Timcast IRL - Russian ATTACK On NATO Country THWARTED, WW3 Fears Debated w/ James Klug

Episode Date: September 9, 2026

On this episode Tim & Ian are joined by James Klug to discuss A thwarted Russian attack on NATO The US & Canada trade war escalating Tim Pool calling out women crying on camera for clout Female Lindsay Clancy jurors calling out the lone male "hold out" Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere)  Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  James Klug @JamesKlug (everywhere) James Klug is an American conservative political commentator, journalist, and content creator best known for his viral man-on-the-street interviews about politics and culture.

Romanian intelligence reports they stopped a Russian sabotage operation on NATO military targets. And this is a wild claim to make. Because if it's true, this means that Russia made a direct attempt attacking a NATO member. But everybody's kind of keeping the temperature down. Now, of course, the debate rages on over whether or not calling it World War III is warranted. And we have that debate. We have the media simultaneously, various outlets saying, This is World War III.

It is here, especially in Europe and Eastern Europe. But then we have other publications saying, stop calling it World War III. The reality is everybody, just nobody knows. Everybody's got thoughts on when or how it will happen, but nobody really knows because when you look back at history, hindsight is 2020. But should it be true that Russia actually attempted a strike and attack in a NATO member country that could trigger Article 5, which would require other NATO member states, to join in and go to war with Russia.

So far, it doesn't seem like Romania is arguing this is an act of war, but it is still an escalation. And the question that, of course, is how many grains of sand until you have a heap? With the missile incursions into Polish territory, and oh, whoops, Russia made a mistake. We're not going to, you know, think too much about it. With the CIA director meeting in private with Russian intelligence for reasons we don't understand. And now with this, we have.

snowflakes potentially forming an avalanche, but we just don't know when or even if something could kick off. Now, recently we saw Ukraine attack the Iranians in the Caspian Sea as they were supplying Russia with weapons, expanding the conflict, roping in the Iranians into the Ukraine-Russia conflict, which of course brings the Americans in, which we've already kind of been in. And then we're entangled in this Iranian war, which seems to be another quagmire. and our last carrier was pulled out of the Pacific for the first time in generations, and China, of course, is salivating over Taiwan. Then you've got the capture of Maduro and the capitulation of Venezuela and the isolation of Cuba.

We do have conflicts bubbling up all over the world. Maybe it means nothing, but we'll go through those debates. We'll talk about it. Plus, we've got some jurors coming out from the Lindsay Clancy trial outraged that one man would not say she was not guilty. and so she has a mistrial. But apparently they're raising tons of money and they're all very excited about it. We'll talk about that.

Plus, we've got some funny Hunter Biden news, a controversy over Channel 5, allegedly giving him an email list illegally. Now they're claiming they didn't, but others are saying that they did. And then Democrats are actually contemplating Hunter Biden for 2028. Not kidding. They're like, who do we got? Who do we got? I guess John Osoff and AOC.

joining us today to talk about this and of course everything else. We've got James Kluge. What's going on, brother? Amen. Thank you so much for having me. My name is James Kluge. I do political street conversations over at YouTube.com slash James Klu. You guys am very happy to be here.

Thank you so much for having me. Of course, the boys are hanging out. Big pleasure, man. It feels like the moment in history when there's this mechanic in like ancient Greek play is called the Deus X Machina. It means the day of the machine, the God and the Machine. God from the Machine. Yeah, and it seems like AI might be that guy.

that like we pulled Excalibre out of the stone and we have the solution to the problem. I just got to wield it. Learn to wield that thing. I just told Ian about the open AI. What is it? They don't even have it. It's an internal model that did some crazy mathematics. And now he thinks that the world is ending.

No, no. It's a reference to in storytelling, you as the creator of this universe can make things happen to fit your narrative. Or in the play, it would be like the world's falling apart. Everyone's losing at the very end. A big machine literally would fly on stage and be like, I am. God, I am here to solve it, and it would make everything right again. It was a real cheap mechanic.

It means plot armor, basically. Plot armor? It basically means plot armor. Yeah, yeah. Like the world's ending, and then all of a sudden you go, right as the meter is about to strike, another meter hit it out of the sky, and it was gone. You see it in so many American movies, just at the end of the movie where all hope is lost, the thing saves the day.

Well, it feels like that might literally be happening with artificial intelligence. Carter's here. I am here, and yeah, it's getting pretty crazy out there with AI and everything else. But yeah, it's been a great weekend. Glad to have you all. here and glad to be back at it. Tim, let's go. Also, I just want to point out Carter went super sane. I did. You know, this is the

yeah. Put my hair in a man I'm digging the new look, man. Whoa. It's like literally, definitely digging the new look. He's never looked stronger, actually. Indeed. Indeed. I watched an AI video of, it was a Seinfeld thing where George was Krillen and Jerry was Piccolo and he was arguing about

how in mid-transformation he got punched in the face and Jerry was like, why not transforming the car and then come to the fight? It was wild where AI currently at in creating a Seinfeld Dragon Ball parody. It's just, we're going to talk about this because Astra just came out, GPT Astra. And guys, this may shock you, but I was wrong. Now that we've let that settle.

My timeline was way off. I was like, man, in like two years, you'll be able to like go on Disney and say, make me Spider-Man in the Hulk fighting zombies or whatever. No, it's literally right now. The things that GPT Astra can do, Grand Theft Auto 7 will be done in a year. I'm learning a decade, but we'll get into all that. I don't want to go too deep because we got news to talk about, but I appreciate it. Before we get started, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you.

It is keet.io. It's a messaging app. Download it, k-e-e-e-e-t dot I-O-Ford-slash Timcast. I-R-L is a question. Why should your messaging app need to know anything about you? Why do they need your email? Why do they need your phone number? Why do they need your private sensitive data?

It doesn't make sense unless, you know, they're trying to spy on you for some. some reason. Most of us have already accepted that tech companies collect an enormous amount of information, what we click, where we go, what we buy, who we interact with. That information is valuable because your attention is valuable. Keat takes a radically different approach. Keat is a free messaging, file sharing, and video calling app built peer to peer. No centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking, no phone number or email required. Your messages are end-to-end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. So go to k-eet.com.com.com.com.

download it. It's free. Invite one person you trust and start a conversation that belongs to you. Again, free on iOS, Android Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Shout out, thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. And also, don't forget the new show, the Tim Poole show on Rumble and YouTube. Our latest episode was a legal analysis on the Lindsay Clancy verdict. We recorded this as the news was coming in. And of course, we've got two expert lawyers disagreeing on what the outcome should have been. but it was a fantastic conversation. We also have infiltrating the DSA, which are popping off 400,000 views. The show's doing really, really well. I got to be honest, I think people are tired of the anger, the vitriol, and I think most people are kind of just tired of the 24-7 news cycle. So we built an evergreen conversation show at the Tim Pool Show. Men don't need therapy. It's about to crack one million

views. Absolutely incredible. Thank you guys so much for watching. Check it out. Subscribe. Share it if you like it. It's much lower energy. And with that be, said, we're going to talk about the state of the social media today and the need to turn the volume down. Everybody is just increasingly getting crazy here, so we'll talk about that. Before we do, of course, let's talk about where we're getting with this war stuff. We got this report from Reuters. Romanian intelligence service says it prevented Russian sabotage operation. Romania's SRI intelligence service prevented a sabotage operation coordinated by Russia on Romanian territory. As Ukraine's European allies seek to counteract with this.

are Moscow's attempts to destabilize them. European countries blame Moscow for sabotage, cyber attacks, and disinformation targeting supporters of Kiev's war effort. They include an August drone attack at Leipzig-Hall Airport, is it Holly, that ratcheted up tensions between Berlin and Moscow. Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement in sabotage. The Russian embassy in Bucharest did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Now, this is absolutely insane. Russia has shut down the comments. consulate in St. Petersburg, the German consulate. Germany has shut down the Russian consulate. They've accused Russians of drone striking an airport. There is now direct accusations that Russia has launched physical military strikes on NATO countries, including Germany and Romania. The question I suppose is, let me do this. I know everybody gets angry when we put World War Three fears or escalation in the title. But my friends, This is not me being like, hey, let's say World War III because it'll do better and it'll freak people out.

Literally, when you search it on Google, you have conflicting arguments over the state of global conflict. Stop declaring World War III, says Loai Institute. Has World War III already started? Since the New York Times. No, we are not on the eve of World War III, says Asia Times. The Japan Times, are we on the verge of World War III? Here's the hill. World War III is already here.

stop declaring World War III says real clear defense. The Washington Examiner writes, World War III has arrived. Barack reveals secret Israel-Syria talks, warned small military mistake could spark World War III, how World War II could turn into World War. The point is every major publication internationally has some articles saying this is the debate right now.

With Russia attacking Germany, with Russia attacking Romania, with Ukraine striking Iranian shipments to Russia through the Caspian, with the U.S. strike on Venezuela, the capture of Maduro, the isolation of Cuba, with the war in the Persian Gulf, with Iran refusing to back down, and China running sorties over Taiwan. We have conflicts bubbling up from every major world power in nearly every corner of the planet. The question, of course, is legitimate. Are we staring at World War III?

Or are people so tired of clickbait they don't want to recognize? escalation. Finally, is it all really just hubbub and conflicts happen all the time? It's not hubbub. It's the Great War. You call World War I was called the Great War. It started in 1914. It's essentially never ended. It toned down when the Allies won the first time around. They split a bunch of Germany apart. Hitler then comes to power. World War II begins, but it was essentially the Great War continued. He still wanted to take over France. There was animosity from the previous fighting. Now, then the war went cold in the Soviet Union and the Americans pointed weapons at each other for 70 years. And now we're seeing this iteration of that same conflict. It's about Middle Eastern Hegemony. During World War I,

the Ottoman Empire was destroyed by the French and the British, and they set up Israel where it's at. Basically, that's when that began. So they took over Iran in early, between the 20s and the 50s. So that's part of that conflict post-World War I. It's still vying and trying to seize control of the Middle East. It's been going on for about a hundred, since airplanes were invented and we really mastered artillery bombardment. It's opened up a new war. Before, like, World War II, war was kind of a constant in Europe. There was, like, nuclear weapons kind of ended that. That's why we had the Cold War. Europe is the big pain in the balls here. Not, I mean, the Middle East is its own issue, but, like, what's going on in between Russia and Germany? That doesn't really have anything to do

with the Middle East. That has to do with Russia and Germany. These guys are the usual suspects, both World War I and World War II. Russia and Germany were major belligerents in it. But the third part of the equation is the Ottoman Empire longest running out. There are no Ottomans now. 1917, it was broken up. That was over a hundred years ago. The point that I'm making is what's going on now is Europe. There are some people over there that are probably still like, yeah, the Ottoman Empire. Well, we're talking. I mean, I assume so. Here's the point. Here's the point. Guys, guys, guys, war is the natural state of human civilization. I know people don't want to hear it.

They don't like to talk about that. But we grew up in a golden age. The Soviet Union collapsed. The proxy wars were winding down. And we had Henry Kissinger's limited warfare. None of it is good. I'm not saying any of it is good. We want there to not be war.

War is bad. But all of human civilization, there's war nonstop. The periods of the United States, what is it like, 10 years of America's history was not at war? If that. But if you look at every other country on the planet, it's not unique to the United States. No.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. became a global hegemon, dominated everything through economics, the liberal economic order, the new world order, as H.W. Bush said. And we grew up in this golden age of economic expansion in the United States, where we were like, hey, we have these limited wars. War is bad. We don't want it. For about 10 years, we had limited wars, and then we got full-scale invasion. We had it in Desert Storm, don't get me wrong, but the 90s 90s was limited wars, what Henry Kissinger called it. Ian brings it up quite a bit. Then we got full-scale occupation for 20 years with the Bush administration. That period from the fall of the Soviet Union to Bush is an anomaly in world history. For sure. The big question marks right now are the Chinese,

because the Chinese were allied with the Americans during World War II. After the war, there was the Communist Party revolted and took over the country. So that's kind of a question mark. And the Russians now, the Federation is not the Soviet Union. So their behavior is a question mark. And I think a lot of the technocracy that's being fielded out of the CCP with the Davos groups and things like that is a way to prevent a global war to go hot again. We're like if we can pacify the population through technocracy and get people to, you know, come together in a lot of ways. The thing that's, the things that have prevented like global wars has been nuclear weapons

and the liberal economic order. Like those two things have been the biggest reasons why there haven't been major worldwide conflict. The United States and Russia had a bunch of nuclear missiles. pointed at each other. And so it was economics. And basically the world was deciding whether or not it was going to be communism or market capitalism. And market capitalism has made most countries that engage in it, including China, wealthy enough to think that, you know what, it's probably not a great idea to engage in all-out war. For sure. The largest commonly decided stretch in the United States without armed conflict is about seven years. Yeah. So depending on how you like to parse it. What's the definition of armed conflict there?

Like, are we talking just? Because right now we're at war with Iran, but they're like, no, we're not. And so I'm not playing stupid games. Okay, we're clearly at war with Iran. We bloop their leadership. We're occupying the Persian Gulf. We're at war. And they don't want to declare it legally.

I'm not playing stupid semantic games with the government. The world war two years out of 249. Now, I guess, because it's 250, so it's, How long? 22 years out of 250. How long did Vietnam go for? 10 years? 15 at least?

15 to 58 to 73 or something or 72. U.S. invite, I think, I think it's right, advisors went in first before they started sending in a lot of troops. They started, I want to say, let me check to make sure. It was like the French were in there first, and then we sent advisors with guns. It was kind of interesting. I was having a conversation with a couple of guys from Czech Republic a few weeks ago

when I was in Ceuta in Spain. And one of their major concerns was Russia. It was so top of mind. and where the U.S. was positioned, speaking, like where we were, and what our thoughts were about the conflict. And for them, it's a huge deal. And it's a huge deal to all these countries over there. But their main question was, like, you know,

if they end up attacking or doing something like this to a smaller NATO ally, are you guys really going to support sending American men to go fight for that country? To answer your question, 3,500 Marines landed on March 8th, 1965, when Johnson was the president. Okay. So eight years. I thought it was way longer than that. Well, that was when troops officially or when the first Americans were on? When Marines landed.

When Marines landed before they had advisors in there before that, advising the French troops. Yeah. The Russians are badass humans, dude. They're Viking descendants like we are. You know, the Vikings went west and became Britons and then Americans. And the Vikings went east and south and became rivermen of the north. The Russians, the fucking Russians, dude. They're hardcore.

I see why they terrify people. Language. I apologize to all my Russian brethren out there. I'm only trying to build you up. Russians are not descendant from Vikings. Modern Russians are primarily descendants of Slavics. You're talking about the Russe. I'm from

the Rusk. The Keev and Russo are from Ukraine. And the majority of Russians are not descended from Vikings. Modern Russians are primarily descendants of Eastern East Slavic tribes. But they weren't. Ian, correction. I believe

Kiev was the capital of the Russian Empire for some time, right? Thanks. Yes, it was. That's Russians came from, this is what Vladimir Putin was talking about when he sat down with, with Tucker Carlson, the Kiev and Russe were the actual first Russians in Ukraine. That's part of why Russia looks at Ukraine as actual Russia.

Look, Russia lost a soft power battle. That's just it. They lost the soft power battle. The West was gaining influence with Ukraine. That's threatened their natural gas monopoly. The U.S. was courting favor with Ukraine. And at you, real quick. Can I just point out that phil was wrong about that?

I had to fucking divert my energy, dude. Yes, okay, put a bit in it. The point is Ukraine wanted to join the EU because the Schengen zone would allow Ukrainians to freely move out Europe and get jobs, which would dramatically improve their lives. Russia couldn't compete with that. They didn't have the resources. And a lot of Ukrainians don't trust Russia for obvious reasons in their history. So Russia losing the soft power battle decides physical armed conflict, which is the line we say no to. So look, man, if I'm negotiating with somebody.

and I'm winning the negotiation, so you pull out a gun, you're the bad guy. That's just it. Anyway, Ian, make your point. Phil was wrong? Yeah, the Kiev and Roos were descended from Vikings and Eastern Slavs. So what the point of that? You interrupting me there was really annoying, dude. I'm looking, I'm simple about Russians. Yeah, Phil.

You want to look? You want to look at what it says? You read an internet thing and you interrupted me. So, like, chill out. If you really have real data, bring it up. It's as real as anything you look up on the internet. Real shit, apparently. I'm looking at the, I'm looking at the brave search.

Are Russians? You guys, you can stand off. Don't interrupt me with what stuff that you're not sure about just because you read it on the internet. Who has a sloppier take from AI? We have common ancestry with the Russians in some ways. Phil, you were completely wrong. Completely wrong. Yeah, the Kievan Rus, for which are the Eastern Slavs, were before that Vikings.

Oh, okay, right. And the Britain was before Britain were Vikings. Let me just pull this up. Historical consensus indicates the original Rus people were Varangians, Norsemen, Vikings, mostly from modern-day Sweden who traveled down to Eastern Europe, rivers to trade and raid. So ultimately what became the Slavic people

were originally, like, maybe not Vikings not the right word, but from that region. The Eastern Slavic tribes with significant ancestral contributions from Finno, Erich, Turkic, and other local populations. Whoa, look at this. I got to say, like Ian nailed it. A Viking

warrior named Rurik established a ruling dynasty in the 9th century creating the political framework for early East Slavic lands. The Vikings came down, Volga River. That's how they were so dominant in Eastern Europe was through the Volga and other rivers. They were rivermen and they were seamen as well. Interesting. It says that they don't have significant Viking DNA. It says however the Rousse people who established the first Eastern Slavic state, Kevin Rousse, were likely of Scandinavian origin. The small Norse elite ruled over the Slavic population gave the land its name and provided the initial ruling dynasty, the Rukids, but they were genetically and culturally assimilated into local Slavic country over time. Consequently, while Russians have Swedish Viking roots in their political and cultural ancestry, They do not have a Viking, significant Viking DNA.

But that's because their country was established by, like, the Norse or whatever. And then other people came and joined after the fact. That's what I'm reading. Russia comes from the Rus, tying their national identity to the Norse origin founders. Hardcore dudes. Even though the genetic and cultural makeup remained overwhelmingly Slavic. Yeah, they conquered and took over the territory, essentially, and then set it up legitimately. So we have a lot in common with these people ancestrally.

The point was I understand why people are afraid. You're saying it was Spanish people are terrified of the Russians right now? Well, I didn't talk to them. I was talking to people from Czech Republic. I mean, it was that they kept, they wanted to talk about that whole evening. They wanted to know where the American people stood or where me and my group stood on that issue. And it's crazy because, dude, you talk to the average American. They're not thinking about this one bit.

I think because we essentially dominated the Cold War, the Americans think that the Russians are a non-factor. The truth is the Russians are one of the most vicious humans on the planet, a lot like Americans. And it's, they both can save the day and wreck it. So I think the reason the Allies won World War II is because the Russians, Hitler idiotically betrayed them, but the Russians, the defense of Stalingrad is one of the most heroic tales ever told by a human, ever, ever in the history of humanity. It's maybe the most epic defense in combat. A horrifying battle.

And it went on. Well, the Russians are a brutal people. And I don't say that derisively, like historically, from their own internal conflicts to living in the, like, isolated north, to fighting these wars and surviving winters. They withstand negative 60 degrees Celsius, like, naked. But also the important factor of like, they win wars with a Zat-Branagan method, which is sending wave after wave of their own men to die. For sure. Famously, in World War II, the issue was that the Germans were building these really elite, beautiful tanks that could withstand everything. And the Russians were like, just make a bunch of crappy ones.

Who cares? They'll blow up, but whatever. You know, we can send wave after wave of cheap crap tanks and wear them down. Yeah, they had what the T-51. It's the Zerg. You know what the Zerg is, right? Yeah, yeah, mass amounts of troops to overwhelm the enemy, even though the enemy has better weapons, they can't stop the onslaught. This is really, really cool, actually, for those I don't know,

Zerging is a military tactic where you just sent as many of your lowest-level guys as fast as possible. And you'll see it a lot in competitive stuff. Just charge right in with all your lowest-level dudes, and it comes from StarCraft. where I could be wrong with it, I believe it does. The Zerg is the rudimentary basic soldier, and you just, instead of trying to build up this complex military base with crazy science and tools, you just spam the weakest little guy

and just keep sending them non-stop. The Zurglings. The Zerg is an entire species of just overrun. Now it's a verb that means to rush and overwhelm with immediate force, which is kind of like blitz. It's funny that that's the word of the name of the country, rush in, you know? Like they literally in World War II,

it's like the story is told you die, the guy behind you, they didn't have enough rifles, but they had enough men. They would pick up one of their fallen brethren's rifles and keep going. That was the Chinese. The Chinese did that too. It's no man, no turning back. I don't know, they would be, but they would be like, we're going to kill you if you turn around. There's no other choice but to push forward.

And they survived and they won. Stories like that come from the Korean War, like the Inchon Reservoir, I think it was. Japanese too were ruthless like that as well. Oh, yeah. When it comes to, oh, your guys die, just keep charging, keep trying. Yeah, yeah. They would be used. Well, they'd blow themselves up.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. The Chinese would like, they would send dudes to the front without rifles. And the guys with the rifles would be in the front and they'd say, when someone dies, just pick up their rifle and you go. When fighting the Japanese? No, fighting the Americans during the Korean War. Probably a lot of super poor people,

probably, you know, maybe people in jail, hey, if you survive, you get freedom. Maybe. But, yeah, the tactic of just sending wave after wave of humans into the meat grinder. I mean, that's kind of what's going on. in Ukraine right now.

Like they're at a stalemate because of the trench warfare. The Russians just keeps sending people in and the Russians have a lot more people than the Ukrainians. Do you with those drones to those, what are they called, FPV, is it? First person view, yeah.

Those are those drones. Yeah, I mean, those got to be some of the most brutal forms of warfare as well. I mean, the toll that that's having on troops has to be just the sound, everything. I mean, it's just horrifying.

I'm not like, I'm not pro-Ukraine war, but I will say that the United States is learning a lot from what's going on in Ukraine and Russia. And you sometimes wonder if that's the intended country. I mean, you know. When was the last time the U.S. got to do a full-scale test of advances? Doesn't the U.S. do the same thing with Israel? I mean, you're kind of looking at these people that are guinea pigs where we get to test all of our equipment. And I think that's not I talked about enough, that a lot of the conflict we see with Israel may very well be. Israel is a weapons developer.

They've got chip production, technology development, cybersecurity. It's a U.S. sandbox. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but they certainly love to sandbox out some of this stuff. Oh, totally. Absolutely. And that sets us apart from our adversaries where, like, you have China.

And a great example of that, actually, was the, what was it, the anti-aircrafts satellites that they had? Or what was it in Venezuela? You guys know what I'm talking about? Is it anti-air? What were the radars that they had? Oh, they just, there was a bunch of...

It was supposed to be detecting, fighter jets and all that, right? The Chinese said that they were sending the Venezuelans there, like, top of the lines. Now, obviously, they weren't sending their top of the line stuff. They're not going to do that. But they swore up and down that the radars could detect whatever the U.S. had to throw at them. And that shit was just not true. Exactly. And that's where you have, you actually, like, have battle-tested equipment that the U.S. has

because of all these conflicts going on across the world. And then last thing as well, after that, I don't know if you guys saw those memes after those radars were like exploding from American aircraft, but it was like, oh, they actually did work. You know that an American aircraft is nearby when the radars explode. Yeah, I mean, you know, the U.S. is, the Venezuela really kind of made it clear that the U.S. does still have the edge over, over, you know, our near peer or peer countries. Now, granted, China and Russia have massive militaries, and I'm not trying to make the argument

that the U.S. would be able to handle a full-scale war with China with the same kind of results that we got in Venezuela. Clearly, that's not true, and that's not the point I'm making. For sure. But the U.S. does have the edge over basically every other country, right? If it were a situation where China was confident that they had the technology to handle our military, they wouldn't have all of their navies, or sorry, all of their ships be built to naval specifications so they could use them in the event of a war. This is something that's really interesting, too, I think, is you often hear people say, okay, well, China has that as well, China has that. Oh, F-35, well, China has an F-35 competitor.

The performance is the question that you should be asking after that. How can it perform? It can it perform up to the level that our equipment can perform. Yeah. And I mean, look, I don't know. I imagine China has really, really good intel on what the U.S. can do. For sure. And there's plenty of industrial espionage that goes on.

So I'm sure that they have the schematics for a lot of stuff. I've heard, you know, rumors and red stuff on the internet that says that they have, you know, basically eyes and ears in most of our aerosophiles. space companies and stuff, but the materials that we use are still a secret, if I understand correctly. So you can make a plane that's shaped like an F-35 or shaped like an F-22, but the materials that it's made of are still something that the U.S. has. Let's jump to the story speaking of material needs.

Oh, boy, World War III, ladies and gentlemen, Canada is pissed. Trump hits back as Canada imposes new tariffs on U.S. goods. Canada's decision to retaliate against Trump's recent tariffs has triggered another front in the trade war. Now, I want to say right off the bat, what you could expect is likely a serious negative for the American economy, for the American people, especially if you're working directly in these trades, clothing, cheese, metal parts, wood products. We're going to be short on aluminum. That being said, I do think it's important for the United States to become self-sufficient in many of these fields. we can't be we can't artificially rely on Canada. Suffice it to say, I want to make sure I'm giving you a holistic view of what this means.

And that is there will be an immediate negative. There is no guarantee there will be a long term positive. We have to make sure we can shape a long term positive in this. And as I say with most things, whether or not we want these things to happen, we have to be, we have to play our role in whatever is going on. You can not like Trump, you can like Trump, you can vote from, you can vote against them. When we get these circumstances, all I, all I say, is understand what it means. Do your best to navigate this. This is macro level stuff.

They say the new Canadian tariffs targeting roughly 20 billion in U.S. imports snapped into place on Tuesday, prompting President Trump to retaliate hours later, but trying to limit the federal government's ability to buy Canadian goods. The president's move conveyed in a social media post escalated to widening trade war between the two long-time allies. The latest front began after midnight when Canada began enforcing tariffs up to 50% in a variety of U.S. goods. the approach is meant to mimic the taxes Trump imposed on Canada last month. Now, I want to give you the general understanding here. Again, you don't got to agree with this.

But we saw a series of free trade agreements between the United States, Canada, Mexico, and we saw an attempt at this with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump shut those down. He got rid of NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Agreement, brought in the USMCA. There was a period. For the past 30 years, the efforts of the liberal economic order, again, I'm not making that up. That's actually what's called.

Wanted to create economic dependencies between names. for the purpose of preventing conflict. They wanted to uplift Canada and Mexico's economy at the expense of the U.S. economy. This means that the U.S. doesn't refine aluminum despite the fact that we have bauxite mines, the raw material needed for aluminum. Canada, which we import aluminum from, imports their bauxite from China and Australian other countries. There is absolutely no functional reason, no logical reason, for the United States to pay Canada

for aluminum when we could build refineries here. It's a political circumstance created by our leaders and theirs. Basically, we cut a deal and say, I tell you what, we'll get rid of our aluminum refineries. You guys can have that manufacturing, which will create economic boons for your people. But it creates problems like this, where Canada then has leverage now, because we don't have these refineries anymore, they can come to us and say, you know what? We're cutting you off from aluminum because you got rid of your ability to produce it yourselves. Now, again, it was political when they did it.

And it doesn't need to exist. Trump and Trump's administration, their view of this is we should just, we have, we have box at minds in Louisiana. We can source our own raw materials. And this work can be for Americans who need these jobs. So they're basically telling Canada, you have no right to our, to our labor and to this trade. Canada, of course, is pushing back. Breaking these trade agreements will cause pain.

But the question is, whether you agree with it or not, honest question, why should we have established these trade practices in the first place? It was, as far as I can tell, an intentional no-going-back tactic from the people crafting the liberal economic order. They wanted to get us entangled where we couldn't untangle it. And now they seem to have succeeded because because of the pain, it's like if your body's hooked up to a machine and it's helping you live, which is basically what they did when they drafted this liberal order, you try and take the machine, turn the machine off. Good luck. Will the body survive? Like if we cut off trade with China, can any of us?

The system can't really thrive. I think the idea of just buying slop consume the American people where it was like, oh, well, if you get something made in Mexico, you can get it for a lot cheaper and how great is that? Ten years following NAFTA. We lost about, like, I think it was about around 700 to 800,000 manufacturing jobs, 10 years after NAFTA was implemented. I believe that's correct. And it's like, yeah, you know, and the tradeoff was, okay, well, now we're looking at basically modern-day America where you can get your, super cheap thing from Amazon and it's super cheap and it gets here in a few hours and that's great. But eventually if you're creating such a consumer economy, we're like, yeah, consuming is really

easy now. We made sure of that between Mexico, Canada and China, it's super easy now. But our industry sucks. And especially all these things, funny enough, the tariffs, one of the industries that has actually grown, has been, I believe, aluminum as well. And these are important things, man, especially with the AI revolution. American domestic production? Yes, yes, sorry. But with like, the AI revolution booming, where we can now, these new factories, these modern factories, can now compete with that old argument of you can't compete with child labor and sweatshops. Yes, we can. Guys, bring this stuff back. The AI stuff is both fascinating and terrifying.

I think there's an open door to a tremendous benefit from AI stuff. But I think the problem with it is, and again, guys, this does, I am trying to still stay on subject of the tariffs. the rate of change is so rapid right now with AI stuff. Totally. What we're seeing economically with these tariffs is stamp collecting. Based on what we are going to see, it's indescribable. It is indescribable. I just converted 40,000 lines of action script into HTML to run a program from 20 years ago.

It's my mind is blown right now. Just experiencing this. It's worth noting the US GDP from 25 to 20s. range was 30.8 trillion to 32.95 trillion. The Canadian GDP from the same time period was 2.3 trillion to 2.59. Now granted, like we it will cause pain to have a you know some kind of trade war with China, but the United States is go will win the trade war, right? It'll cause it'll cause pain. It'll be a pain of the balls, you know, like Americans will notice. But Canada can't have the kind of trade war that they're implying they can either can Mexico yeah yeah exactly you know

like the US is is so much economic power even now right even though we we have to reindustrialize we have to bring jobs back to the US we have to build factories here we have to do a lot of stuff to really actually build up our own infrastructure here um even even under these conditions that we are right now it's you know it's 12 times larger than the Canadian you know it's they just can't compete. Yeah, I think being straightforward about it hurting Americans is, I mean, it's important. I actually think the Trump administration did a pretty darn good job at selling that. They said, hey, you know, you're going to see, you're going to see prices raise. You're going to see that. And it depends on, because reality sits it. Yeah. Right. How long are the American people going to

tolerate this, right? A trade war with Canada, high gas prices, high product prices, higher product prices, how long are they going to put up with that? Do we think it's the right thing for the country to be bringing industry back to the best of our abilities? I think so. I think most people agree, but are they willing to actually allow for those price increases and are they actually willing to weight it out? Because, I mean, this isn't helping the midterms. You know, everyone knows that. All of these decisions aren't helping the midterms, but are they helping the U.S. five years from now with, let's say, aluminum was the example, and building that industry up in the United States? Probably. You're forcing it. I've got to throw it back every single time to the population crisis that we're

facing. I don't think people realize just how apocalyptic the, I want to say this again, because I know most of you guys that are watching the show understand gen alpha, I said 50 billion times at this point half the size. But this means that the next generation will be half the size. And if this trend continues, the next generation will be half the size of that. Right. This is functionally the end of our entire system of governance and economy. Doesn't mean the Constitution gone. Isn't it mean Congress. is gone. What it means is right now you've got complaints. There's not enough members of Congress or the Senate to represent all of these people. Give it 60 years if this trend continues and people

are going to say there are too many members of Congress. They're going to say, why do we have a member of Congress every 30,000 people? The nation, if this trend continues, we rapidly, rapidly decline a population. This means technology. Technology is produced based on the scale of civilization. So, for instance, a television cannot be made by a single person. I don't know the exact number, but I think it's like a thousand plus individuals to make one modern $300 wide screen LED TV. Because each one of these individuals does some minor task, but many hands makes light work. When our population declines, and I wonder if this is intentional, you take a look at the Black Plague. Afterwards, we had a renaissance.

Tons of people died. And the argument is the weak die, the strong survive, and the specialist, the crafty, it lifts up the caliber of the remaining individuals. It's a horrifying thing to realize. We're doing it to ourselves right now with population collapse. The people who are incapable of reproducing and having families aren't doing so. So I wonder if there are world leaders that just say, good, it's the intended condition. They want the, I don't know, I guess what did, you've all know or Harare. That's the name, right?

Yeah. The useless eaters. These people, these world elites want that group to be gone. I think so. shrinking stress on the system by removing people that aren't contributing this system inherently. And then like, I think you're right, James, that reindustrializing the U.S. is the right methodology. And you could use AI to help design the, the domestic. AI allows for us to compete with the old argument that, oh, we can't compete with slave wages.

Because it was built so that we could not extricate ourselves from it. I think the liberal economic order literally had a self-destruct mechanism put into where it's like, there's one way forward. There's no going back. now you're intertwined. Good luck. Reindustrializing when it's half your jobs are in China now. Good luck. We can. I don't know if they saw AI coming in 1947 when they were drafting this up. That we could hyper-localize our industry rapidly. And people still work at these advanced manufacturing plants, right?

The jobs look different than they did in the early 1900s, don't they? So, you know, you still get, hey, you can still get good quality jobs. I'm pretty sure Tesla has some pretty advanced factories. how many thousands people still work there. I think my point overall about that is like, yeah, there is no better time to make sure there's national security reasons for this. There's tax reasons for this. There's industry reasons for this. Just jobs, you know, creating jobs is there's literally no better time to bring this stuff back.

And this is how our system was built. Alexander Hamilton's report on manufacturers. They were looking around the United States saying, dude, we're buying everything from our enemies or just how their country. that we don't have, like, influence over. We're farming. We need to build up industry. And so it's like, yeah, man, you might have five to ten years where the American people aren't really happy about it, but this is forcing industry's hands or, sorry, the,

basically, businesses' hands to build in the United States. And hopefully it succeeds. You have to convince people of the environmental costs because right away we're seeing data centers pissing people off, taking water sources and making noise, and like, aluminum manufacturers will pump just foul chemicals. You get benzene spills and the local water supplies. Get ready to lose about 20% of your agriculture domestically if you're going to reindustrialize for real. The filthy-ass shit that we got to put on American soil. Maybe we don't need to bring back every single little thing, but would you agree that we need to bring back more medicine manufacturing

instead of maybe China doing it? Yes, at what cost? Like if you're going to destroy 15% of your farmland, maybe, yeah, but you've got to anticipate that. Wait, why would you destroy 15% of well, if you're going to, if you're going to be pouring toxic sludge like they do in China, with no EPA back into our riverways. Night and day difference between how we do that stuff. That's actually another reason is we do it cleaner than all these other countries as well. There's also the phenomenon that we're seeing of leapfrogging. So we didn't, we don't have the filthy 20th century materials right now.

We offshore that stuff. And like in Africa, they have solar panels. They skipped centralized electrical grids. They went right to local solar panels. So we might be able to skip the filthy 1970 to 2010 factories and start building these super high-tech refineries. I think so. I think there's something to be said for a population decline, and there's questions. There's conspiracies about whether or not the population of the planet is as big as it is.

And, you know, I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories. One of the theories is that the Earth's population is nowhere near $8 billion and that it's probably closer to, you know, half a billion, but they claim it's really big to justify why we have to reduce and why they can control us. I don't believe that because I've looked at maps and I've been to places where my mind is blown. Like Tokyo. I've been there. You know, these places are insanely big. There's a lot of people. It's about almost double the size of New York City. It's crazy. It's absolutely insane. And you can eat off the floor. But I, it's wild when you look at some of these places and you're checking a map and

you can go there and you can see the map is correct. The urban sprawl is insane. Now to Ian's point, with this population decline, what you're talking about is in a consideration. We are not going to be destroying farms because population is cut in half for the next generation, which means we can bring back this manufacturing and we need to, especially if our population is declining. Yeah, it actually feels like it's a perfect synergy that it's better off with a smaller population because we don't have as many mouths to feed. We can focus on getting the specific things. Then we don't have to hire a janitor to clean up the old janitor's mess. Like we don't need, you know, we can kind of, because the whole job economy thing was sort of a sigh up from the banking system to get you

to dig a hole and I'll pay you my money that you're going to pay me back in interest and I'll get you to fill the hole up and then you'll dig it up again and then you'll fill it up again. As long as you guys are busy borrowing my money and paying me back with interest, I'm making money and they're not going to form a revolution. So this jobs economy manipulation thing is kind of we don't need to focus on does everyone have a job. It's like how productive is each human. That's more what matters. I'll go out at that point. I kind of feel like market capitalism doesn't really allow for that kind of stuff. Like when you talk about like, you know, dig a hole and fill it up. That's kind of what the government ends up doing with jobs programs. But like if you've got a

business, right, you're actually looking to, you know, produce something at a profit to pay back the bank that you've taken a loan for, like you're not going to have like just make work. You can't, you can't really, you can't really draw that comparison to like, let's say Timcast, Tim created Timcast. It's not a, you know, nobody's like, it's not, it's not like it's just not doing, nobody's doing anything and there's no revenue generated elsewhere and value brought here and here and here and you know um so i maybe that's more of a government job thing we're kind of that i mean yeah because that you know the government then just prints the money yeah you know like you're just all fake make make the money and and pass it out a massive babysitting

program yeah but i mean you know like when it comes to like you know building cars right it takes materials it takes someone actually putting the cars together sell the car um That's the actual product that was made in the economy. There was actual time invested into it. It had, you know, all the, all the materials had to be produced and stuff like that. And then you put the car together and you go out. That's not like robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing, you know. Bloaded administration is really where the robbing the Peter comes from, like, especially in the education industry, the administrator is outnumber the teachers three to one or some garbage number.

It's crazy. What you see in California, actually across the U.S. is most places you see for public. schools, they're spending more per pupil than private schools in the areas. Yeah. Cost. Keep in mind, private schools for profit. They're spending more, the government, spending more per pupil than private schools cost. You probably guess that private schools have better results, too.

Yeah, and the teachers don't get that money. It goes to administrators. It goes to teachers unions. It goes to all of the things that surround the school. Like, it doesn't go to actually teaching kids and it doesn't go to the teachers. It goes to the administrators. it goes to any number of, any number of bureaucrats in the public school system.

For sure. The success of like a program is the more bureaucrats that they have the better. So it's like, wow, we're spending all this money. And it's like, is it going to the teachers? Are they results good? No, but we have a ton of bureaucrats. It's awesome.

That's how they measure success, literally. Yeah, I don't have it pulled up, but I saw a tweet just today that shows that the basically test scores are just cratering. absolutely cratering in the past 20 years. Like, kids are getting, and I, I blame George W. Bush a lot because of no child left behind, right? Like, the incentive of no child left behind actually was just push kids along. So that way, they graduate, they go to the next class.

And it doesn't matter if they've actually learned stuff. And so you end up just shoving kids through the system without being sure that they've actually retained anything. It's better to hold kids back to make sure that they learn. than to just shove them through so that they're not left behind. You'll get either the kids that don't know what they're doing and they get shoved through

and they have an F score, but they graduate, or you'll have the kids that are smart and they have to sit there and wait for everyone else to figure it out and then they get pushed through at the real snails pace too. I've noticed with using chat GPT like a school book,

it is literally like a science textbook and that you can ask questions to. When you don't understand the term that it gives you, you can just ask what it means and then keep learning. you can get like a conventional six-month education in like 18 hours, you know, like 24 hours, depending on fast.

I'm one of the most pro-AI guys around. Like I'm really a big fan of it. I think that it's going to do great things. But one of the things that they're finding is when people use AI to help them learn stuff, they don't retain it the way they do if they have to do it, like sit down and study and read and take a test on it. It just doesn't stick with you the same way. So like they'll get better scores on their tests.

and you'll end up with higher grades, but because they were using AI, they don't actually retain the information. They didn't actually learn anything. You need to teach kids also, like, how to think critically? Like, how can I find this answer, aside from just saying, like, Jeannie, give me the answer. Like, that's obviously destructive to their learning process.

Some people learn through hearing. Those people excel with a professor or someone to, and other people excel with reading it on paper. Those people can do you. Dude, I succeed. Yeah, by doing it, like doing it. I like doing both. reading and hearing it.

I prefer all three if I can, but... I think it's been a long time since we've talked about this, but I think there's like eight learning metrics that they track academically, and people have varying combinations. Some people just can't learn by seeing it be done. Some people can't learn by hearing it. Some people can't learn by reading it.

They can only learn by taking their hands and actually grabbing something. And that means it's very difficult for them to learn abstract things. GPT can give me the textual answer, and I haven't paid for the upgrade yet, but it can give me visual representation. of what it's explaining.

So I want to talk about this cultural stuff real quick. So we're going to just do a hard segue here. We've got this post I found on Instagram. It's a woman. I blurt out her name. I'm not trying to be mean or rag on her. From all of this, I've markedly, I'm going to, I just, I have to, the volume has to be turned down.

I certainly don't think I'm one of the worst in in line, online vitriol, I think a little bit sometimes. So it's a one who says, I'm a, widow raising two kids and here's what nobody tells you and she's crying on camera, which means she started crying, she took her phone, she put it down, pressed record, and then turned her face and she performed for the camera. It's very similar to what we see with the Lindsay Clancy stuff, which we'll get to it a bit. I've got a couple other examples for you. This is Brennan Morello posting. How do we get this new trend of talking crap about your husband on the internet to stop?

It's a woman just basically attacking her husband for social clap. And this is the more extreme example. Chinese live streamer dances almost nonstop for four to six hours. Every time viewers send gifts, she has to dance. This is insanity. What is currently happening on social media. So I'll say a few things. Right now, I've heard a lot of comments from people saying that it feels meaner online.

It feels angrier online. And like the, you know what I like to say is that, you know, the saying is that a rising tide lifts all. ships. And I say that the low tide exposes all of the scum. When the tide goes down, what's shown as the scummy floor and the critters and the urchins and things of this nature. Right now, it's just discernibly correct that most people are, it's political offseason. People are outside there with their families. They're doing other things. Views across the board in every capacity are down for everybody. For us, it's about average. I'll say it like this. Technically, we should have more viewers based on general show growth, but we're at around the same amount of viewers that we had in the previous midterm cycle.

For sure. Everybody's sports podcast are down. Every show is down. And the end result is people are desperate for views. I've seen maybe, I don't know, several dozen. Instagram women crying for some random reason saying, please follow me. I saw a woman saying, I have no choice. I have to be an influencer.

or please don't scroll, follow me. I have seen a hundred young women playing music where they say the exact same thing. You're so lucky that Instagram showed you rare and eclectic music. And I'm like, very few, like people are desperate to be followed and desperate to be influencers. Right now I think many people are just tuning out. And a really great example is Labor Day. Over Labor Day weekend, I posted like three things. It was a hypothetical.

I posted if you could press a button that would kill somebody, but you got a million dollars tax free. Would you do it? The old classical hypothetical. The next day I posted, if you could press a button to kill a random person, but you were forced to take a million dollars, would you do it? Now, they got tons of replies. And I've got no B for any issue.

I don't care about the meta-analysis debate. Now, some people are like, Tim, you posted the same thing twice. I didn't. We'll talk about that in the after show, maybe. The point ultimately is this. If you are inside online over Labor Day weekend, what does that say about you? Now, hold on everybody. I'm not insulting you.

I'm not suggesting it inherently means you're a bad person or an angry person. I was online too. However, it does mean you will likely find a higher density of people not hanging out with friends and family. Labor Day weekend, there was a rodeo at Nemecolin. If you've never heard of a Nemecolon or Nemecolon, I recommend you check it out. It's in Pennsylvania, one of our favorite places ever to go. We go several times a year. It's a resort.

It's a little higher end, but not insanely expensive. It's something you go to once per year for your vacation, but you're going to spend a couple grand if you can afford it. Don't get me wrong. It's expensive. They got a landing strip. But it's not like billionaire expensive, you know, a private yacht or something. But we go and hang out.

They had a rodeo. And the family came and people brought their kids and they're watching horses and stuff. It was absolutely fantastic family experience. So what does this say about your average everyday person? who's trying to live their life, have a good job. They're not sitting there on social media posting comments. For sure. So when you do go on social media, like I did, a little bit, you know, even over Labor Day

Weekend, posted a couple times, you are going to get a higher density of people who are perpetually online and less likely to be out and about with friends and family. So again, I'll stress this. For those of you that were online, like I was, I'm not saying all of you are bad. I'm saying a lot more angry people and permanently on online people are active right now. As the tide goes out and many regular people leave, there's still water. which is the most of you, regular people that are sitting there watching, smile on your faces saying, I may not agree with Tim on everything, but I enjoyed the show. However, you are going to get

a higher density of scum. People who are angry in any direction, left, right, up, down, top, bottom, screaming, I hate you, should die, the people posting about Charlie Kirk's death anniversary and mocking it. With excitement. With excitement. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think this is a reflective of the whole world. I think there are many good people, that are still on. That's the low tide. But there's a lot of nasty people that have always been there. You're seeing more of it. And I think, for one, we got to turn the volume down. Like, I'm not going to insult this lady or be dramatically mean about what she's doing. She's a widow. That's fine. But I will be somewhat critical of her posting this for social clout. At the same time,

I think we should recognize a lot of this is, you shouldn't get depressed about it. Because I've heard a lot of people say, man, it's just so nasty online. Yeah, yeah, but it's because regular normal people aren't there right now. And maybe they'll come back in the winter. And this means you'll get a higher density of more passive commentary, but the negative is always going to be there. Yeah. Found with political off season. They're perpetually online people are just, uh, I mean, you know, you do, you do it too much, man. It's, it's corrosive to the soul. I can even feel that, right? I mean, I'm, I'm on X all the time. I spent my weekend last weekend filming every single day and then, uh, going, you know, reading articles, editing and, um, what,

doom scrolling X probably. Like I can, when I'm doing it too much, I can feel that. It's, It's kind of the feeling when you're at dinner and you have your phone out and it's on the table. And you're just like, you know what, dude, I don't need a screen anywhere near me right now. You guys ever do that where you have that realization? And you say, okay, no, no, this doesn't need to be near me. It's excessive.

It doesn't need to be on. There's people that lean into this and it's just corrosive to the soul. Dude, I started YouTube videos in 2006. And within June 2006, by like August, I pinpointed the danger of relying on text. And I know a lot of these people that are complaining are in video, which is another thing.

Another point, but firstly, do not get lost in text. There's no tone. Stay focused on speaking and communicating with your words and listening to people's tone when they explain things to you. Secondly, if you're going to use internet video, do it with a purpose, with a message to deliver, not about getting famous. If you just do it just to get seen, you'll realize real quickly, what am I famous for? Well, because I'm an attention whore. And then your followers will be attention whores and you'll be a worse person as a result. if you have a message to deliver, use it, and you'll become popular as a result.

And then we're talking about boasting. That came up a little bit before the show and how proud you are of your work and how willing you are to tell people how great you are. There's a whole nuanced debate there. Like some people I think maybe can go a little overboard about talking how awesome they are, but other people sell themselves. And if they never said a word, you wouldn't know how, that you wouldn't have ever heard the thing.

Maybe they don't believe in themselves. So I don't know. Like just. Look, look, it's just a lot of people. especially right now with the with the desperation towards views the the game is what's going to get you traffic right so for for many of these influencers what we're seeing ask yourself this why is everyone fighting why is the left fighting the left left fighting the right right because of what kind of traffic as well as it's because it's because

everybody is in a a mosh pit that's probably not even fair because mosh pits can be fun everybody's in it in everyone was thrown to the uble yet as it were chaos change Remember? Yeah. And basically, we're in a, everyone's facing a shortage of viewership. And I'm stressing this again, sports podcasts are down in viewership. Like, you'd think they would remain high no matter what, especially with you got what preseason football and stuff. They're down. They're way down. And it's like crazy down. I don't know what's going on. What I will say is there's a few things to expect. Older, so, there's less people to watch. There's more shows, smaller, younger generations. Older people, millennials are having, are starting to have a little

bit more kids. It's not like it's where it should be. But, you know, look, I just had a kid. There's many more people having kids. I used to post on the weekends all the time. Some people are like, man, remember when Tim used to post a show every single day, it was just always a video. I got a family now. And so it's going to be like, I'm here for I. RRL every time I can be. And I have to balance doing a morning and nightly show when sometimes I got family duty. And people wanting you to continue doing a daily show for more than even a couple of years is just unbelievable. It's an insane amount of work. See, a lot of people aren't willing to do that level of work. But a lot of people are willing to, I mean, there's new influencers

that I see, let's say politics. We all know politics. Let's say there are more influencers than I've ever seen in the political space on, let's say, Instagram. I don't know 90% of us. them. And they're probably 50% of them came like basically grew the last year or so. Well, here's the principle issue is that they're all just saying the same thing. So the bulk of these lower tier, I'm not saying lower tier is an insult. Smaller channels, watch a big channel and then remake the video saying the same thing. And you have, you know, 5,000 of these people that are doing this exact same thing, hyper-saturating the market. That's a lot like video games too. You'll see like a thousand games with basically the same game mechanics all about with the same level of depth

that all have like a 70 rating on Steam that get people play for an average of 15 hours. And it's just easy to reproduce what you know is going to catch people with a hook and not really thrill them. Now, I definitely don't want people to think that I'm not like encouraging people to jump in start your own political channel and have your own political takes. Obviously, I want to super encourage that. Let me put a pin in that for one second. Um, whether it be, political commentary or what have you. You should, to Ian's point early, you should do something because you want to do it.

Right. Right. Like if you're good at it and you continue doing it, like, you know, money and success, that, you know, hopefully that will come. But like, I've been, I was in a band. The first time I was in a band, it was like 1993 or 92.

And I was in a band basically the, my entire life for, you know, until 2004 is when all that remains really started to get going. So from, from 93, for 10 years, I'm in bands, trying, playing. And even if, and even at that time, like, I was playing such, like, heavy, like, really heavy stuff. Not alone was my ringtone. I'm like, 2000. Thank you.

But, like, we were playing, like, before all that remains, we were playing, like, really, I was playing really heavy stuff that there was never a thought in my mind. that I was going to be in a band that toured, that made enough money to support me. It was just that's what I did. And you love it. I loved it. And I did it because.

And then, you know, music changed and my taste in music changed a little bit. And so, like, we started playing a little more melodic stuff. And then we started to see some real success. But, like, I was doing it for a decade thinking that I would work a regular job and play shows on the weekend. Maybe I'd go on tour for a couple weeks. But there was never a thought that I was going to be in a successful band.

So and there's so many people out there that think I want to go ahead and and do you know political commentary because I see people are making money. I see that there's money there and it's like if you start it for that reason, you're going to end up being tired of it before you make money. And you're not going to keep like you do something because you want to do it and hopefully money comes because you've been doing it. You learn your craft and stuff like that. So I apologize for no. I I wholeheartedly agree. And it's like don't be. afraid to be authentic, man. Maybe you don't need to be an influencer, right? But maybe you can use social media to boost your hobby that you love and it can transform your life, you know, what we're talking about, Ian, to your point, you're more talking about, dude, their dream is being famous. Yeah. And that's a problem. And then you've got to ask yourself, famous for what? Why am I famous? I learned this a hard way. In the beginning of YouTube, I was like, how can I game the system? I'll reply YouTube response, YouTube video responses to whatever is trending. And it was just purely to get famous. And the people that started following, we were just fame hores. No offense, guys, if you were one of my early

subscribers. But like, I got what I wanted, which was fame? And I was like, what am I famous for? And that's when I realized there's a reason I'm here. And whether or not I'm famous almost is irrelevant. Like, the fame will amplify what you're doing, but what are you doing? I got to be honest. The answer to that question is psychedelic space gypsy. It is, it is terrifying and demoralizing that the economy is turning into, I have to be an influencer because that just means it's impossible. If every single person is manufacturing a toast, like every single person is selling necklaces, well, why would I buy from you? I make my own. Why would the guy down the street who's making videos talking politics buy or sell from someone

who's doing identical stuff saying the exact same thing from them? This is hyper saturation. And, you know, part of it that's demoralizing is this is not a get rich, quick scheme or a path to something sustainable. If you have the ability to make a good product, make a good product, and I hate using the word product like the McDonald's guy, but I'm not talking specifically about podcasts. I'm saying whatever it is you make, if you can make a good one, do it. But what's happened is that so many people have found success having shows, they make money doing it and good money. Everybody's now like, I want to, you know, what's really fascinating about this is that in 2015, YouTube was dead. For sure.

I had, I'd been going to VidCon. I'd been talking to YouTubers who were big in 08 and they were like, the dream is over. They're like, we used to get a million views per video and we were making 10 or 20,000 dollars on one video. Now we're only getting half a million. We can't, it's hard to produce anymore. And there are people saying, yeah, you can't really do it. Today, everyone is adamant.

They're going to be the next big influencer and they're trying just to do that. I think people, they need to build new things. You know, you're not going to get rich. Look, to this woman who's like, I'm a widow raising two kids, you are not going to be the widow influencer. There is no widow influencer. There is no 3 million follower every day crying because you're a widow. It's a one-off video. So don't do it because if you do want to be someone that is respected or has an opinion that's worth listening to, it can't just be, look at me crying, I'm a widow.

I think the currency that they're playing in. And, yeah, I mean, I feel terrible for this woman. obviously, but like, I think the currency that she's shooting for is dopamine hits for likes. I mean, I don't even, for people like this, you know, I think it might be kind of a different conversation of, of it's not going after maybe being famous, maybe it is, or it's not going after having a big page, but it's, it's going after the attention. I think so. It's, it's a non-sustainable way to accrue attention because if you rely on crazy thing happened to me today to get your, for your videos to get the attention, it doesn't. It doesn't.

sustain after like a year and a half of that you'll realize what a shell you've become seeking crazy thing it's not good for you so you need to produce cool content in some way like ideas that you have processes that you're building that you can show people and then make videos to to amplify what you're doing but you've got to do cool shit man you got to pioneer education and entertainment and sectors of art like be the one that did it first get embarrassed online in front everyone you're memorable also um make law If you guys are going to start making content, make long form. It's so good for the, if you are passionate about something, let's say cars or watches,

which by the way I will subscribe if you start that channel. Like that is good content. People enjoy it and you can do your hobby and document it. I fully encourage people doing that stuff. If you love it, if you're doing it for the wrong reasons and trying to be famous or you're constantly crying on camera every single day, no bueno. Also, if there's like a million people making a video and you want to make videos like that and you think you can and you know you're the best,

you have to do it because if you don't other people will take the space that are lesser than you. You have to step up. So as diffuses it seems like it will get, you have to continue to prove them wrong. You have to be a spire that appears in the muck. And you can do it. But it's just, you know, don't do it for that reason. That's just a byproduct of incessancy that, you know, you never give up. You keep going.

You just do it again. Yeah, I think one of the challenges right now, it's a lesson I learned a long. time ago in the space is obviously you're going to be entering a cesspit. If you choose to engage on social media, it is going to just be a, I don't know, a mosh pit. People are screaming. They're fighting all the time. And it's kind of the point that I'm getting at that it's time to stop. You know, I've been fairly like, screw you. I don't care what you think for a long time, but I'm just not going to engage largely anymore at all. And I think if you take a look at, well, I'll put it like this. There's no reason.

reason to, let me put it like this instead. Choose your battles. We'll just say that. The funny thing is I've gained a lot of followers on X, just being me and posting what I think when I feel like it, even if it pisses people off or is silly. But at the same time, it's just, I don't know if it's worth it. It might be worth it just to, I can look at it like, you know, Fox News personalities, not their politics, but in their production. They don't engage with people at all. They just stay away from it. And for that, dig it less death threats. You know, when you choose to stand before someone and tell them, shut up, you're wrong, they are going to focus on you. If you ignore all of these people and just do the work, well, they stop trying to debate you and

stop fighting you because you're not giving them anything in return. For a long time, I had no problem. I was like, screw you, I can do it. I want. I'll say what I want. I'll talk to whoever I want. I'll talk to people on X. You know, there are people who are like, if I had a big account, I'd never respond to people and I'm like, I don't know, I feel like talking to people I feel like talking to. But I think at this point, it's just, it's bad. I think it's bad because it's kind of like starve out the monsters. People that thrive on just being nasty online, just suffocate them. What you feed is what reproduces.

And if you respond to negativity, you get more negative. Because people will see it and they'll be like, oh, he responds to negativity. Well, I got one for him. And like I said, like this is a lesson we've all known about it for a long time. But I think at this point in my life, especially with the family, I'm like, Yeah, just no more. And I won't call anyone out specifically, but there are a lot of personalities that you know who host big shows who never, ever engage with their audience. Now, I'm not saying don't do that. Well, we're always going to have our Discord membership and our Super Chess and stuff,

but on other platforms, I'm just not commenting. There's a value to negative communication because it's like threat detection. People appreciate your willingness to confront the negative, the elephant in the room, but it's such a gauge where we have the opportunity to create positive momentum with AI, you know, replicate a video game in two hours or make a movie in 15 minutes, that it's, I think it's very healthy to step away or refocus away from the negative stuff for a time to create a lot of goodness in the world because it's just your word against theirs, man. The machine is trying to outpace you and you've got to be better. And you can and you will be.

That's the fascinating part. Let's jump to this story from the New York Post. Lindsay Clancy jurors detailed just what happened behind closed doors and how a not guilty verdict nearly came down indeed. Well, the postmanial phrase it frames it as female Clancy jurors complain about very arrogant male holdout. We're so excited to acquit child killer. Let's play this video from NBC. Lindsay Clancy feminist jurors are melting down. All right, let's hear the meltdown. Liberations was harder than her work as a fifth grade teacher and they confirmed there was one holdout juror. I asked him what they thought of him being

described by the prosecution as a rogue juror. Here's what they said. He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses, he tried to ask a question about the medications, and we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital. We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts. The nurses in the room, spoke to that and talked to that. There were nurses on the jury. Yes. They spoke to that that specific thing. That was a question that he had and he just completely disregarded the information that they gave. I mean he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview.

I think that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I Actually, there were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said, but I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity. I'm not sure if Rogue is the right word, Sue, but every one of us in the hours of a frustration would get up and walk the room, because you just couldn't sit anymore, and would all go out of the cart with the exhibits he he I think got up to the cart once very

briefly and went back to a seat he would not he would not interact with us and and try to understand we read him on numerous occasions the definition of a reasonable doubt from judge Sullivan's instruction he actually said one day in the end, well, why don't we have the judge come in and read it again? And we were like, no. We have it in front of us. We don't need that. And we would

highlight it. And, you know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reason of love. But yet the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. Dude, no way. I'll say a couple things real quick.

I think there's a conflict that nurses were present. that there were nurses lobbying on her behalf is a problem. This means information, not material to the trial, was present and influenced the jurors. I understand it's an impossibility to not have people who might be subject matter experts on this. But something doesn't sit right about nurses on the jury saying outright, yes, for this reason, she's not guilty. Trust us. Because those jurors are not advocates or lawyers for the defense. So I think there's a problem there.

Also, this other woman said, I was so excited. Why were you excited? Because you were going to go home? I think there's an issue there when a juror is like, oh, boy, he's going to say not guilty, instead of just saying like, okay, I understand your point of view. We'll mark it and we'll tell the judge. The moment the guy, they knew that the moment the guy said, I'm not saying she's not guilty to bear reason of insanity.

My response would be like, okay, shall we inform the judge and let him know we're done and we're not going to deliver any longer? Because I've got to be honest, we're not. It's not changing. And you know, and I'll tell you this too. you have guys ever seen the, was it 12 angry men or whatever that the guy who, the one holdout who convinces all the other juries? If I was in that room and that guy was like, and I was on, let's say I was on board, part of the 11 of 1. And the one guy says, it's not going to happen.

I'm not changing my mind. And they were like, you have to. I would literally just go, okay, I've changed my mind. It's 11. It's 10 to 2 now. Guys, I'm not playing this game. We're going to tell the judge right now, done, not unanimous. And there is no point. continuing. End of story and we're going home. This idea that they wanted to hold out for him is silly in my opinion. I mean, good for him. Like, clearly to sit there and take the, the abuse of, you know, 11, nine angry women and two spineless men to just be like, nope, not doing it. Sorry. Good for him. I don't, I can't imagine how you can, how these women could actually say yes she was not guilty by reason of insanity i mean obviously um you know they saw you know

they saw the trial they saw everything i didn't watch the whole trial um but look if if you kill your kids and then your your story is like sometimes i heard voices sometimes i didn't and et cetera et cetera and you see the the slash marks that she made which they were not i saw the pictures of the the actual from the from after she got treated at the hospital. She was not seriously trying to kill herself by if you look at the cuts and stuff. Right. I don't I don't know what it was that made these women think that she actually was insane, but I good for him. I think the guy's just sitting there being like, you know what, you killed your three kids. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. We're not doing this. You're not going to like an insane asylum for what,

four to six months and then getting out free. Yeah. Yeah, that's the process there, right? So I think he was just like, No, sorry, we're not doing that today. That's not how this is working. She's postpartum depression, obviously. We talk about this on the Green Show a little bit. Postpartum psychosis is what they were saying, where a woman, like, when she gives birth, her body is sapped of nutrients.

I mean, so much goes into the babies. Bones start to, like can get softer, just so much. You need to eat the right foods coming out of after a pregnancy, after a birth. You have to eat the right foods, or you will fall into a deep depression called postpartum depression. Wasn't postpartum, like the way I understand is post-martum.

Postpartum is only six months. And the baby was actually eight months old. Some people can go up to a year. It really depends on how you heal your body after it happens is how long it's going to go on for. And if you are lazy or ignorant and you don't know that you need to do that, that's not an excuse to commit a crime. And if you chose, Lindsay, to get a bunch of psychedelics, pharmaceutical psychoactive because you were so depressed because you had been malnourished. And then you ate those of your own free will and someone else didn't put them in your mouth and force it down your throat. you chose that lifestyle and you chose to kill the kids as a result.

That's on you. And I see why that guy didn't want to set you free. You should have known better. Yeah. He was not. It's crazy because he, he was tried. They tried to bludgeon him. I feel like several times because they were hopelessly deadlocked.

They went to the judge and probably thought like, yeah, he's going to listen to us. We're deadlocked. And the judge is like, no, go back in there and come out with a verdict. And then they went back out, try to do it again. He's like, no, still not good enough. Come back tomorrow and try again. It's just wild. It feels like a crazy sympathy play.

Like there were three women in this news article. Where were the two guys that were saying not getting? They're probably ashamed. I don't want to show their faces. This other guy obviously thinks he'll be a target if he shows his face. But like, try it again with 12 men. I think one of the big problems about the case, which I didn't follow it super closely, if I'm being honest. But one of the big problems that I saw with the case was in, I guess, in that specific state,

you have the burden of proof ends up going on the prosecution to prove it not insane, I guess. And so that was something that was a little bit complicated. But a lot of people will table that and just say, well, I don't care if it's insane or not. You killed three kids. You're done. You're off the street. You do not deserve to be back in polite society. Crazy or not, but I don't mind.

Just you killed three children. Michael Malice has an opinion on the insanity plea, which, I actually, like, once he actually articulated, I was like, you know, that's a really great point. What was he saying? He said that he's like, I don't understand why there is like not guilty because of insanity, right? Like, if you're insane, all the more, well, but the point he's making, he's like, I don't know why that even exists. Because if you're insane, all the more reason to put you in jail, right? Like, you shouldn't be given a more lenient sentence because you're insane.

That just means, okay, you definitely shouldn't be in normal society, like in general society. You should be isolated and put into either prison or I think that we should have, you know, asylums. But like, you clearly can't function in a normal society if you're particularly if you're separating you from normal society. You don't even need to look at it as a punishment if you don't want to. Separate that person because what on earth are you doing risking having that person that was insane that killed three people back on the street?

You're trying to mitigate harm to the. the individual themselves, like if you look deeply into the eyes of a retarded person and you see that they're truly a human, like everyone else, but they have whatever syndrome or issue. You just look deep in the eyes of me. Yeah, you see like the humanity in this person who you would consider like whatever, developmental handicap, whatever the term is. And then if they go and start killing neighborhood dogs, you don't want to throw them in like a hardcore prison.

That's what I was saying. That's what I was saying. It doesn't, you don't even need to look at it as that. There are facilities that you can put people away when they're too sick. And maybe Lindsay, belongs in one of those facilities. I don't know if sticking her in general pop makes a lot of sense. I think the well, yeah, the crime's pretty gnarly. So maybe it is from my perspective. This is and this is just my opinion like it's better for the person that committed a crime to be

removed from society for society's sake than to allow them to continue to be in society. I don't know what kind of prison or what kind of a facility they need to be in. That's you know, someone else can decide that. But if you're talking about someone, that's violent, they shouldn't be allowed to just be like, oh, well, you know, you had, you know, whatever the argument is. If you're a violent criminal, take them out of society for the rest of society's sake, for the possible future victims of the person that's violent. How many more times do we need to see some like psycho-schizo, you know, homeless person waving around a knife and killing somebody? How many times do you really need to see that before you say,

okay, no, that person needs to be separated. Yep. And a lot of those people are like serial criminals as well. Yeah. Yeah. And that's the thing. It's not about, for me, from my perspective at least, it's not about punishing the person that did the crime. It's about protecting the rest of society, right? Like we want to live in a safe society. We want to live in a society where we can walk around in the streets without fear of being, you know, assaulted or what have you.

So those people that are violent criminals, take them off the streets, put them in. jail, put them in some kind of facility. That's what's best for society overall. Do you have a preference or do you know enough about the trial to suggest Lindsay Clancy should go to either a prison or a mental institution? I don't really care where she goes. Jail. Put her in jail.

It's fine. I don't care. Either way, you'd be happy as long as she gets some sort of sentence, some sort of incarceration somewhere. Probably catapult. Like, use a catapult and use that. Send her to jail via catapult. Chbusha. Yeah. The thing is it's possible that I'm not guilty by insanity results in life in a mental institution, but it's also the possibility that she gets out at any point.

She has a very strong argument for, oh, well, that was postpartum. Exactly. Well, I don't think that actually was part of the trial. I don't think they claimed postpartum. What I'm saying is in the facility, it's like, well, that was due to. No, no, no, no, no. She was out of the postpartum phase. I don't think that's the argument they made. Oh, okay. So she couldn't argue I was postpartum because she wasn't. She could argue. I was temporarily insane at that time, but I'm not anymore. I heard a lot of legal breakdowns of saying,

hey, she could even be in a facility for six to eight months and get out. This, I just heard about... Six months is the minimum. I think this is the case just happened from Corey Walsh, a 40-year-old mother from Frankfurt, Illinois, charged with first-degree murder, death of her two-year-old son, Barrett Walsh. And they allege the prosecutors that she was very invested in Lindsay Clancy's trial.

So it's like a copycat. It looks like it might be a copycat crime, Like, oh, she can kill her, can get out of it. There's been a few of those since. That's a big concern of why not to come down hard on Lindsay Clancy. Yeah, that's a, I agree. Like, that's why, or that's one more reason why the punishment should fit the crime, right? Like, if a woman has postpartum depression or what have you and has, you know, they come up with some excuse and they have a little episode or whatever and they end up killing their kids, or they might think if I do this, I'll get let, you know, let off.

I know this is like a rat, right. They don't put women in, you know, they don't put. women in jail or whatever it is. Right. It's a right-wing take, but, you know, we want to de-incentivize murdering your children. Yeah. It's so, it's true. But again, well, let's get political. We got this from CNN. Democrats enter the midterms looking to conquer

red territory with Hunter Biden. Right state says Hunter Biden for president, don't make me laugh. It's hard to mention the Democratic Party making a bigger mistake than nominating Hunter Biden for a run. And yet Hunter himself is not floating the idea and more entertainingly is casting himself as some kind of reluctant savior. Oh, boy. We may have to reluctantly hand him under some credit here. If there's one thing he knows about it's addictions, but wait, there's more. Biden has self-described former crackhead who was convicted on federal gun and tax charges, said that his top qualification for becoming president is adhering to the rule of law.

Wait, wait, we're talking about a presidential run? Yeah. Here's my qualification for becoming president. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America that you swear to uphold and protect. I want the next president to commit to one thing to adhering the rule of law, he said. Okay. I can't imagine they're actually considering this guy for president. But Newsom ain't doing all that well either. And AOC is, she's still one of the top contenders in the prediction markets. She's currently down just below John Assoff, who's winning. But she's in second place. So who would you guys vote for Hunter or AOC? AOC. I'd rather vote for Hunter.

I'm going Hunter all day. Well, if I wanted for Hunter as well. Because he's a guy, because you're sexist. Is that it? Yes. Yes. I want to lose. I vote for Hunter. I don't think Hunter has a chance in hell. That guy, as soon as he gets put up against the real deal, he's going to just, it's like a wooden board that just starts to crack

along the fibers. Polls at this time are just like name recognition. Like whoever's popular in the media, right? Hunter Biden just did kind of a social media campaign that tour that he was doing, right? Is he selling a book? Why is he doing that?

I don't know. Okay. All right, whatever. He wasn't able to talk before when his dad was in power. For sure. For sure. His time now. But, you know, since he's done that tour, that's probably why he's making it

appearance just because people, it's top of mind. That's who people are thinking about. He's been doing sort of a rehabilitation tour, what you're referencing over the last six months, four months out of nowhere. And there was this weird, like, cult love. Hunter Biden, this weird anti-hero energy would people get where they're like, oh, the Punisher, I love him. Could be a bit of like a trolly kind of funny support for it, maybe.

Unless people are serious. What? Unless people are serious. Some people were probably thinking they're supposed to like him, so they're doing it for real. Other people like just laughing their balls off in secret, but being like, yeah, Hunter, glad you're on the forefrey. Because look, look, if this is legitimately thinking about running Biden's ex, his crackhead son that was on the board of Burisma, selling out our country to the liberal economic order, like, good luck, guys. Good. He said, he may have to run for president in 2028 during an interview.

with John Katz and Mattitus on his WabBC Cats Roundtable radio show on Sunday. I'd like to see him debate J.D. Vance because it will give Vance a bunch of fuel. You know, it's just, what's the right word for it? It's too corrupted at this point, everything, in my opinion. It's just too corrupted. Like the idea of actually having a Hunter Biden candidate. Like, listen, listen, Trump was a deviation from decorum as it was. but the Clintons, the Obama administration were so miserable in so many different areas

that as much as, I mean, a lot of people just couldn't stomach Trump at all. I used to frame it as, you know, the great example of me being in the Uber and I think I was in Houston going to Glenn Beck Show. And the driver was like, man, it's like, I wish Trump wouldn't talk the way he does, but, you know, I voted for him. And I'm like, I hear that a lot from people that Trump just kind of, you know, why does it gotta be like that, but he's clearly better. That was already a deviation from the decorum, throwing Hunter Biden, and it's just like,

I'm at the point where it's just, okay, it feels like riding the atomic bomb down with the cowboy hat. Yeah, I mean, what else do you hear people say, though? They say that Trump is that businessman, right? So they'll say, oh, personality, I don't know, but, oh, he is a businessman. He's tough. Dude, he's that tough, great New York City businessman that's been famous for decades, right? So this is a lot different than a lot of the people that the Democrats have been propping up over the last five to ten years.

I mean, dude, you look in Congress, there's communists in Congress that have achieved literally nothing. You have, or socialists, if you want to be precise, but you have Mom Donnie. You know, it's just another example of that. Like, they're addicted to propping up mediocre figures as long as they, hey, can smile, maybe are charismatic, and hold Marxist views. They don't need to accomplish literally anything. And that's what sold the American people on Trump. It was a big selling point, man.

Exactly. He'd be obnoxious, but he is a billionaire and a serial entrepreneur and, you know, tough as nails. You knew how to come with an action plan, build the wall. That was his action plan, which is something. Which, by the way, is being built and fully funded right now just to let everybody know. And like other people, their action plan is the current status quo is bad. Like no action plan, basically, just complaining about the old action plan. If you come with like, we're going to build a space elevator and here's how we're going to do it, you'll get a lot of people getting behind you.

If you have a vision of some sort of better future, that's what you've got to sell the people. I can't imagine the communists have any version of a better future or if they have a plan. They might say like, no, when we're all together, we can do this together. We the people, that's not a plan. That's hyperbole or rhetoric, you know. The craziest thing is they, I've been doing a lot of DSA street conversations over the last couple weeks. We've been hitting that hard, and we'll go over, like, the DSA platform. You know that co-chair did that famous Fox News rundown of their platform.

And you'll get people that say, like, it's a lot of feel-good stuff. And they also think with socialism, they think that it is more like equally spread out and not like the power doesn't centralize. Bro, that is literally exactly what the power ends up doing. So they say a lot of these people that you'll talk to on the street, they think it's like capitalism is, is completely centralized. and that's all it is and nobody has money. It's like, well, dude, what you're advocating for is literally like five people at the very top having literally everything and picking and choosing where it all goes. It's called vanguardism.

Both the Soviet Union devolved into, they promised communism and ended up with vanguard where a small group of people overseeing control the military and then the entire economy. And the Chinese happened the same way. They said, we're going to give you a republic, the People's Republic of China, and then they get into power. They lie to you with the communist carrot and then they give you the stick of basic a small, you know, a junta, a military council running the show. Right. So it's happened twice.

The Soviet Union in China. I see no evidence that a communist in promise revolution could ever lead to anything other than a dictacracy where you've got, you know, one plus guys. Stalin. I mean, look at it. The market doesn't drive in the grocery stores. Like they pick and choose what goes where, right? Because it all has to be equal, right?

So the market doesn't drive that. You decide what it's worse than that because they have central planners that will say, this is how much wheat we need because this is how much flour we need because this is how many loaves of bread we need. And so like there's no correction system at all, right? Like they say, we need to produce this much wheat. There's no market for wheat. So if they produce that much wheat, then the bread that you're going to get is as much as the wheat can produce. There's no like, oh, we're running low on flour. So we need to buy wheat from someone who's got wheat to sell. No one has wheat to sell because all the wheat was produced. So then that happens.

throughout basically every single, you know, food product that you can come up with. That's a big part of the reason why socialist societies always have issues stocking the grocery selves. I think it was it was Gorbachev that came over to the United States when Reagan was present. And he went to a grocery store in, you know, just some random grocery store in Texas. And he said the Russian people would cry. Right. If they saw what America.

I thought he said they revolt. Did he say revolt? It's possible. I could be misremembering. He was shocked. But he was shocked at how much variety there was. And you get people like Bernie Sanders saying, oh, well, you don't need 10 different kinds of toothpaste.

He said if they saw the U.S. supermarkets, there would be a revolution. Yeah. Wasn't wrong. Revolution shortly after that. Well. Well, you know. But like, you know, Bernie Sanders here says, hey, we don't need to have 15 different kinds of toothpaste. Well, what do you know, Bernie?

Like, where the hell do you get off saying we don't, what people need? You're right because if the market, if they don't need it, they're not going to buy it, and the market will stock less than it. Exactly. If there is a market for it and people are purchasing it, that means that actually, yeah, people find value in these different kinds of tooth. There's also privateers that will make unnecessary market surplus just in case for that rainy day that a central planner will never see coming. And so when they run out of food, you're like, actually, somebody does have it because this one private company decided to go. go rogue and develop 10 times more than it needed. The central, it's just having many, many planners is way better for an economy than having won.

Well, they also lied about the quotas that they were meeting and not meeting China because they didn't want to get in trouble, which led to like massive famine and then actually not having enough. So it's not accurate at all. They were afraid that if they admitted not meeting quotas, they'd be killed. So they were pretending or meeting quotas. Exactly. Well, and even if it wasn't, I'm sure there were plenty of people that were killed,

but even if it wasn't, you know, being killed. you'd lose your position. And if you had a nice cushy position in the bureaucracy and your family has a nice apartment that's, you know, probably not nice by United States standards. But in the Soviet Union, you had a nice apartment. You'll lose that stuff if you don't, if you get fired from your job. Then you have to go and you'll be not kind of star for everybody else. That's why they would lie. That's why they would do the lying because they didn't want to lose their position. The Hunter Biden thing is really crazy because I feel like this is a strange psychological phenomenon of like villain worship, not that he's the only. He's like Punisher, an anti-hero that has

done so much wrong, but also now is seen as like a, you know, there's good in him still, which is true. He's not an evil villain. He's just done a lot of weird. Who's that? Oh, Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden. His complicacy with Joe Biden with Burisma. I think they did a lot of business with like our adversaries and got wealthy doing that business and that was another shy steed. Who exactly? China dealings. Yeah, he's definitely been a willing pawn of the liberal economic order to cement international economic relations between the Chinese, the Ukrainians, the Americans. So he's going to have to answer for that

and he will and he is. But still, just because he's out now kind of spilling the beans, hey, that's cool. I want to get on your good side hunter because I want you to tell all. Maybe you want to wait until the big guy's out of the picture until you do it.

But Joe, you know, I'm talking about your father still being alive and tarnishing his living legacy. But at some point, if you really want an alliance of true Americans, you're going to have to be completely transparent with what you've experienced. Until then, dude, he's just a mouthpiece. I'm happy to see him get propped up

because he'll get shredded down diplomatically on the stage. And Bernie Sanders isn't going to give J.D. Vance enough of a run for his money. He's too old. He's trying to slow down AI development. Bernie Sanders, I don't think he's talked about running, but yeah, he and AOC both submitted a bill that is an AI moratorium for

not just the United States. They're trying to get other countries, China, to actually build a more have a moratorium on AI development and that would be like trying to get them to stop building the nuclear bomb during right before World War II and asking the Germans not to build it and then promising you that they won't anybody with a brain understands that the only place that would actually slow down on the development would be the West and then everyone else would continue and building at full speed when you say West you mean the United States because there's no significant AI companies that are doing anything in Europe it's all they're all American

companies right you know yeah That's very strange that he would want to slow that down. I know there's downsides to unleashing AI, but it's better to have it happen here than elsewhere. It's not really that strange because he's like he's anti. The things that AI promises are all things that Bernie Sanders against. Like the idea of AI taking people, people's jobs. So Bernie Sanders is like, no, we shouldn't have AI because we'll think of all the jobs we'll lose.

You know, he's, he's just, he's against people having control. Like so he doesn't want people to have their own AI. He doesn't want people to have access to that kind of stuff. It's actually pretty in line with Bernie Sanders kind of worldview, right? Like if you're a socialist that thinks that the government should control things for people and it should be a top-down society, having private companies developing these super intelligent AIs is something that you'd be against. Yeah, it could be towards intense corporatocracy where like open AI becomes one of the most powerful governments on the planet with a standing military and command of like robots. I sympathize with that.

But like, I mean, you do not want to not. beat your adversaries on the development of the most advanced AI on the planet. Let's, speaking of communism and all that stuff, let's talk about this from Newsweek. Trump plan to pay parents $9,000 to stay home with kids divides Republicans. It's not $9,000 to stay home with kids. It's $9,000 per kid. Currently, there exists a welfare program that will grant $9,000 to working parents, that way they can pay for child care.

The Trump admin said, how about we reverse this? If you stay at home with the kid, you get the $9,000. that way you can pay your bills and pay yourself to raise your kid. The current system, as has been put in place over the past several decades, incentivizes, whether accidentally are on purpose, mothers and fathers to leave their kids with other people at schools or daycares instead of staying home with them. Now, this is by Republicans.

Dana Lash said this is welfare, likened it to socialism for which Michael Knowles rebutted, saying, I don't recall where in Das Kapital. Marks advocated for seizing welfare programs to incentivize home. homemaking, but this is a resulted in a big debate. Now, I hate the Republicans, whatever. I'm for it. It's an existing welfare program that I think is largely bad. They're not getting rid of it. They're just saying, no, you've got to be home with your kids and you'll get this grant. I think it's, I wouldn't implement this from scratch. If we didn't have any welfare programs,

I wouldn't say create this. But considering it reallocates from an existing welfare program that incentivizes parents leaving their kids with somebody else, I think it's a good thing. What do you guys say? You got to the Republicans need to be giving something to the American people for their votes. Because whether we like it or not, the argument of pull yourself up by your bootstraps, young man, that ain't going to fly. It's just not going to fly. And I find myself actually like appreciating that argument. I used to talk crap on that argument, but I actually kind of appreciate that one. But I agree with what you're saying wholeheartedly, honestly.

Yeah. I mean, look, if your option is, look, man, go out there and work hard. and do it by yourself and you'll get the, you know, blah, blah, blah, and it's going to make a man out of you. Or, hey, we're going to give you all this free shit. Like, people are going to be like, hey, I'll vote for the people that are going to give me the free shit. That's just the way people are.

They're incentive driven, definitely when it comes, at least in modern society. 50, 100 years ago, I get it, right? Fine. Before the welfare programs in the 60s, fine. I totally understand. And I like the idea of people being motivated to go out and do things and, and, and work hard to make something of yourself. But there is a lot of validity to the argument that,

hey, look, the people that are going to go out there and work hard and do something, they're going to do it whether you tell them to or not. As long as you don't make it physically impossible, which a lot of these countries are right now, across the West, like all over Europe, they make it practically impossible for you to start your own business

and pay employees and innovate. And it's not like random why the United States became this just juggernaut of innovation over the last 150 years. It's because, dude, you came over here, you weren't hopping on welfare. You weren't allowed to even come here if you were hopping on any public dole.

We encouraged entrepreneurs to come here and create. And so I think that still needs to be an important conversation to encourage American greatness. But as for transforming an existing program, I don't know, I would probably have to sit on this one a little bit. But I think just hearing it right now, I wouldn't have, I agree with Tim. I wouldn't have a problem with so much transforming it to encourage people to stay home. I think that child care is incredibly unusual to me.

I will talk, I'll have conversations with people. And look, I don't have kids. But I will talk to people that will say, oh, well, I work so hard. And, you know, I was talking to a wife one time. Her husband works and she works. And she said that her kids. went to, did child care 11 hours a day? And I'm like, at that point, like, what do you,

are you going to raise the kid? Because, I mean, that's, you know, that's obviously important. But also, how much are you spending on that, too? You know, so I don't have a problem with creating incentives to keep people home with their children to raise their kids. I mean, and I think culturally we need to kind of get back to that as well. The fact that this woman is doing 11 hours of child care per day and like people aren't kind of raising questions about that blows my mind.

Yeah, like I said, I don't like it, but I like it more than Democrats winning because Democrats will, well, Democrats are going to do that and more. If Democrats. The border and flood it again, the country again. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And that is the biggest problem that the United States faces now is the number of people that the Biden administration allowed in, right?

We need to deport a lot of people. We need to incentivize Americans to have kids, right, to have families. to have families. And you're not going to get people to do that by just saying, well, look, man, I know it's going to be hard, but pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It's just not. Like, I don't like it.

I don't, you know, but you're, you've got a situation that just sucks. And so how do you fix it? I don't, I don't have a better option than saying, look, you know, this is the game. You got to play it. Do you know what this program is that they're re-diverting funds from? Did you pick that up at all, Tim, earlier when you were? Yeah, he said it was the...

It's the existing program. So the program right now pays $9,000 per kid for you to be at work. So if a mom and a dad have a kid and the mom says, I'm going to get a job, they go, okay, we're going to give you money for that. Which creates a perverse incentive. Yeah. It separates parents from their kids, strengthens the institutionalized learning facilities and these child care scams, is being really honest. Yeah. The bureaucracy, the, you know, the education bureaucracy loves it because they get that money at the end of the day, right?

It all goes into the bureaucracy somehow. I look at this kind of like, you know, do you spend a boatload of money on your kids that are failing to try to get them to the average level? Or do you spend money on the kids that are excelling so that way the kids that are excelling can really excel? Because who's going to do more for society, right? I think that it's more, it's a better option to say the kids that are excelling, we're going to spend money here. We're going to throw good money after the kids as a point. as opposed to throwing bad money at the kids that are that are struggling. I had two answers for your question.

If it was I had to pick a kid or a small group of people, I would have picked the bright kids and fund them to do better. But if I was like a city planner, I'd have to do both to make sure that the kids that were struggling don't get left behind because they'll form gangs and then mess up my city. So you kind of have to bring them in and slow down. If they're, if they're the kind of person that's going to be, that's going to get into gangs and going to be the kind of,

criminal element or whatever you want to call it, you're not going to be able to educate them by throwing money at it. Like you're just not. The way that if you look at what happens when you have bad kids in classroom, like two bad kids can ruin a whole classroom. And that holds back all the normal kids and the ones that excel. And it doesn't take a classroom full of bad kids. It takes a handful of them to be like, you know,

like if you got a classroom with, you know, 25 kids or how many you're, in a classroom nowadays, you get two or three bad ones, and that means the rest of the class suffers. Get those kids out of there. It's the same kind of idea as, like, if you've got violent people in society, get them out of society. This is for the people that are trying.

This is for the people that are doing well. Get the bad ones out. Is this an idea that they're just floating? Did anyone, because I didn't get a chance to review? They're floating. They're floating. It's just floating it. Okay, okay.

It's a plan, which means who knows. Okay. Interesting concept. I think unemployment also should be inverted. You shouldn't get paid to have no job. You should get paid a little bit extra if you have a job. I think there's a lot of people that use these programs genuinely. And there's also a lot of people that use these programs nonstop for years.

And so it's like, you know, I think as a developed country in the world's superpower, I would like to see us have, you know, at least some safety net for people that that, hey, life hits you hard, man. And sometimes people need that. And there's a lot of stories, and I'm sure a lot of people that are actually watching this right now, that maybe they grew up like that,

and they actually needed those programs, and the family worked really hard, and they eventually got off that. And that's a great thing. And I think we should have programs like that. The problem is we have people that are just perpetually on welfare for their entire lives and their kids' lives.

They'll get unemployment, and then they'll intentionally not get a job or they'll pretend like they're trying to get a job to keep getting unemployment checks. It's not just unemployment, man. They'll be on everything. Anything. It'll be on all of it.

But you're right about everything. The safety net true, yeah, food stamps, you lose if you get a job sometimes, it's crazy. So, like, if we could incentivize people to maybe you get a little bit of money if you're unemployed or you need food stamps. But if you get a job, you're going to get three times that in government assistance while you get back on your feet. That's the UBI idea and it doesn't work. It has to be limited amount of time. And then people would try and game that.

They'd get fired. They'd collect unemployment. Then they'd get the job to triple up. It's not that. It's just common. It doesn't work. That's the idea for a lot of these communist systems. is that will guarantee you a certain degree,

but you can work for more. So like in the Soviet Union, they had money. In communist China, they had money, but they had rations too. So poor people were guaranteed. It just doesn't work. You mean like unemployment is inevitably communist?

No. Some of it's okay. That's not what I'm talking about. Unemployment. I'm saying a universal basic income. Well, to go from unemployment to I'm going to get a job and still not lose all my unemployment. Because a lot of people avoid getting a job.

I pay a tax that covers unemployment insurance, as does my employer. And then if I lose my job, through no fault of my own, I am not left destitute, which would be bad for the economy. A mixed economy, I think, is fine. Some programs are okay. I'm fine with this program. I'm fine with unemployment. The issue is when you do a universal guarantee, people go, look, if I work 40 hours, I'll be able to eventually save up and get that nice car. If I don't work at all, I can do whatever I want, whatever I want, and at least the bus is there. So people just eventually stop

working. Yeah, that's the problem. And then they get paid unemployment. If they've lost their job through no fault of their own, they can just sit there off the and suck off the tit of the government. Yeah, for three months. Yeah, for like, no, a year and a half sometimes. $900 bucks a week.

Crazy amounts. I don't know what the maximum is right now of unemployment checks and how long can I? Obama extended the crap on it. But that's still a completely different thing we're not talking about. Well, I'm concerned about people staying on benefits. If we're talking about people collecting $9,000 to sit at home with the kids. Abuse of the system is bad. Universal basic income is universal abuse of the system.

That's the distinction. Yeah. So if they were to get a job and to make more than their unemployment for a short period of time, it wouldn't be a guaranteed universal setup. It would just be a later and I was making $35,000 a year, lost my job filed for unemployment and I was getting paid like $70 a week. I was getting $9.50. It's not sustainable. You were in California, I bet. Yeah. Yeah. See, California's communist. It was a lot. So why would anyone want, to work. I didn't. I sent a year not having to work. It was crazy. And they were like, you know, I don't even think you had to look for a job. I was like looking for a job. I'm like, it was the most miserable. Illinois wasn't like that. What's that? Illinois wasn't

like that. And I don't think anybody should be like that because I was incentivized to not get a job. I had a job opportunity where I would have made less than $9.50 a week getting a job. No, no, no, hold on. There's a distinction there. The unemployment system will tell you explicitly not to take a job that pays less. It said don't take, don't because it's bad for the economy because what happens is a guy will make 60,000 a year, he'll get laid off because the company goes bankrupt or something, he'll got unemployment, and then I'll say, well, I found a job, but it's going to pay me 40%. They go, stop. That's going to perpetuate unemployment. So wait until you can find a comparable job or when you have no choice. That's what they told me. It's like, don't take a job

that makes less than a certain amount. It's like, bro, there are plenty of jobs where I'll make less than my unemployment check, taking 40 hours a week. I'm doing zero hours a week. Right. The government's paying more than what a job would pay. But you understand why that's correct, right? Why, it's correct or corrupt? Correct.

It is, it was the correct way to do it at the time. Because a guy who's got three kids who needs $900 bucks a week to feed his family, taking a job that pays less than he was getting before. It might have been $9.50 every two weeks for the record. I don't remember what. The point is, if a guy is told he's going to get $600 a week in unemployment, because it's based on 67% of what his salary was, and he says, this is a struggle.

they will say don't take a lesser paying job because then you and your kids will be homeless, which will create a bigger problem. What they should have done is let me get the lesser paying job and augmented that with a little bit less than what I had been making with unemployment, but still something. And rather than just cutting me off as soon as I get a gig. I think there's a fair argument to make that they could say take the job and we'll pay the difference for a certain amount of time. Or the difference plus 10% or some real incentive.

But the problem there is, what are they saying? Then in three months when this difference expires, you quit that job? It doesn't make sense. Tough gift. And so unemployment makes sense in that we pay taxes for the purpose of unemployment insurance. Both we and the employers pay that. You know the crazy thing. When people collect an unemployment check, they have to pay taxes on that.

Like it's income. Correct. It's insurance they've already paid. And then they get their insurance claim and they have to treat it like income. The government. Yeah, I don't agree with that. It should be an insurance. But I do agree with disability and unemployment insurance.

The problem is, so what I will say is these programs are beautiful, perfect in every single way. The problem is your society. a hard working class American society that believes in honor and integrity doesn't want to be on unemployment. They're embarrassed to say they are. They're embarrassed to say they're getting EBT. So they take it when they need it. They pay into it, but they try to get off it as fast as possible because they don't want to be embarrassed. But you get people who don't care about our way of life, who don't have honor and integrity, and they will exploit that perpetually.

And that's the problem. So again, if everybody in the country had a idea. identical moral worldview to Seamus Coglin, no one would complain about unemployment welfare because they would try as hard as they could not to be on it and they wouldn't exploit it. But then you bring in people from Haiti who don't care or people from Somalia, who explicitly have said, these are the rules you put before us. We are simply following them. But there's an honor system.

Well, they're like, but you told us we could just walk out of the store with the food. Yes, but you're not supposed to, but I can. Yeah, okay, then I will. No honor among thieves. Over 25% of Philadelphia's population, and there's some places that are even higher than this, is on food stamps. I mean, the abuse in some of these programs,

and I'm just talking about welfare just in general here, not unemployment, of course. Welfare in general is, I mean, it's got to be, there's probably 100 times the amount of people that are on these programs that should even be on that. Yeah. You know, like everyone, all these people are abusing it. 26% of Philadelphia's entire population

or I think it's like maybe Baltimore or somewhere has like 40% on food stamps. I mean, these programs are way out of control. And again, we got to go to callers, but I just want to final thought on this. It's not the program. It's not the police. It's your society. It's your culture. For sure.

And I want to talk a lot about this in the uncensored portion of the show because it's going to get edgy, as it were. It's going to be at rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL. But we're going to talk about taboo subjects related to demographic shifts in the United States. I want to talk about my neighborhood. and some positive, some negatives, but also what does it mean for your home to be your home?

And is it racist for people of varying ethnicities to want to live around each other? Like for Latinos, for Asians, for black people, for white people, what does it really mean? I want to talk about that. We'll talk about the other uncensored portion. For now, we're going to grab your Rumble Rance in Superchats, so smash that like button, share the show.

Force name change says, I smell bullish. What does Rush have to gain from attacking Germany or any other NATO ally. They're barely holding out against Ukraine. Never mind NATO. Couple, couple points. One, I tend to agree with you. It seems very, I don't know false flag is the right word, but NATO wanting to get support to fund Ukraine makes a lot of sense. Why would Russia instigate against NATO? They're being attacked in Moscow. That being said, the counter argument is that they're striking military targets where NATO is using to fuel and supply Ukrainian. So they're trying to be disruptive without triggering a war.

Russia wants, or arguably, European EU citizens to say it's not worth it. Who cares about Ukraine? So certain attacks might freak people out. Then again, we don't know for sure. Libertarian Hawks says, Phil, I want to include you as a werewolf in my next book. Fratres, a modern mythical story.

I just tagged you on X with the excerpts, and I want to include with you as a character. Okay. We'll see. The horse name change says, someone passed Ian Aduby. He seems a bit tense. Ooh, you feel that? There's a lot going on. You're into it. I'm feeling it, bro.

Captain Overkill says, I bought the no red coat skateboard on June 16th and was charged. Never got it. And no one answers my emails at Booneys 8Q. You guys suck at business. All right. Captain Overkill, we'll send you a Chinese board. No problem. How does that sound? I will get, I will personally have the Chinese laborer write a letter. I'll ask, seriously, I'm going to reach out to to our distributors and say, can we get the Chinese manufacturer to write a letter in Chinese to Captain Overkill explaining the benefit he receives as an employee of the company, why it's better that we buy from China. With all due respect and no disrespect, I appreciate you about the board.

But we've explained on the show several times. We have lost three American manufacturers. If you want, I will get you a Chinese made board. I will personally make the phone call and say, let's get that Chinese made board because Captain Overkill wants it. Now, again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I'm trying to make the point. American companies are going out of business.

American manufacturing is in dire straits. And because we chose American manufacturing, it's been taking a long time. Three factories have gone out of business. Even though we are selling out, it's just not enough. It's just not enough. Now, the boards have started shipping. So this is the good news. And indeed, I apologize, it's taken a long time.

Here's the problem. We have gotten more demands for Chinese-made boards because they want the art instead of supporting the American manufacturer. That's just the reality. We have gotten from emails people saying, I don't care. I want the board. And we've said, we've replied, guys, we don't want to buy Chinese-made boards. It's insane.

It's destroying the culture here. It's bad for the American economy. be honest, we've gotten more people saying, I don't care. Give me the Chinese board. So I say, okay, people don't want to wait. And I think that's, it's, it's a challenge, I suppose. When you, when push comes to shove, the individual says, what's one Chinese board? It's not like everyone's doing it. The problem is everyone is doing it. So, uh, I apologize that it hasn't come. It's um, terrorists. Forcing growth because people will go out of their way to not spend the money here. Guys, I got to be honest. I'm not sure it's possible. We get everything we do made in America because we want to be true. But I think the sad reality is not enough people actually care. And it feels kind of like it feels kind of like I am legend sitting in the top of the tower looking down at all people carrying their Chinese manufactured skateboards with smiles on their faces. And I'm like, guys, shouldn't we make these boards in America? One or two people say, you go, Tim, and then they go and buy a Chinese made board from the shop. So it's, it's, it's.

It's really hard to do when people are like, I don't care about the boards. I want them now, even if it comes from China. And it's like, okay, I guess. Like, we should probably just switch to Chinese boards. It's an up-and-bode battle for sure. I mean, we'd make so much more money. If you had both on the website and it said, do you want to spend $58 and wait nine weeks or do you want to spend $37 and get it in five days?

People are going to be like, five days. What the fuck is going on? I know, they're going to be like, this one and have it all in Chinese, be like the CCP flag. be like this will support the slaves in China, building your board quickly and making it fast. And getting your American made one could result in an order going into a factor that went out of business. You guys, we traded industry,

American industry for cheap, quick shipping slop. And people are, guys, we're good stuff. I gotta be honest. Because it's slaves pumping. It still can be good quality. That's the problem. I don't. It's still sometimes very, very good quality stuff.

I see what Trump is trying to do, but we are being fought by the, American people. And I'm not saying you guys watching. I'm not even saying you, Captain Overkill. I'm saying the bulk of people who skateboard and want skateboards are literally saying, dude, shut up. Who cares about America? I want my board cheap. So we are trying to be something different that supports the American culture, but I don't know that you, you, I can pull up a million videos on Instagram of a Japanese or Chinese kid ripping on a skateboard. In America, the culture is largely dead. And then you go online and people are like Tim Poole's wrong. Skateboarding is thriving.

The international market is amazing. I agree. It's doing great in Japan and China. I can't name a skate shop near me. All the iconic shops have closed. There's very few left. The ones that do exist are being subsidized. So this is the challenge.

When you guys buy from us, everything you get is American made. And then what happened was we went through our third factory going out of business. We had our first factory and they were like, holy crap, how are you selling so many boards? And we're like, we got a big show. People are big fans of the boards. And then I remember they came to us and said, we just, can't do it anymore, we're shutting down. Even, they just, they just can't afford it.

They can't afford it. And we, and our boards are not overly priced. What, what these pro companies are doing is they're importing from China and they're getting them made at 30 bucks, it's something about 90 bucks. How much are your boards? They cost us around like 35, we sell them for 50. For a deck? Yeah, that's totally normal. That's actually ridiculously cheap.

No, that's like, that's like a great price. I mean, I used to, I grew up skateboarding. I think what, I think what we have to do is like charge 100 bucks for a board and then just give 60 to the shop to keep them in business. But the problem is these American shops can't compete with China. This is the reality. We go to these American shops and we're like, guys, how much for a board? And they're like 35 and we're like done.

And they go, whew, then we sell them for 50. And then our distributor says, why don't you guys just buy the wood from China? It's like 15 aboard. It's dirt. It'll make so much more money. And we're like, because we want the American shops to exist. But the American shops can't get enough clients outside of us. Because what happens is someone goes to them and says, how much for a board?

And they go, I'll go to China for 15. So then eventually they say, hey, Tim, you're the only one that's doing these boards, but we only have two staffers. It's really hard. We give up. I see. Three factories have gone out of business. I was going to say, like, that price that you're talking about is totally, I mean, if I were to look up flip skateboards right now, are they still making skateboards? Yeah, 80 bucks.

80? Yeah. That's even more expensive than I thought. Yeah, yeah. But anyways. Some of them are 100. Yeah, so you're super competitive. You're just saying, okay, well, the price that you're getting them for is significantly higher.

So here's the issue. We could sell the boards for 100. and then just tell the shop, we're going to give you 60 per board you make to keep you in business. Then the question is, will our reviewers want to buy a board for $100? Then the issue, so the principal issue is right now. Let's just do math hypothetically. A skateboard manufacturer in the United States needs to sell 1,000 boards per month to break even. The minimum they can sell a board for is $30.30.

And they have to sell 1,000 at $30. China's selling them at 15. So someone goes to them and says, how much for a board? we can give you a quick turnaround. We're going to make them here. It's going to be 30 per board. And they go, China's doing half the price. And they say, we can't do that. This is break-even for us. Our cost of electricity, our cost of import, our American labor. And people go, I'll go to China instead. So then they end up selling over five, only 500. They say, we can't do it. We're out of business. We come along and say, we've got 300 to 400 boards per month and we'll buy them at your rate because we want

America. And they say, that's great, but we need to double that otherwise we're out of business. And they went out of business. Three shops went through. So I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I got to be honest, like, the people who want to buy the boards who are fans of the show, we're getting more people who are like, I don't care about a manufacturing. So we're like, maybe that's the reality. I think to push back on that really quick is there are different industries where the manufacturing process with this, I brought up this point earlier with the new technology when it comes to the manufacturing. They can make these products for pretty close to equal what you're getting them from China.

And if they're made here, you can get them a little bit faster as well. I'm not saying every single industry is that way. Maybe there's a lot of labor involved in building skateboard. The problem with skateboarding is that it's completely dead in the United States. So the American manufacturers are competing with each other and not getting enough orders. And culturally, most Americans don't care about American-made. That's why they're mad at Trump over tariffs. They don't care if they're getting cheap Timo products.

They want them. Let's grab a couple more before we go to the uncensored portion and talk more about this. KJX is in honor of Timcast tradition over Labor Day weekend. My nephew, Zach, had his second child, brought in this, world by his brave wife. Welcome, Zelaya into the world. A new Patriot awakens. Let's go, Zelaya. Let's go. Young Patriot, let's go. Let's go. Welcome to Earth's atmosphere. Libertarian Oaks

says, I had Claude build and launch a Star Wars galaxy private server. Took about an hour, played the game. Wow. So cool. I just had Claude rewrite 40,000 action script, lines of code from an old flash game, recreate the entire game perfectly, implement design elements that were never implemented but are sitting dormant in the code and then told it to reuse the code to make a sequel to the game. Mind blowing. Upscaled the graphics, created online play, finger snap. Took about an hour. That's incredible. Insane. And that's old claw. This is not, this is not even the

latest and best. We are probably a month away from you being like, make GTA 7 and it'll go, okay. That's where I'm not concerned because I'm using Claude to put code into unity and I'm using Chat CheapT is like my sidekick and all this. And then I'm using Git to make a copy of the code and sending it to GitHub before I make an iteration with Claude. And I'm like, yo, bro, in a month, you're just going to have one AI that you're like, maybe chatgy. Can you be like, make me an RPG that's like this?

And it's just in one move spits the game right back at you. Well, it doesn't, it's not instant. But yeah, you can do all that, all the other, all the other apps that you're using, you don't need to use them anymore. It definitely with Astra, when that becomes available, that'll do all the stuff for you. We want to grab one more before the uncensored show. We got salty bag of nuts. I'm in contest to be a Superdad sponsored by Ace Hardware.

It's awesome that they are highlighting families. Find me at your Superdad organization under my name, Joshua Butler. In sixth place, longtime member, love all of you guys. Whatever you got to do to support him and help him win, long time member wants to be a super dad. Let's go, Joshua Butler. Ace Hardware Superdad, let's go. That's awesome. Shout out, Superdad.

We got one more. Matt Stash says Timcast tradition. My sister just had her second kid. Let's go. Congratulations. My friend, smash the like button. Share the show. We're going to the uncensored portion of the show. It's going to get spicy. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. James, you want to shout anything out? Yeah, you guys. Make sure to follow me on social media and YouTube at James KluG for the best political conversations on the street. I think you guys will enjoy it if you're not familiar with my content. As always, thank you guys so much for having me. appreciate it. And I'm at Ian Crossland. You'll find me on the internet at Ian Crosland.

Follow me on YouTube where I go live from time of time. I've went live over the weekend a few times. It was exhilarating, playing music, learning, doing deep dives under research of quantum physics and beyond. Hit me up at Ian Croslin. I'll see you there. I am Fill the Remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon. It's patreon.com slash fill it remains. The band is all that remains. You can check out the band on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Dizer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Bank. everywhere at Carter Bank's official, everywhere else, and also check out our label trash house records

on YouTube. James, thanks for coming. We'll see you all at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL for the uncensored portion of the show. Right now, thanks for hanging out.