment. So let's continually offend and make everybody angry. I ran this poll on X. What penalty should Carmelo Anthony face? For those who are not familiar, you must live in Iraq. But for those that are, for those that aren't, this is the story of the high school students and Carmelo Anthony stabbed Austin Metcalf, killing him. And this has been pretty contentious in the media. So without going into what the story is and the finer details of actually what happened there, I asked X, what penalty should Carmelo Anthony face? 42% said the death penalty. 32.2% said life in prison.

18.7% said 25 years. 6.9% said less than 25 years. There was a total of 38,943 votes since the posting of this. I find it fascinating that nearly half is calling for the death penalty for Carmelo Anthony. Now, it's off the table. He's a minor, so he cannot receive life or the death penalty. But I did think that was particularly interesting considering the factors of the case. However, I do bring this up because I was thinking about it.

I changed my mind on the death penalty. I proposed this early on. Here's what we could do. Have the death penalty. I proposed this early on. Here's what we could do. Have the death penalty. Someone is charged with a capital offense and they're duly convicted. Let's say Kamala Harris is the prosecutor. We then have, after the conviction, a secondary independent investigation of the prosecutor from a different jurisdiction under a different budget umbrella and whatever to investigate that office with full access to documents, all communications, all donations, and determine if there was any impropriety. And if there is none, then the death penalty is.

So you're talking about you're proposing not just a judicial review, but also a review of how they were elected and things like that? No. So let's say John Smith is accused of killing a child. Okay. Capital offense. Kamala Harris is the prosecutor. Got it. She says, I want the death penalty for this man for killing a child.

Got it. She gets a conviction. A secondary independent investigatory body will then launch an investigation of the prosecution and the police work. They'll have full right to access all documents. Okay. In the event documents are destroyed, obfuscated, or in the event documents are obfuscated, destroyed, evidence from their case is removed, the death penalty is removed from the table. In the event that we uncover intentional deception, then those individuals will also be sentenced, will be charged with a capital offense. So a prosecutor that intentionally seeks the death penalty for an individual, knowing the individual is either

innocent or withholds exculpatory evidence, is now subject to a capital offense charge themselves, and they could too face the death penalty okay withholding evidence is one thing but how can they know that the individual is is in is innocent um because that would be withholding evidence you're so either one of those it's like there's a there's a in the event a prosecutor is like i know this guy didn't do it but how would they know that? They'd have to have evidence that they would have to have exculpatory evidence to know that. So, right. So it's two phrasings of a similar thing. Okay.

In the event they are withholding evidence, exculpatory evidence, or then I guess the point was if they're wrongfully prosecuting the individual. Okay. And secondary investigation. Even if the prosecutor feels someone's innocent but doesn't know it for sure, their duty is to go forward with the prosecution. All I'm trying to do is they need the leeway to be able to do that. But if they have concrete evidence that they're charging someone or if they're withholding evidence that is exculpatory, yeah, I would agree. That can't be allowed.

And then would you agree that that individual should face a capital offense felony and face the death penalty themselves? I can see the basis for that. Meaning that somebody then would have to try them? Yep. Okay. And then they get reviewed on their review?

Indeed they do. In much the same way that I feel that someone who files a false rape charge should be subject to legal repercussions that are similar to the charges they've alleged against somebody. One of the unique things about the United States is you can take a case to court and both parties have to pay their own bills in other countries if you if you want to sue someone and you lose you have to pay their court fees which is really which is it's bad for poor people right it's it's really bad for poor people to do that because you know you end up with big companies and stuff like that really beating the crap out of poor people. But you have a less litigious society. And one of the big problems that people, like across different lifestyles and stuff here in the U.S., they say that we're a too litigious society.

And that's a part of the reason why costs are what they are, why it's a big deal. I do want to stress this as we're in the Carmelo Anthony story. Next week, we're going to be doing a full debate on self-defense. And it's not just about Carmelo Anthony, because I understand a lot of people are like, we get it, we get it. But I really want to discuss the Ahmaud Arbery case. Are you familiar with Ahmaud Arbery and the McMichaels? So I tweeted just recently, Free Travis and Gregory McMichael and William Bryan. They were wrongly convicted and are facing life in prison over the death of Ahmaud Arbery, for which the court actually exonerated them. They perhaps might face a lesser charge of some sort, but not life in prison. And so I'd like to see conservatives focus on something we can

actively, you know, positively affect. I will say, guys, I say this with as much passion as I can. David Toronto, you are wrong. He says Carmelo was not invited. He was in a place he shouldn't have been. Bad analogy that met last night. I say this with utmost sincerity to all of you, please, for the love of all that is holy, read the police report. Carmelo Anthony was friends with a member of the Memorial High School track team whose initials are EP, who identified him to the police. Carmelo Anthony did not flee the scene. He remained at the track. And when he was approached by police, had his hands in the air saying, I was protecting myself. This is not a justification of anything he did. But I am flabbergasted, my friends, by how many people on X and on YouTube

do not know the facts of the case and are calling for the death penalty for this kid. Why was he under the tent? He was friends with EP, a Memorial High School track member who identified him to the police. They asked him to. He was there. I don't know where he was under. It wasn't an enclosed tent. It was a gazebo. It was thunderstorming. It had begun to rain. And it was probably and the police said by the time they arrived, it was torrential downpour. That's why he was under the tent. They shouldn't have fought. He shouldn't have stabbed the guy. Probably going to get manslaughter or potentially that shouldn't have brought a knife to a school. All of these things matter. The point is, I'm seeing a lot of people who did not read the police report advocating for the death penalty, which does not apply in this regard, nor does first degree murder. Call for the guy to go to prison, call him a scumbag, call him everything you want. But I am imploring you to read the police report and stop basing your view on this off of the incorrect scuttlebutt that's going around on X. I'll leave it at that because

we don't need to reignite the whole debate on that issue. But right, we're going to do a big debate on self-defense and these questions will likely come up next week. Who's going to be on that? So far, we're having Andrew Branca, the self-defense attorney. His assessment was that it's not self-defense because you cannot use a knife when you are being grabbed. There are questions about the case that have been completely omitted from the public discourse. That is, he wasn't in a private area. He wasn't trespassing. The high school students from Memorial had no authority to remove him from the tent and force him to go into the rain.

Carmelo was friends with someone by the initials of EP, who was a Memorial Track member. There's two verbal declarations by Carmelo Anthony. First, touch me and see what happens. He was then touched. There was an escalation of verbal altercation after that. Carmelo Anthony then said, punch me and see what happens. He was then grabbed to be removed, and that's when he stabbed Austin Metcalf. I am not saying he was right. Argue that's murder, whatever you want. My point is, all of these facts are being omitted from public discourse on social media. So Andrew Broncos, I think he made the point that self-defense may be argued in that 130 pound guy surrounded by four other dudes threatening to get physical with him.

He feared for his safety. His assessment was you can't use a knife when someone's trying to remove you. But there are other questions that's not being brought up by the right in this regard, such as they're they're they're saying he was trespassing. Incorrect. They're saying he wasn't invited. Incorrect. He was friends with EP. This is in the police report. They're saying that they politely asked him to leave. This is incorrect. OK, the initial ask may have been polite, but certainly got right on that. It got beyond it. Why was Carmelo Anthony there? The police report states because it was raining. So you have to understand that what we're dealing with is. He should have brought a knife there. We all agree. Carmelo Anthony went under the tent because it was either lightly raining or about to rain. Some of the reports indicate it was heavily raining. He's friends with one of those track members. He may have said no. EP, whatever the person's name, we don't know the actual name,

it's redacted, but it's EP, is his friend. And that's why he didn't want to leave. Also, they were basically telling him to go stand in the rain. That is not to say that anything is justified, but this is all going to come up in the trial. And everything we're seeing on social media is glaring over all of these facts. Someone mentioned to me, Tim from 2020 would not call for the exoneration or the release of the McMichaels or William Bryan. And I pointed out in the court case for Ahmaud Arbery, it was revealed they did nothing wrong. They were convicted because there was an interpretation by the jury as to whether or not in in felony or misdemeanor cases, you have a right to citizens arrest people. That is, the prosecution agreed with the defense. Ahmaud Arbery was a suspected burglar. The police did put out a warning to all of the residents that Ahmed Arbery

was the suspect in a string of burglaries. When Ahmed Arbery was then later spotted in the neighborhood after a gun shortly after a gun had been stolen from a vehicle, the McMichaels rushed to their vehicles, called 911 and sought to pursue. They were informed by police not to pursue. This was not a factor in their guilt, in their conviction. William Roddy Bryan saw them chasing him and started to film. He is now in prison for life, accused of being an accomplice to murder, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment simply for filming the guy. This this case is completely wrong. We didn't learn these things until the trial. They put these people in prison for life.

It's a tragic story. They should not have pursued Ahmaud Arbery. The police told them not to do it. But the question was not whether they were allowed to pursue. The question was, under Georgia law, do you have a right to commit a citizen's arrest if you are not a witness to the crime? As the law was construed, misdemeanors, no felonies. Yes. But the judge instructed the jury to decide for themselves and not to interpret the law as he should have. The jury then said, we're just going to say you can't citizens arrest people unless you watch it happen. So felony burglary suspect, police told the McMichaels this is the guy we're looking for

because they didn't witness the burglary. They had no right to pursue. That's why they were convicted on all counts. Those people should not be in prison anymore. And conservatives should be behind their release. Now, I understand why it's not going to happen for the same reason people criticized Ben Shapiro and freeing Derek Chauvin, all that would do is shatter public support for Trump because people don't understand these things. But the last thing I'll say on this once again, not a minute goes by in this story that I don't see someone completely incorrect as to what happened, arguing for whatever reason. So I'm imploring all of you,

just pull up the police report, read it yourself. There's like, I think, seven or eight different officers. Their body camera footage all exists. It's all going to come out in the court case. And I don't know what's going to happen. I think it's likely, I think it's strong possibility of manslaughter. Plea agreement seems very likely. First-degree murder may stand on felony murder charges. That is, he brought a knife to a school. You can't do that. Second-degree murder, if they negotiate with the prosecution, the prosecution tries to lower it down in some way. But first-degree murder without the felony murder rule would imply that he went to that school with the intent or to the tent with the intent to kill Austin Metcalf, which I don't think anybody

could argue. I don't think anybody's saying that that was the intent. But people actually on X are saying that. They're saying he went there with the intent, its first degree. He premeditated it. Some have said that the statement he gave was premeditation. We're going to have this debate on Friday. But my point is just, guys, read the police report. Read the police report, OK? Condemn the guy to prison or whatever you want. But it is rather terrifying to see, you know, I think it's going to come down 20,000 people calling for the death penalty. We certainly haven't seen.

And I would say that's that's premature because he deserves a right to a trial. And it's going to come out to whether or not his response was proportional to the threat that he faced for a reasonable person. And so that's going to have to get hashed out. I we can't you know, you can't be voting on a poll like that until you know what's happening. And so anybody, you know, it's the reason you've got to let the trial happen. The reason I ran the poll is because I've seen endless walls of text from prominent conservatives calling for the death penalty. When they announced that the death penalty and life were off the table because he was 17, I saw nothing but outrage from tons of people. So I said, I wonder what the actual proportion

is going to be of at least the people who follow me as to whether or not this should be the penalty. And 42% want the death penalty in this circumstance. So I do agree with Matt Walsh, however. He said that Carmelo didn't fear for his life. He felt disrespected. I think he's absolutely correct in that regard. Carmelo was sitting under a tent. They told him to get out. It was raining or going to rain. And he's like, I ain't doing that. And I'm not backing off. And so that's why things escalated. And so I think a strong argument from the prosecution is going to be the only reason Carmelo pushed back and escalated this conflict was because he felt disrespected by these guys for them having told him to get out of their tent. We'll see. We're going to go to your chats, my friends, and and see what y'all have to say. So smash that like button, share the show with everyone, you know, join us at Timcast dot com.

Become a member of our discord server so you can have these discussions and debate everybody in the Discord server. And I'll tell you what. May 3rd is the first Culture War live stage event. Think Kill Tony meets Jubilee. I can't watch the Jubilee videos, guys. They do the red flags. And then when they do— Oh, that's the—

The thing? They have red flags. And so everybody they do, they have red flags. And so everybody plays musical chairs. In a circle, right? Yeah. You run to sit down and debate Charlie Kirk. But no one actually gets a chance to have a real conversation. The moment someone starts making good points, everybody raises the flag and they go, the flags have been raised and you are out.

It's like, okay. And I was watching Eleazar Perez debating and he was using the Socratic method. So it means he has to ask a series of questions. And after after a few minutes, they raise the flags because these people did not understand what Eleazar was doing. So they pulled him out of the debate. And I was like, that sucks. So our idea is stage debate show live audience members of the Timcast discord. You come up, sit down at the table, and if you're debating well, you stay. And if you make a good point, you stay. And then after a while, we decide. So we're going to do a minimum amount of time for you to be able to debate. And then we're going to do personal choice extensions if we think you're debating very, very well, making really interesting points. Then we're going to say, thank you.

We're going to bring in the next person to come up and join the debate and share their thoughts on this, and then we're all going to have the conversation. I'm not sure if we've confirmed Alex Stein for the first event, but I think he's going to be there, because we need someone who isn't afraid to yell at someone to get off the stage for being terrible. Oh, yeah. Yeah, he won't have a problem there. But another idea Callan had was that we're going to get a bunch of ones. We're going to get little signs that are D20s, and one side is a 1 and one side is a 20,

and then you can hold up the 1 or the 20 at any point if you agree or disagree. And we also encourage heckling and booing. We want the audience to boo people when they say dumb things. So if I'm up there and I'm talking about Carmelo, you can boo me the whole time. It will be fun. I am looking forward to it. So that first pilot event is May 3rd, and it's Timcast member exclusive. I'm not sure if we're sold out already, but we're going to do it once a month.

And if this first one goes up really well, we're hoping that we can do a bigger venue with a couple hundred seats once a month and then once a week. I would love to do this every Saturday night. And I think the more successful it is, the more prominent personalities show up. And, you know, I think we'll do really, really well with maybe call it debate dome. Mixed like Thunderdome with debates. Everybody's like, you know, crawling over the the stuff. You don't need Master Blaster. Ultimate debate challenge.

UDC. Get in the pool. Debate night. And we were even talking about this. Like, if it is successful, we could actually have undercards. We could actually treat it like MMA. Where it's like, we call it an undercard, but it's like the opening act. Sure.

We give an hour to a few people to debate a lesser issue before the main show starts i think that'd be really fun um and if we could do it once a week that'd be fantastic now the other thing is this is big you guys because the culture war podcast is averaging on fridays around the 10th biggest live stream in the country nice so it's already doing really really well as the solitary in person in studio show. And we're doing several hundred thousand viewers per episode now. So I think we're at like three or four hundred thousand viewers with the live show component. the sporadic nature of random personalities acting up and saying wild things, the audience interaction, and the opportunity for individuals to be involved, I think will be a bigger draw. Can the audience stream? What do you mean?

Can they have their phones out? Oh, yeah, absolutely. Can I just tell you everyone? I would say maybe right now. We might have to prerecord it. Okay. Right. So because of the way

the the studios are are operate at these theaters we might not be able to live stream from from the theater venue okay so it might have to be like recorded on a saturday and then published sunday night or something yeah in which case film but you probably can't stream it right uh and the issue is typically the venues have have policies on these things because they charge money for that stuff so we looked at a venue that was like a thousand seats 30 grand to do it okay i wanted to but we don't know how it's going to go so you know sean frasick who's helping put this together said let's just do a 40 seat small pilot event and see how it goes so we can learn how to do it right and make a good show before we try to go to a big theater and he's right he's right. He's right.

They call it an origination fee? I don't know. Is that what it's called? Well, they're venues. Some venues, when we're playing shows, you're not allowed to film anything on stage and stuff because they're like, oh, well, you know, we're going to charge you, blah, blah, blah. And they do it themselves.

They say it's because we film at our theater, and if you want filming done, we have to do it, which makes it really expensive so that yeah uh the venue we are using does do this but it's a thousand bucks it's a it's a smaller venue that's yeah it's reasonable it's super easy for us to do and i think it's going to be hilarious i honestly i just i'm looking forward to the booing the booing i like you've got this douglas uh murray dave smith debate and they're both talking i want to hear those those people that watch that rogan show i want to hear the active audible boos and cheers you know i want to know who got more booze and

cheers the true stoics will win out with the ones who can ignore the booze when they're getting booed yeah but anyway guys why are you booing anyway yeah exactly it's gonna be funny like the audience interaction is gonna be epic so um join the timcast discord server at timcast.com may 3rd is when it begins but uh next week we're doing the debate it's gonna start at noon we're gonna do noon to two so that we're uh solidly in the rumble lineup because that's just it's just it's easier to do it that way. Sick. Yeah, it's going to be fun. All right, here we go. Jesus Chris says, I'm not surprised

Mr. Satan already committed stolen valor by claiming he defeated Cell. I educated BrickSuit on this. I had no idea about the lore of Cell, so I'm a little versed in it now, but no, you know,

it's just not my wheelhouse, not my wheelhouse. I did a, like a five-minute rundown of Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Z. It was longer than five minutes. I heard it from in here. It was longer than five minutes.

I could probably run through the entire history of Dragon Ball into Dragon Ball Z. This I have no doubt. The Red Ribbon Army. There's a difference between Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z? Yes. I did not know that. Don't break the seal, Phil.

There's only 15 minutes left. Yeah, so... He's a showman. He can do what he wants. In Japan, they have... I don't know what the name of the myth is, but it's a monkey that has a stick that can extend and he flies on a cloud.

And they have a bunch of different versions of the story. Dragon Ball was basically one of these. Monkey kid with a tail or whatever. And then it turned into, you know, aliens and time travel. Shooting lasers from your hands. So, I don't know why kids really loved that, but they did.

They, like... Kids love lasers. That's right. You know what I think it was? It was the idea that you could train in martial arts and learn how to shoot lasers. So the kids loved things where it's like, maybe I could shoot lasers too. I mean, that is sick, right? Yeah.

What kid doesn't want to shoot lasers? Let's be honest. I know. I get that. All right, let's go for some super chits. Alpha Turkey says chicken jockey. Dude, those videos of the Minecraft movie are nuts. Season one with the actual chicken that they brought in.

Yeah. Did they really? That's what I was thinking. Real chicken in. Yeah. You know, I got hope for Gen Z yet. It's tracking really well for week two right now as well. I love it.

So, look. The 2000s was the era of shenanigans. And the 2010s, millennials, what are you doing? If Gen Z is going to make the 2020s the era of shenanigans, let's go, baby. Millennials did planking in 2011 and then just stopped everything. Oh, baby. Millennials did planking in 2011 and then just stopped everything. Oh, awful. But what I love about that is just like the total contradiction between the organic response for the Minecraft movie and the lack of anything similar type of enthusiasm for Snow White. Yeah. I love the dichotomy between the two.

You know, Disney trying to force it down your throat. Nobody wanted it. And then along comes this Minecraft movie. And I hadn't really even heard a lot. I'm sure people who were into it knew it was coming. The general population may not have heard anything about it. And all of a sudden you see these videos, people going crazy

inside the theaters and the chickens being brought in and just going absolutely bonkers over that. And I love that energy in the cinema. I heard that King of Kings has surpassed Snow White in pre-sales. Is that true? Yeah. They did like 14.5 million in pre-sales.

It's coming out over Easter. I thought I already came out. No, no. King of Kings comes out over Easter weekend, I believe. That makes sense. Otherwise it wouldn't be pre-sale tickets,

but Angel Studios studios i believe they bought that one uh it was not filmed by angel studios but it's gonna do really good numbers it's good to see right now there's a oh no it came out today okay april 11th okay wow it's already it's so uh it came out today it's already done 2 million in box office sales and 14-something in pre-sales. Yeah. It's a Charles Dickens book. Yeah. Starring Mark Hamill. I know. This is crazy.

Right? Mark Hamill, Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman, Forrest Whitaker, Ben Kingsley, Oscar Isaac. I mean, look, regardless of what you think, it's crazy to see these celebrities doing literally the story of Jesus Christ. Apparently, Oscar Isaac was in a Christian ska band when he was a kid. Wow. Christian ska band. I mean, right now there's a bit of a revolution when it comes to faith-based films. The Chosen, The Last Supper is doing

really, really well at the box office because they keep releasing a couple episodes at a time. And last weekend, actually, Snow White lost to The Chosen at the box office. It was Minecraft, A Working Man, Chosen, and then then snow white which is probably not going to even crack 100 million here in the u.s to get his name to 80 yet shane h wilder says

look i know that the children yearn for the minds but i don't see why they need unemployment i will say this when my dad passed away we were offered a 250 service to lock his ssn down interesting yeah elon found babies were getting unemployment well like those babies didn't have jobs you know and loans yes and loans hey babies need loans you know what i think it could be is expensive someone's stealing the identity of babies but i also think it's probably typos in the uh date it's so yeah i was i was filling out a form of the dmv a couple years ago when i was getting my license in west virginia and i put where it's so yeah i was i was filling out a form of the dmv a couple years ago when i was getting my license in west virginia and i put where it's a date of birth i put today's date and then they pointed it out to me and i was like oh crap and like if we had put that in there you'd have been

born today and i was like i just i thought it was today's date i don't know i messed that up i wasn't paying attention so i saw a bunch of people actually talking about that and saying that the babies were them they were on there because they were getting money from parents that had passed or something like that. Is there any credence to that or is that just totally – Unemployment? You can get social security benefits as a survivor. So in the case of social security benefits – We're talking about unemployment.

Right. Separate thing. Okay. That's separate thing. Okay. Cool. All right. More super chats. What do we have here back health 101 says we aren't jewish we are anti-israel killing innocent children tim are you retired or something

what does that mean i think look you know that's it i'm 100 pro you said you're retiring though you said you're retiring do all my balls right exactly so that's what they're talking about they're talking about your own post there like i don't know that they are terrible idea are you retired you say you're retiring irl i'm i'm just i'm just pro israel now 100 i've decided um israel can do no wrong um we should give israel all the money they want whenever they want it you need to get like an athletic jersey so you can have like the real you know like make it i'm gonna it's like pro israel i'm gonna get this sweater remade with it as the israeli flag and i'll tell you why it's because the anti-israel people are so insufferable that i just want to troll them and just support israel because of it and the reason is my actual

position is more is much more aligned with like dave smith in that um U.S. should secure its border. It should find jobs for the young people. It should there should be houses for Gen Z. I don't know or care about Israel. I don't want to be involved in their conflicts. I understand what's going on in Gaza is bad. I understand October 7th is bad. I hear you. Sudan is bad, too. China is bad, too. The Uyghur Muslims are bad, too. Partition was bad. All these things are bad. They're not America. So when I say things like this, but the anti-Israel crowd still won't shut up. And like Kim Iverson says, Tim Pool is pro-Israel. And I'm like, all right, I am now. Screw it. Let's roll, baby. I'll give a call to AIPAC tomorrow and say just as long as it pisses these people off, I'm for it now. Chat away.

I love it. Chat away. You know, that's why I was arguing the joke was that Nick Fuentes was an Israeli op. They took it seriously, mind you. They're not smart people. Because he has done more to create support for Israel than probably any other person. Like, you go on X and you see a green frog say you're a jew so you don't count and you're like wow i hate these people like i why would i want to agree with them on anything

now me i'm not a moron so i'm like i don't care what these people say i hear what the pro is real people have to say it really just comes down to me being like i don't know man i don't want to be involved in any of that stuff let's just let's just fix america okay but these people don't want to shut up. So let's just, all right, Israel, let's get an Israel flag in here. There you go. I would die if you put an Israel flag up behind you. You would die? Well, I love laughter.

Like a sign that says, I heart Mossad. I'm like, is that the intention? Is the intention of the Groypers to make you hate them so much that you want to support Israel? Because that's what they're doing. I'll just tell you. All right. Big Country Breakfast says,

I think if everyone on camera started switching hats and then they cut to Tim one time without a hat on at all, I'd lose it. Who was switching hats? What's going on? I don't know. Nobody was switching hats. What are you talking about?

You're crazy. All right. You're acting like your mother melinda says fellas simply get involved civically or with the cause you believe in instant answer to the worldview issue of potential dating prospects duh go to church go to church oh what do we have here bad mouth bandit once again says i work for a cookware manufacturer in Wisconsin. We were told today that we are expecting a 45% increase in work within the next three months because our competitors do all their work in China. Awesome. Let's go. There's a skateboarding news source, and they posted, despite the tariffs, Tim Pool and Richie Jackson Pro Model boards still only $55.

And it's funny because, like, it's a very woke industry. But, yes, we make our skateboards in America, so our prices have not moved at all. You make your board in China, they're going to cost you $200. Ice cold. And that's most of the industry, so they're screwed. Minimad says, Tim, can you make a cast dates dating app ten dollar app no gold no platinum just upfront price have different groups joined to swipe on like interests no content gals no scammers no bots it exists it's called the timcast discord

did you know that people have gotten married and i just heard that yeah yeah i do think it's only a couple of people but there are a lot of relationships that have formed there are people who have started is three three different like so six people total found each other and got married. It's magic. And there are people who started bands together, started podcasts together. Look, man, the discord is the digital place to hang out every day. And that was the intention of creating it. So you go to Timcast dot com. You click join us. You sign up, you get in the Discord server. And then at any point throughout the day, you have an active community talking about the news and you are in the Culture War fray.

You are here with us actively participating. And the best part is these seats for all the events we're doing with Culture War are going to be free. First come, first serve for members. So it's free if you're a $10 a month member, we get it. So it's like we hope that this thing becomes sustainable through membership because people want to be members so they can have these debates, have these conversations. And then we do these live. These events are effectively live member meetups as well as show opportunities for members to get on stage and get exposure. There's a lot of people out

there that I know are good podcasters and good debaters and smart that don't know how to get into the space. So we're going to bring you up on stage and this is your chance. And if you're bad and nothing we can do for you, Alex Stein will yell at you. It's going to be fun. I'm so excited for this. I have no no words I want to do it every week every Saturday theater event a thousand seats walking out on stage

all the members showing up before the show starts we have catering we have an opening conversation or stand-up comedy or something they can get an audience for that ridiculous slap fighting that goes on this would be better than that this would be a lot better than that

and then maybe maybe we even do um you know we could theoretically do it live uh i'll talk to the rumble crew and maybe they want to have like the live show broadcast and we make something big i think i think it'll be a big show jubilee is huge but i don't think you get to the core of the issues the way they do it so no, they get like 20 million views on these videos. It's fantastic. I just think we can make it more interactive and more fun and more substantive if we have a direct hand in the event. No, if the debate comes to a draw, then they slap fight at the end.

Yeah. Tie break. Or we have slap as the opening performance. Yes. Slap is on Rumble. Is it? Yeah. Oh.

I think it's Rumble exclusive. I'm not a fan of it yeah i mean either it's like whoever goes first wins it's just like intentional concussion it's just like it's whatever that's a total digression here let's not get into that we probably don't know i just whoever goes first wins i mean i don't know it's like it's like when cartman would rochambeau first i kick you in the nuts then you kick me in the nuts there's ever standing wins it's like all right all right what do we got valkyrie says so what i'm hearing is the root of most of our problems is single women so the solution is mandatory marriage obviously hey hey tucker carlson remember when he said it he was one of the best bits he's ever done somebody uh, some Australian woman was like, you believe in, you know, racist, great replacement theory or whatever. And he's like, what?

And he was like, what are you talking about? And she's like, you said white Americans. I never said white Americans. I said Americans. And he was like, the interests of black Americans are the same as the interests of white Americans. What are you talking about? And then he actually, I think it was on his show. He said, I'm not racist.

My problem is not with black people. It's with liberal women. Liberal women. It's funny because he's like, yeah, I have no problem admitting that. Let's grab some more. What do we have? What is this? Cobor says, hey, Tim, what do you think of instead of the death penalty, we do paid entertainment of inmates that are guilty beyond a doubt in gladiator fights with possible freedom through fights to go to the island.

No. No. No, but I did rethink my position on it largely because I was thinking about South Carolina. We didn't get to the story, but they just did another firing squad thing. And I was like, that's interesting. How do I feel about that? Oh, the people of South Carolina voted for this system to be in place. And there were protesters saying, don't kill in my name.

And I thought, well, it's not really in your name. You're allowed to oppose it. But the system of governance that we have wants the death penalty for the worst offenders. The concern then is my concern is what if an innocent person is put on death row because of corrupt individuals or by accident? We can't really alleviate the accidents, but just because accident happens doesn't mean we throw in a system. So perhaps the solution is. Safeguard through independent investigations to prevent malicious prosecution, death penalty cases, because there have been cases like this where certain individuals who I will not name, for, let's just say, I'll just not name them, withheld evidence that was considered exculpatory on death row inmates,

meaning they could have been released had this information been released by the prosecutor. I think that person should be charged with a crime. Agreed. That would be a tremendous safeguard where I view it as a compromise on we may still have innocent people on death row. And that is a serious problem. But at least we eliminate to a great degree corrupt and evil prosecutors like Kamala Harris from being able to go after people in this way. We create that law and that system that can prevent it. And it's a safeguard.

We don't want innocent people dying. So I don't know. There's another thing, too. Every time the death penalty comes up, there are invariably, I've seen people online saying, I don't want to pay for those people to continue living in prison. And they say that without the realization that in some cases, depending upon how old the person is, the cost of incarcerating them for their natural life expectancy is actually

less than the mandatory appeals that come with the review of a death penalty case. So some of these things, if you actually go to the death penalty, you counterintuitively end up spending more money on the review of the death penalty than if you would simply put them in life in prison without parole. Yep. Well, my friends, that does it for Friday night. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Thank you all so much for hanging out.

It's going to be a lot of fun once we get this thing up and running. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Briggs, did you want to shout anything out? Yeah. Um, I just want to say for all of you people out there who are in the country illegally, the Supreme court has ruled that you must register with the government. I'm brick suit. I love walls. Make sure you register.

Guys. If you want to follow me, Instagram and Twix at Brett Dasavik on both of those platforms you should come check out pop culture crisis we are live five days a week monday through friday 3 p.m eastern standard time which is new pacific on youtube join us there it's a lot of fun i am phil that remains on twix i'm phil it remains official on instagram the band is all that remains our new record dropped on january 31st it's called Anti-Fragile. You can check it out on all streaming platforms and on YouTube. Don't forget the left lane is for crime.

We got clips coming up throughout the weekend. And, you know, I don't know. I might pop in in the morning and do some shows on the weekends now because I got nothing else to do. So thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you when we see you.