Timcast IRL - SCOTUS BETRAYS AMERICA, Rules There IS NO ELECTION DAY w/ Topher Field

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

Tim, Ian, and Brett are joined by Topher Field to discuss SCOTUS rules with Dems to allow late mail-in ballots, California to vote on Voter ID, and a gay Jewish Democrat flees a trans march after getting surrounded by a mob.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Brett @BrettDasovic (X) |  @PopCultureCrisis  (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Topher Field @TopherField (X) | https://www.topherfield.com/ Podcast available on all podcast platforms! SCOTUS BETRAYS AMERICA, Rules There IS NO ELECTION DAY | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Supreme Court issued several rulings today. The most, I would say, pressing, of course, is that mail-in votes, particularly absentee belts, can be counted after election day if they're postmarked by election day. But the actual ruling in the opinion is that there is no deadline set by Congress as to when a ballot can be cast or received. Basically, the majority with the opinion written by Amy Coney-Barritt is that we don't have elections. that despite the fact that Congress did codify a specific day in which you have elections, Coney Barrett says, yes, but a day of election is just the day we express our intent, not when election officials determine what our intent was.

So basically, you could cast a vote for the president for 2028 right now, and it would be a legitimate legal vote so long as the state said. And they could tell you they'll count that vote a year later after the election's already over. which makes literally no sense. The function of which, I wouldn't be surprised if we see this, though, you know, probably not. Democrats with red seats at California,

they tried to redistrict to wipe out a bunch of these Republican seats. They could actually now, under this ruling, say, the deadline for a seat of ballots in any capacity for the midterm election is one year after November, November of 2027. They could then say, we will not conclude the election until all legal votes are counted. Now, it would be quite egregious if they did, but they could pull some shenanigans and refuse to sit Republicans in Republican districts because they haven't received all the ballots yet. It is a ridiculous ruling. And I have to say, Amy Coney-Barrant, writing for the majority, wrote some of the most insane psycho-babel and vile-nobabble.

and vile nonsense, Alito dissenting, in fact, both invoke, they invoke the specter of civil war, with Connie Barrett basically being like, so what, who cares, let it all burn. I'm paraphrasing, but she pointed out several instances,

several arguments in which there were attempts made to create a deadline for elections, and then she goes on to say, despite all of that, they never wrote down what the deadline would be. They did, though. there's literally a law on the books that November it's the I believe the second Tuesday or the first Tuesday after or the second Tuesday after the first Monday whatever weird language is the day

of the election and she's playing a semantic game saying well because they didn't specify what a day of election actually means and there's no date set there's no actual elections so now as we've already seen in California to the blue states we might have to wait two two or three months to figure out who actually is going to win an election, allowing them ample time to find votes. There's another big element of this in that, guys, you can recall your packages sent through the mail. USPS allows recall. Alito argued an individual could mail in their vote and then if a few days later changed their

mind, contact the postal service and have that bout return to them so it would not count. Clearly this means the election did not happen. this individual did not deliver their ballot and did not vote. Absolutely insane. On top of that, Barrett's argument is effectively that the United States Postal Service is now a federal agency of elections for the states, defying her own argument that states run their elections because what she is doing is intentional. I wonder if it has to do with any, I wonder if it has to do at all with the swatting that happened at her house a month ago. So we're going to break that down. Now, there were some weird rulings.

Trump can't fire the. head of the Fed, but he can fire everybody else, which makes no sense, which reeks to me of some of these, some of these just as is just literally compromised. So Trump pointing out, well, they did grant me this power, but it's really the presidency. And then he stressed, we must pass the SAVE Act to put an end to universal mail-in voting, which, oh boy, fraud. Now, how is it fraud if it's legal? You're right. It's not. So when Democrats say, where's the evidence of fraud, I will say, well, it's legal fraud, but they allow bouts to be sent to homeless shelters, 10 bouts sent to a single address where only one person lives, and a

signature in California can be a picture of Mickey Mouse. I am not joking. This is not an exaggeration. I'm going to show you the documents, as we've done many times in the show. In California, a signature could literally just be a smiley face, not a joke. I want to talk about that and a lot more. You can tell we're fired up here. Before we can start, we got a great sponsor for you guys. it is Tax Network USA. Do you all owe back taxes or have unfiled returns? Have you filed every year but you still keep owing? Are you a business owner with messy books and a balance you cannot afford?

Whatever your tax issue is, the outcome is the same. Your balance is not going down. Penalties grow, interest compounds. And many of you are about to owe again for this upcoming tax year with no plan in place. So stop what you're doing called Tax Network USA. The IRS is not waiting. The IRS is enforcing collections through wage garnishments, bank levies, property seizures. They can even file for you without your consent. This is where tax network USA comes in.

With over 15 years in the business, there hasn't been a tax case they haven't seen or resolved. They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfounded turns once in for all. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. And they can do the same for you, but you've got to call now. They're offering a free investigation called the IRS. After that investigation, they'll put a clear case plan in place to resolve your tax problem and get you back on track. This is about you using your legal rights, take control before the government's terms for you. Don't wait for an IRS letter or a frozen bank account call.

866-686-1535. That's 866-686-1535 or visit TNUSA.com. check the link in the description below. Don't forget to go over to timcast.com and click join us to get involved. Don't just sit idly by. Terrible things are happening and great things are happening all at the same time. But if we're going to win, you need to stand up and be the change you want to see in this world. Join our community of tens of thousands of people.

Make friends. Start projects. Get involved. And as a member, you are supporting the work we do here at Timcast. it would not be possible without you guys as our members. So if you believe this show is important, if you believe something needs to be done to make this country better,

to restore it, to make the world a better place, I say stand with us at timcast.com. We can't do it without you. Smash that like button. Share the show right now on every single social media platform, subscribe and all that stuff. Joining us today to talk about this and so much more is Tofer Field. Tofer Field, I'm a dissident and author,

a troublemaker and proudly so. You can find me at Tofa Field on all the socials and Tofafield.com. Well, thanks for joining us. It's going to be fun. We get the boys hanging out. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's been like, well, a little bit less than a week. It's Brett, normally doing PCC, but happy to be here. How are you doing again? I'm kind of disturbed

about this Supreme Court ruling, but I'm interested in talking about it on stage. Yeah, this is really going to be a doozy here, so let's get into it. We'll try and run through it all. We've got the story from AOL.com. Cheating. Trump on leashes warning to Republicans after Supreme Court smacks him down on mail-in ballots.

Trump lashed out on social media not long after the stunning ruling rebuked one of his core battle cries, writing the high court's decision was yet another reason for Congress to ram through the voting restriction. Restriction bill, he has been obsessing over for months now, in light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning voters' rights and the fact that people's votes are allowed to be counted long after an election is over, it is more important than ever to pass the Save America Act. Now, there's a lot to break down in this ruling. There are a few things that Coney Barrett rules. Now, the ruling is actually quite narrow. Basically, there was a federal

court said, now you can count ballots after election day. The court of appeals then said, no, actually, you can't do that because federal law says election day is a set time. The Supreme Court says we reverse that lower court ruling for further adjudication. However, in the opinion, she says Congress has never set a deadline by which anyone has to receive ballots for it to be an election, which means we could, Republican states could say, how many, how many Democrat seats do you got in Louisiana now? One. They can say, well, with 775,000 people, we're going to issue a ballot for every single person. And if we don't get them back, the election has not concluded. So I guess. Yes, it's never going to conclude. If that's the case, they can just choose not to seat anybody. January 3rd comes around and they say, anybody from Louisiana and they go, just the Republicans, what about this empty seat?

Ain't nobody to fill it. We never finished that election. And that's the ruling of the Supreme Court. They could have come down and said, this is what Congress means by this law. Let me show you. Let me show you. This is from Cornell. This is two USC seven, I believe.

He was at the two U.S. Code 7. The Tuesday next after the first Monday, November, and every even-numbered years establishes the day of the election. In each of the states and territories of the United States, representatives, states of representatives and delegates to Congress commencing on the third day of the January next thereafter. It is obvious to literally every single person. The intent of this bill, 1875, I believe it's been updated in 1934, is that a day for the election was literally,

everybody shut up on this one day, cast their ballot on this one day, and they told you at the end of the day, who won? But since 2020, they have nationalized universal mail-in voting, much that California already had. And instead of arguing the federal government has supremacy over the states,

the majority, led by Amy Coney-Barritt ruled, day for the election does not specify a deadline for ballot return. Therefore, you can, return ballots literally whenever you want, and it's up to the states to determine when the election concludes. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and she is out of her mind. I can only imagine the swatting on her house has her terrified because somebody tried to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh. She knows full well what this means if she does side with the conservatives. For that matter, tomorrow we're supposed to get the birthright citizenship ruling. What's everyone saying? They ain't

setting up barricades around the Supreme Court, so they're likely going to say a Chinese national who flies to Guam gives birth to a baby and then a day later flies back to China. That child raised under the Chinese Communist Party can then fly to the United States 30 years later. And they do have to live in the United States for 15 years. Can then be president of the United States despite not speaking English and being adherent to the Chinese Communist Party. I guarantee you that's what she's going to rule on because she is terrified and cowardly. Everyone knows what a day for the election means. Even Alito makes the argument.

Now, here's what gets really scary. Two points. Barrett writes for the majority. Plaintiffs also stress that Mississippi's law may give rise to the appearance of fraud because election results may appear to flip after Election Day. But even under plaintiff's interpretation, last minute flips are possible because the Election Day statute set no deadline for counting ballots or certifying election results. Everybody who has an IQ above 90 understands the argument from the plaintiffs

that three weeks after an election, you change who won. No one believes the election. But if at three in the morning, we are still counting bouts from that day and you can see someone overtake the other, that is not the same thing. When we are counting bouts on election day and we say we're still counting, it's midnight, bear with us, it's 2 a.m., bear with us, it's 3M, okay, we finally finished and it looks like the latest batch puts candidate A slightly over candidate B. People go, oh, we'll look at that.

When it comes to three weeks later, like we're seeing with Spencer Pratt, no one believes it's legitimate. There is way too much an opportunity for fraud. Now, here's where Alito makes a massive point. USPS allows package interception, meaning if you cast a mail-in vote on election. It's posted by Election Day. You can call USPS and file for an interception if you change your mind. No one else can do that. If you vote on election day and you walk and you press that button, you can't three days later say I changed my mind, take my vote back.

But if you vote by mail, you can. This means every single person has now the incentive to vote by mail to get a grace period on their decision based on the opinion of Amy Coney-Barrant. Now, where it's really crazy is that both the majority and the minority in the court recognize that this was a component in the civil war. No one trusted elections. They were trying to set deadlines. Barrett actually references 1872 when they decided to set a deadline and then still says, yes, but they didn't write it down. Remarkable. The scary thing is, 1876 was when the president was chosen by committee because after the election took place, you had dueling slates of electors, you had questions of voter fraud, and Democrats and Republicans alike feared the civil war was not to kick off once again, only 11 years later.

So they said, how about we just let y'all be president despite the results and we don't go to war again? To avoid a second civil war, they allowed the president to be chosen by committee and not by democracy. And so here we are with a spineless, terrified Amy Coney Barrett. John Roberts, we never expected to make sense. Connie Barrett seems to have just, you know, as soon as Brett Kavanaugh had that assassination attempt, she just fell in line. Now, here's where it gets real fun. I give you California. Indeed, this is a unique and legit and legal signature on a vote.

It's a picture of Kirby from Nintendo. You know why this matters? If you sign your name, no one knows how to sign your name. No one knows what your name looks like. There's probably 100 million people who know what Kirby looks like. So if someone says the signature of this person is a picture of Kirby, They go, I can draw Kirby. And despite the fact that drawings are different, clearly different drawings, because they're both discernible as Kirby, it counts as a verified signature.

Amy Coney-Barritt says, why not? My friends, I think the only, you know, this is shocking to me because I had been making the argument that the only logical conclusion was a narrow ruling saying you can't count votes after Election Day. But they may actually go broad and say you can't receive votes before Election Day. for Barrett to argue that Election Day means you can receive a vote infinitely before an election and deliver it infinitely afterwards is her saying the United States does not have an election. That's it. That's so I don't know what happens next, but I can tell you this, it ain't going to be pretty. Probably if it's going judicial, a state's going to go too far and be like, look, it's seven weeks later.

We're still waiting for our votes. and then it's going to go back to the Supreme Court. Probably is what would happen. Somebody would make it with Sue. I don't know if you can take a similar case up to the Supreme Court again. It's so similar. I don't know how that works. You likely what will happen is they will reject it saying that it's moot or ruled upon.

So usually what happens in these cases, lower court will be like citing precedent in this case, Watts v. R&C. And then the lower courts reject it. You can appeal. Supreme Court, if it's too similar, it just says this has been ruled upon. They can have a nice day. However, if an argument is brought up in the periphery of this case, then they may take an overturn a previous ruling, which we've seen numerous times throughout American history. Like if one state during a presidential election is like, I know it's getting close to November,

but, or it's getting close to, because if it's a national vote, then other states have precedent or at least I think a right to sue a state that is malfeasantly taking forever to count their votes. If it's an interstate issue, I understand why you would be like, let's just leave it to the state, even if it looks like they're going crazy. It's states rights. But when, you know, you start to work on national votes, it's sort of what happened with Pennsylvania when they, when Texas sued Pennsylvania during the 2020 election. And they refused to hear it. I know. They refused to hear it.

So hypothetically, in the next five years, maybe we'll get another court case challenging the psychotic system that's put in. place, but I don't think we'll make it that far because at this point, I'm shocked by this ruling. I'm going to go ahead and predict a Democrat sweep of the Senate and the House. And when that happens, Trump already told a bunch of donors, he says, if they take the midterms, many of you will be going to prison. I will do what I can as president to try and protect you, but this is what they will try to do. I firmly believe that they are going to cheat their asses off. They are going to guarantee they take the House in the Senate, and then they are going to go nuclear subpoenas, like legal bills will be running up for ever. They're going to drop nuclear bombs in politics,

the likes of which Republicans are too pathetic to stop. Can I ask an ignorant question as an Australian? What's being interpreted there, if I've understood correctly, is an act of Congress. That wasn't the constitution of the United States. That was the congressional, sort of the act of Congress about how elections are supposed to happen. So there's two things. Congress says that the state legislatures decide the nature of their elections. Sure. This resulted in some conundrums early on as the states would hold random elections. They'd say, okay, well, the presidential election will be on this day, but congressional elections be on this day, and then different districts could be on different days, and it became very

difficult for regular people. In fact, states would intentionally use this ability to make sure their rivals could not win. So they knew, for instance, farmers were in favor of some type of law or politician. So they would say, when's a voting day, we can make sure farmers can't vote? So eventually they said, stop. Okay, we need a uniform day so you can't manipulate time to win. Like, if there's somebody who works a job that requires them, say, we're going to hold the election directly during harvest. And the farmer's like, I can't leave during harvest. We have to roll our sleeves up for three weeks straight.

Guess you don't vote. So they said, we set it for November. Well past harvest. Everybody should be able to do it. And now, Coney-Baird has ruled, there is no, there is time as immaterial. Okay. But can this be fixed with an act of? Congress? Could Congress step in now and address that before the next round of elections?

Theoretically, except Congress is non-functional. Right. And it's not functional because of this. If the Supreme Court ruled, you must cast and deliver your ballot on election day, then this November would have healed this country and it would have stopped the chance of political escalation. Sure. I was actually, I was talking to my wife. I was talking to friends about it. They said, aren't you concerned about civil war and stuff? I said to be honest, you know, the presumption is Watson, VRNC is going to come down saying at bare minimum you can't count votes after election day. It's going to force Democrats to reassess their strategy on politics. Stop embracing the fringe far left. You're going to stop seeing these DSA ballot harvesting campaigns, which result in like

Nathia Raman. And you will then start to see a poll towards the center as Democrats try to court moderate. So I thought that was very likely. Now that Amy Coney Barrett said, anyone in power can just take power for themselves. America, shove it up your A. Now I fully expect New York to go rogue. California is already rogue and they're going to go ten times harder. They've been clear. They've been given runway.

And the result is going to be, we've got communists now in New York calling for the destruction of America. CNN ran a story saying that this woman who won Daria Eliza, I think they were talking about, says she had a secret account where she was praising communism calling for the destruction of America, things like this. They are absolutely going to do whatever they can. You take a look at the redistricting war. California tried to eliminate several Republican seats by putting like six or seven congressional seats in San Francisco. Virginia tried doing the same thing by putting five congressional seats in Fairfax County. Now they got blocked at the state level, but the Democrat machine does not want to just give up and let Republicans win. I would not be surprised if California says the deadline to receive ballots in insert Republican

district is November of 2027, just to make sure every vote counts. And you know, what they can do, they'll do one of two things. They could say, we issued 237,896 mail-in votes for the election, but only received 100,000 296. It is not fair to 100,000 voters that we have not received. their bouts because of Trump's postal service. Therefore, the election will not conclude until we are confident every person has had their voice heard. And that means in Republican districts, they can refuse to send a Republican to Congress come January 3rd. Is the date of a new president

set in stone as well? The date when like an election is certified and then the next president or the incumbent takes the seat again? Indeed, but the issue is that you are not voting for the president. You're voting for electors. So there is something interesting in that election. electors must arrive, I think, by December 14th to cast their vote for president. However, this means that a state could, if there's a state like Wisconsin that has, let's say there's a, there's a purple state that it could absolutely go Democrat, but it's controlled at the executive level by Republicans. They could actually say, unfortunately, we did not receive the ballots by the deadline, so we couldn't send the Democrat electors to vote for insert, for Newsom.

This is the most insane ruling one could think of. Amy Coney-Barrant may as well just wrote three words. Let's start a civil war. Well, not three words, but four words. Let's start a civil war. Technically, the A is five. What is the likelihood that you see of something like this happening? Because like the stuff about them sweeping house and Senate and then bearing everybody in legal

fees and impeachments, 110%. 100% and you think that's just as likely at the, like, when they're electing the next president. We're going to see something, we're going to see a situation similar to the worst case scenario that you've described. What do you mean? I don't know. Worst case scenario being that they're dragging it out. It's months after the election night. We've already, we've already been dealing with it.

For that happened in 2018. Yeah. No, I'm seeing the next presidential election. Yeah, I think this is largely, well, to be fair. Like, I get it 100% with the cut with Congress and Senate. I get it's because it's because the presidential election is different. It's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a college which actually does have a deadline December 14th. Yeah. Uh, Congress technically has a deadline for January 3rd. However, there's also the de facto if they don't send anybody the votes just don't get cast. Now theoretically something interesting could happen. If they try and pull that move, Trump could he could theoretically call a contingent election by which house delegations then vote. House delegations are not senators or Congress. It is how many. How many. delegations to Congress from each state. And so every state has a delegation, and if they lean a Republican delegation, Republicans dominate in this capacity, which means if we go

contingent election, Republicans probably going to win every time. Trump could do something really interesting, and he should. I just don't think he has the balls to do it. He should issue an executive order the week before the election that USPS shall not deliver mail-in votes. He should state, United's Postal Service is not a function of U.S. elections. So any vote that is not a Not a certified absentee ballot under the UOCAVA, that's the absentee ballot law for military members, shall not be handled by post office members as they are not election officials. He's tried something like this with citizenship. Supreme Court said no to it. But I would argue that maybe three days before the election or maybe a week before the election, you want to pull this off because then you end up with a bunch of ballots in limbo and you disrupt the entire mail-in voting process, which theoretically could just cause absolute chaos for which the Supreme Court.

court will be embarrassed A. F. And we won't have legitimate results. It'll have to go to a contingent election. And then J.D. Vance or Ruby whoever wins. We were talking before the show about the fact that in the U.S. elections, the responsibility for the elections rests with the states. But the U.S.PS is a federal body. Would that be a technicality that could be used to justify exactly that kind of play? That's exactly what I'm saying with U.S.PS. So if Amy Coney-Brett's making the argument that state legislatures decide, but then simultaneously arguing that public, is a requirement under these rules, Trump could say the states have no right to impose some kind of election contingency on a federal agency in this way.

Yeah, in fact, even with, so the, I think I have this pulled up, do I? It's the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, I think, uh, I think we got it right here. Let's drag this in. And we'll zoom in. This is the uniform, where is it? Uniform service voters and overseas voter in elections for federal office.

So this is the general breakdown. There is a law. The president shall designate the head of an executive department to have primary responsibility for federal function under this chapter. Now, there's interesting questions here with this law that could be challenged to. Under what capacity does the federal government have to impose a restriction on states under the constitution says state legislatures will ultimately decide their elections. However, at the same time, federal law just literally says there is a day for the election.

So Amy Coney-Barrick can't have it both ways. She's insane. This is just absolutely insane. I have no, this is just nuts. All I can say is this is nuts. I just, one of the most insane Supreme Court rulings I've ever seen in my life. Is this what you were expecting? This isn't absolutely not. Nobody thought this. Even liberals thought there would be at least a narrow ruling that Congress codified an election day. So the worst case scenario was you can cast early and mail-in votes, but they got to be counted on election day. Coney Barrett being like, nah, six months, seven months, 27 years,

what's the difference? Insane. And she said, you know what? Congress can fix it if they have a problem. The problem with that is Congress already passed the effing law. It's already there that says it's a day for the election. What she's doing is claiming words don't mean words. It's insane.

She has betrayed this Congress. country. And look, I can tell you the liberal just as nobody, nobody expects anything else. These people want to burn the country to the ground. But Barrett, siding with them is shocking to a lot of people. If this, well, not so much, I guess. If Congress were to amend this law and put one day instead of just day, uh, there's, uh, in, based on what Barrett said, there is nothing that Congress can do under her argument that would actually codify what an election is supposed to be. they literally wrote there is a day for the election. Alito argued if you hand your ballot to an Uber driver,

does that count as a ballot being cast, because the Uber driver says he's going to turn it in for you? By what designation is the USPS an electoral body? I don't know. And can you use UPS? Can I UPS my thing to the voting station? He brings that point up as well. He literally says if there's a day for the election,

the expectation is that your ballot will be received by the election officials on the day of the election, not a third party with a promise to hand it over at some point. So this is the point. Imagine Congress says, okay, fine, you psychopath. Let's write down. The Tuesday next to the first Monday in November, in every even-numbered year is established as the day for the election, which is defined as a day in which people will cast their votes and deliver them to election officials on that day for them to be counted in each state's territories of the United States to be commencing on January 3rd,

she would then make the argument, yes, yes. But they never said to conclude the counting. So then they would argue, let's change the law again. If Barrett can argue that day for the election is nebulous and meaningless, then by what sentence can you actually craft to make sure that never happens? That's sure. It sounds pretty specific about what, I was going to say the whole meaning of the word day is now changed by this precedent.

Let's like, you know, her argument is an election is the expression of intent, but it doesn't mean the conclusion or interpretation of that intent. That's not true, though. Of course it's not true. You can't go to a voting station, set down your vote on the ground, walk away and expect that later I intend to come back and put that in so it's still a valid. I'm still part of the flow. No, just hand, I'm sorry, handing it to the post office. That's basically.

It's insane. What were you going to say, Brett? I see, not with that attitude you can't, but if you really wanted to, you could try. What's particularly crazy about this is that for all of my life and throughout history, we knew who won on election day. I remember standing in Times Square in 2012 when they had the big screens up and we were all like, oh, it's going to be Iran. It's going to be Obama. And we knew that night. And then 2020 happened and it all changed.

All of a sudden, we did not know who the winners were of our elections for weeks. And people got comfortable with the idea of not knowing for weeks, which is the initial problem. and Amy Coney Barrett is a psychotic evil human being. I mean, John Roberts, K. In Sotomayor, like, Katanya, Michael Jackson, we get it. They're all happy to see. But what this ultimately means, like, they are trying to create a monarchy. They are trying to create a kingdom.

This is, I think this has been the play for powerful leads for a long time, uniparty establishment, a nation by which the people are eternally separated from the ruling class. We've talked about it years ago, that the military industrial, complex, the Davos Group, the International Monetary Fund, the Liberal Economic Order, would sever itself from the constraints of electoral democracy and constitutional republicanism and create something like this. And Connie Barrett just proudly stood up and said, F you to the American people, to the working class, to everyone. Now, I imagine the left will cheer this on because it helps burn the country down

by creating instability. Do you think that the end result will still end up being, we've always talked about the idea that Republican presidents and Republican, you know, when the Republicans are in office, it's a bit of a pressure release valve for the country. Everybody gets their four years or it seemingly feels like everybody gets their four or eight years than the other side does. Will they be so powerful that they can continue the illusion of that after this? Or does it mean a, does it signal a larger shift away from? This ruling basically means we no longer have elections at all. So here's what happens. Trump should absolutely take this and just, drive it as hard as he can in every possible way.

He should... He can't even pass the Save Act. He doesn't need to. He can not just use executive orders. Just get shot down. They'll just get... Still takes time to do so. And you can do what Cuomo did.

You issue an executive order. When they shoot it down, you shoot another one right after it. You get 10 executive orders lined up, and when they shoot one down, you fire off the next one. Then they got to go to court again, and each of these takes a week to a day

to get emergency injunctions. And he should just blast off. He can instruct the employees of the USPS to discard an email and votes that come in. Throw me in a trash. Throw me in a shredder. He just go for it. They're not legitimate ballots and we are not elected representatives. He can say, if you receive this, you are to put in a box and put it outside and not touch it because we are not a function of state elections.

The Constitution designates they run their own elections. So we won't accept them. Just put them outside. Whatever happens happens. And then when they file a suit and say, no, he's going to. going to just do another executive order and he can keep doing it back to back to back. But on that monarchy comment, how do you hold the Supreme Court accountable in this country in a situation? It's impossible. They're appointed for life if I'm if I'm not mistaken.

So the issue is that Congress is broken. This was our chance to fix Congress once and for all by making sure we had legitimate elections on a single day where people went out and cast their ballots. Yeah, not anymore. Not anymore. In 2018, Democrats won three weeks after election day in the midterms. through mail-in voting in California largely. If we had a definitive ruling say, you cannot do this, Congress would have been fixed in five months. Congress could have then done their job. Now they cannot because it's hyper-partisan

and split down the middle across the board. So actually, I would argue the end result is, Republicans are pathetic losers, and they will keep saying, slow down their Democrats. Democrats will keep cheating until they have all power. And I think this is an effort to stop Trump and populism and restore the machine state so that people can continue living under a boot

that wants to blow up sand countries. Ian thoughts? Yeah, I don't know if it was like a malicious move towards that from Barrett herself or if she just didn't have the wisdom to perceive the value of the term day while she was making. Is that a joke? You think a woman who was a federal judge who like doesn't know what the word day means?

It's potential. When you have a young woman, woman, no offense, but just put in that position by someone who just selects her. We don't know what woman means. We didn't vote for her. I didn't know who she was. Trump liked the way she looked and gave her a job. I don't know how she got the gig, but she got appointed. So like I can't expect them to all have top level intelligence and top level wisdom. She's obviously missing something. It is really funny actually that all the women voted to burn the country to the ground and Roberts helped them do it. Well, you know, it might be that time. It's not. All the men said, no, a woman said

Some young woman, I mean, she's one of the younger judges that just got put there. Like, I really am disenfranchised by small groups of appointed leaders. We talked about the Federal Reserve earlier. It's the same garbage. Functionally, the most depressing part about this is kind of the same thing that we have when we have the discussion about the Constitution, which is that when it comes down to these documents, it doesn't really matter what it's supposed to mean. It matters what a specific person who has power intends it to mean through their interpretation.

and we're starting to see more and more that those interpretations oftentimes run contrary to what long-standing opinion was on documents like the Constitution. Supreme Court's done a pretty good job up to this point, but having our entire future of hundreds of millions, if not the entire planet's population of $7 billion, rely on the backs of nine appointed people,

is pretty crazy. I love this because Cody Barrett cites Miriam Webster. That's also a public, private company, which is shocking that she's giving away her authority to some private company's discernment of what a word means. Webster, an American dictionary of the English language. I'm sorry, let me read the full.

The federal election day statutes do not preempt Mississippi's law because the defining element of an election has always been the elector's choice of candidate. And a related federal statute, the uniform and overseas citizens' absentee voting act, confirms that while federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law governs when they must be received. It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that words generally should be interpreted as taking their primary meaning of the time of Congress the time Congress enacted the statute. And at all relevant points, the word election was understood to mean the act of choosing a person to fill in office. Signing Webster, the court has likewise defined election as the expression of the electorate's choice, explaining that from time immemorial an election has been no more and no less the expression by qualified electors of their choice of their candidates.

Now, Alito makes a great point. He says, if a single person was given a day to choose the person, it would be decreed at that moment on that day. They would not say, I've written it down and then wait three weeks to let you know who they chose. But because we have a large body of people, it is functionally different. That is, we have to count all of these ballots. Still, we expect the decision to be made on that day. And as we can see, here in her argument. No, no. Only the expression of their intent as to when we actually announce it or figure out who. That's well after the fact. But it's, that's a poor judgment because a vote is both the intention of procuring the vote and the delivery of said vote. It's not a vote until it is received. Then it becomes a vote. It's a piece of paper that's meaningless and, Alito argues that. Well, by the way, Miriam Webster, who she's relying on to define her judgment is owned by a company called Encyclopedia Britannica that's owned by a man named

Jacques Safra, a Swiss billionaire who's deciding the definitions of the words. Well, Cambridge says an election is a time when people vote in order to choose someone for a political or official job. A time. Oh, like a day?

When they choose? Let's play this game. We're going to choose what's for lunch tomorrow. We won't actually announce the intent of what's for lunch tomorrow you guys can express your intent as to what you want for lunch. I'll let you know two weeks from now what you actually picked. By the way, I know you all want pot-tie, but I'm going to order Indian anyway.

And then two weeks later, I'll let you know that. Well, I'll give you my vote, but I may request to take that vote back in a week when my mood changes. So I'll issue you. Even though you've already eaten tomorrow's lunch. I'll be mailing you my vote, by the way. What's it? Oh, I was going to say even though you've already eaten tomorrow's lunch tomorrow. This is created.

In fact, most shockingly, is that Coney Barrett actually addresses the recall issue. in, it's, let me see if I can actually, there's, like, reading this is, you got to read it because it's gobbledygook. It is psycho babble gobbledygook that she wrote. She's like, the Civil War, like, there were issues related to the election that, because they were incongruous, so they decided to set a deadline, but they never did. And it's like, and then they all murdered each other. And then in 1872, they said, we need a deadline.

And then four years later said, this isn't working. Another Civil War is going to happen. and shows the president by committee. Lunatic. I just want to know how far this goes. We had the sponsor for the show, helps people with the IRS. Can you say to the IRS,

I've expressed my intent to pay you, talk to the USPS. It must be just stuck in there somewhere. It'll arrive eventually. I mean, I mailed my check. The check's in the mail. I mean, the checks in the mail.

And until they open, it's both in a state of being and not being. And also, I might decide to take it back. Yeah, I think because, you can recall your mail, mailing a ballot is not intent of voting. Here's what she wrote. Plaintiffs argue that Mississippi's election system violates the Election Day statutes because the Postal Service and Common Carriers allow mail to be recalled before it's

delivered to election officials, meaning that the electorate's choice is not actually made as of Election Day. Even if plaintiffs are right about Mississippi law, they would still lose a challenge they have press in this litigation. That post-election Day ballot receipt is itself unlawful. Post-election day receipt, considered on its own, does not conflict with the election day statuses and state laws permitted only only quote so far as the conflict extends reversed and remand literally nonsense argument she didn't even answer the can can you read that gobbled gook and tell me what the intent is what was the ruling in the postmark it does have to be postmarked before the no no no no the ruling was that they are reversing a lower courts uh uh the the argument

was that federal law supersedes state law barrett gave a long weighted response ultimately saying we are remanding the lower court's decision for further litigation, meaning the states can act, there's no relief. The states can count bouts after election day in all capacities. So this includes universal mail-in votes, absentee, or otherwise. Instead of them saying election day is defined as election day. This was their opportunity to tell America what election day means. And Connie Barrett says, it quite literally means nothing. Because the important thing to understand as to why this woman is a psycho evil person is that if she makes the argument that there is a day by which we express our our intent, why is it that we have early voting and mail-in voting in general?

Okay, then make this argument, Amy Coney-Barrant. You can only receive a ballot on the day of election. And if it takes them a long time to count, that argument makes sense. I still think it's a bad. It's stupid. But her argument is people express their intention on election day, and it might take some time to count to figure that I want out. Sure. Then why are you allowing people to vote before the election day? When is an election actually happening? There's no day because we have election month.

It's in the law. I mean, just, we're cooked, man. I already thought birthday week or birthday month was bad enough. Election month sounds like the worst thing I've ever. Yeah, that's the new Supergirl movie. She's celebrating her birth week. That's what they do. Yeah, we've got this one now. This is from the post-millennial. November ballot measure will let California to decide on photo ID voting requirement. Sounds like good news, but the point is crystal clear. Trump is pushing the Save Act, saying this is our only chance now to remedy what the Supreme Court has done, but it's definitely not going to happen. California is actually going to likely ban ID requirements. And then tomorrow, when they rule, when Amy Coney-Barritt says that a Chinese

national born in Guam and who lived in America for two minutes can be president, you are going to get, you will end up with non-since. citizens, not even illegal immigrants, registering to vote, ballots appearing all over the place, and not a single method by which to challenge them. That's the end of the United States, I suppose. So what you're saying to me is I should probably withdraw my entry into the green card ballot. Probably don't go there? You're good. I don't know. It's just that I think the establishment unit parties' goals over the past 10, 20 years has been pretty obvious. And that's to create a multicultural United States that is

a non-country. The United States will effectively, like, I think their view of the world is there will be a bunch of ethno states and America will just be open borders for anyone in the world to come. It'll be the one, it'll be the global country for all peoples of the world no matter what, with no restrictions or otherwise, no public offers, just a military industrial complex, blowing up anybody who opposes them. I mean, that's kind of been the joke at the libertarians for years, right, that America is not a country. It's a corporation and a lot of ways, you're seeing is like the ultimate example of that in this case. You know, the worst case scenario is that is that the country is no longer. It doesn't have shared values. It doesn't have shared

goals. It doesn't even care about its history anymore. All it cares about is what it can accomplish through military might and all our spending. Well, I kind of gave there have been there have been cycles of me giving up. The first one was when Obama sold us out to the TPP in 2012. I was like, well, I'm done with the Democratic Party. The second one was when Hillary Clinton was supposed to win in 2016, but what shocked me was that Trump won. I woke up at like 2 a.m. or 3m. to the results and felt like I got punched in the stomach by God. I was like doubled over with shock and dismay. You can sleep through the night now because it's going to take a couple of weeks to find out who wins anyway. The whole last eight years has been kind of goofy with the Biden and COVID, but then

Trump got back in and just is now part of the technocracy again. Like he didn't stand up for the American common man. He joined with the forces of Palantir and the AI companies to make a techno state. I don't know. Like, Phil wouldn't Phil argue though that America has to get on board with AI in the techno state lest they fall behind in lose space to China? Yeah. Yeah. It's like the whole thing felt like an inevitable avalanche. Like that's why I haven't been complaining about it. I'm just like stunted by how dark can it get. Because I like free speech. I like saying,

fuck you. On the internet, on TV, right to your face. Fuck the president. Fuck the king. I'm an American. I'm built for this. I like that.

And if a corporation can turn off my bank account because I said the bad word, like the Tuesday bad word. Yeah. Like, what? But see, technology also gives us the means of fighting back. Things like decentralized cryptocurrencies

give options to people that didn't previously have them. I was in Venezuela in 2015. hyperinflation was a horrific thing. Malnutrition was a horrific thing there. And I met people that were running their entire lives out of Bitcoin. We saw another example of that with the Canadian truckers during the lockdowns. People had their bank accounts frozen because they donated to support the truckers,

but then they switched to Bitcoin. And there was nothing the government could really do about that. So the same technologies that give them the ability to surveil and control also give us the ability to push back. When I was a part of the protest movement against the COVID lockdowns in Melbourne, Australia, it was the ability to have things like Signal and other messaging apps, a little bit like what happens in Hong Kong. The same technologies that are being used against us, we're also able to use to organize. In my view, the technology is both inevitable, but also agnostic.

We have to hold our governments accountable so that they can't misuse it against us. And also, we have an obligation to keep up so that we can use it in our own favor. How was it being used with the citizens in Venezuela? So, well, that was Bitcoin specifically. So they would run their entire life. So not everybody, but I met people that would run their businesses, particularly IT services, these sorts of things that would have international clients. They'd receive the money in Bitcoin.

They'd pay their staff in Bitcoin. Some of their staff were paying their landlords in Bitcoin. There was this whole section. At the time, I believe, don't quote me on this, but I believe it's true that at the time they had the highest per capita uptake of Bitcoin. And it literally saved lives. Yeah, it makes sense. In Venezuela, the government mandated certain uses of currency.

And they also mandated conversion rates, which made no sense. It was like one U.S. dollar to. six Bolivar Fuerte, despite the fact the real conversion rate was like one to a thousand or two a comment on that. So we were there. And if I had to tapped my card just to pay for something, it would have gone through. And I think it was one to four at the time. And a bottle of water would have cost me hundreds of US dollars. But then the people that we were staying with, they would go and change the US dollars for us. And they would get tens of thousands of Bolivar per US dollar on the black market, on the real market. Let's call it what it is. Right, right, right. And we would prepare to go

out to a restaurant for lunch. And it felt like you were preparing for a drug deal. You had duffel bags, multiple duffel bags of cash distributed between you because it was more than one person could, you know, not carry, but... When I was there, I used black plastic garbage bags. Yeah. Like literally just filled to the brim with big stacks of money over your shoulder. God.

Because it was toilet paper. It's like, imagine trying to go to McDonald's an order like a big Mac meal and you are literally paying with big packs of toilet paper trying to convince them to take it. So I did that. math on this and a one bolivar note was literally worth less than a single sheet of toilet paper in Venezuela. So what years were you? Sorry, when were you there? I was there in 20, late, this would have been late 2013, early 2014. Okay, so I was 2015, so things had escalated a little bit. And by then they had this full-on toilet paper shortage. We flew in, my wife.

The paper was actually, you could probably buy cheeseburgers roll, palt some toilet paper, fold it over and say, there you go, one burger. Pretty much. So we flew in with six jumbo-sized rolls of toilet paper in our suitcase on purpose. And I think if my memory says me correctly, 460 condoms. And we flew in because we understood that they had some very serious shortages. We weren't planning on using that many ourselves, just to be clear. We were, there were some terrible shortages. We had a guy, he was wonderful. He showed us around for a week, and we forgot about these condoms. And I realized, literally at the airport, we're leaving. And I started shoving boxes of condoms through his car window. Had him, like, here, find somewhere to sell this,

because they were worth one US dollar each on the street. And at the time, $30 US dollars was what they earned in a month, roughly. And so I'm shoving them through. And he got emotional. And I'm like, dude, don't make this any weird as it already. I'm shoving condoms through the window of your car at the airport. And I thought about it afterwards, and I realized I just gave him well over a year's income. Yeah. Funny story, his name's Ricky and his wife's name is Astrid.

He used that money to buy a ring proposed to her. They got married and they now live in Kansas. Wow. That's great. And I'm shoving condoms through this man's window. As long as they're anti-communists. And it completely changed his life. Yeah.

When I was there, I wanted to buy a cell phone. Did you go through that process? No, no, I didn't. I imagine there'd be a lot of surveillance and identification. Oh, no, no, yes. So you go into the phone store and you go first to the host and tell them what you want to do. The host of them will then guide you to the phone acquisitions expert who will then show you pamphlets of various phones that you could purchase. And then when you tell them the phone you want, he sends you to the phone requisition specialist.

So you'll step over the next person. there's probably like six or seven people in a line. This, because they need to make fake jobs. Sure. So the next person then goes and acquires the phone based on the ticket you gave him. Then you need to go to the plan acquisition specialist who would then go through the various plans that they had. Then you, and I'm like, what's amazing is I go to T-Mobile here. I walk in there's one guy and I go, here's what I'm going to do.

And he pulls up his tablet and he types it in and he goes, I'll get your phone right now. And you're done. But because it's a command economy where they manufacture fake jobs, buying a phone took like an hour, and I had to go through six or seven people to get it. Incredible. So just one more thing on that briefly. We saw the effect of these different exchange rates. So they had multiple different official exchange rates and which one you got

depended on who you knew. So we went into a high-end mall. Venezuela is a beautiful country. It used to have money. You've seen it. It used to have money. I mean, obviously devastating. And devastating what's happened there recently with the earthquakes.

But we would go into a high-end mall and there'd be a shop fully stocked and right next to it. There was a furler, you know, the brand firler, sort of high-end fashion brand. I kid you not, there was the store, all the lights on, a staff member down the back, they had three pairs of sunglasses and a handbag, and the entire rest of the store was empty. And you knew the store next door that's fully stocked, they have political connections, and they're getting a really favorable exchange rate. So they can sell in Bolivars and then buy in US dollars, but they're getting a good exchange rate,

so it's worth it. It's profitable. The owners of Furler clearly did not have political connections, but if they shut the store down, they would go to prison because they're bringing the government into disrepute. So they have to keep losing money on this store, unable to restock, unable to close it down. So you ended up, we went to a mall and there were mall stores with literally nothing in them. Yeah. There's a guy standing at a counter with just empty glass and he was just sitting there, like on his phone, just texting away or whatever. And I was like, what's going on?

And basically what you were saying. Like he has a job. Yeah. Yeah, he has to have a job. And I'm like, but the store's got nothing. And they're like, well, the store's open. Perfect. Nothing for you, though.

Then I got accused of being a spy I had to flee the country in the middle of the night Oh, that's fun. I went to a pro-Hugo, a pro-Moduro protest in the center of Caracas City and the gardens I have in between all the government buildings and please don't hate me for this. I had to be very overtly anti-American

in order to avoid exactly that potential problem and I'm talking to people and I had Ricky with me he was translating for me and they were so happy to be at this event of course they were happy you understand but they would come to this event do the chance and then they would line up and they would get a t-shirt.

And so I started talking to people in the line and they would tell me how incredibly happy they were and how lucky they were to have had Chavez as their president and now have Maduro as their president and how grateful they were for Socialismo because if it weren't for the government, they wouldn't be getting that T-shirt. I actually think, you know, just my opinion,

that Vice was Deep State, Vice Media. because they loved what I did because I filmed various protests and uprisings of which were very beneficial to the liberal economic order. I remember covering all these protests in the United States, they're profitable, right? I go in film some protest and then put up clips, make some money on ads, and then do pay what you will, membership subscriptions. I was making money and it was supporting me. I go to Vice and I say let's pursue this same strategy. But when I went to Ukraine, they told me to go live at a time when there was nothing to cover. And I told the people there, I was like, yeah, like, we're not, like I'll be walking around with no viewership filming nothing.

It doesn't matter. Just do it. And I always thought that was kind of weird. And there were arguments like, well, it's just for investors. It's to say we did. So they can claim we had coverage in Ukraine or whatever. However, we know that there was U.S. involvement in supporting the Yeromidan protest to try and shake up the Ukrainian government. And so similarly with Venezuela, I was accused of working for USAID in both Ukraine and Venezuela being at Vice and covering this.

The interesting thing is Vice went bankrupt in 2023 and they started to fall into troubles in the Trump era. I remember the CEO, we were in Antalya, Turkey at a resort, the executives. There was a group called the WPP, which owns a portion of like every single media company. And they were having this, you know, I don't know, resort gathering with a bunch of high-profile. It's very Bilderberg-like, you know, executives and elites from various media corporations. And in the conversation, Shane Smith, the CEO, made mention about how the state department was in contact with them over their trips to North Korea. Which makes sense, outside of any conspiracy theories, right? You go to North Korea, they're going to call you and say, what are you doing, why are you doing it?

I wonder though if, and again, I just wonder when they start with these upstarts at Vice, not Gavin because he had left at this point, but they go to, they decide to go to North Korea and do this documentary. State Department then basically says like, hey, we can use this. And I wonder if the rise and fall of Vice was somewhat related to propping up U.S. interests internationally and creating a media company that would be attractive to younger people for the purpose of propaganda. And the reason why they basically have ceased to exist in the Trump era is that the deep state had other things to worry about. And now USAID is dead and vice filed for bankruptcy in 2023.

So. I've heard wilder conspiracy theories, that's for sure. Yeah, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that these young upstart rebels were approached by, you know, various investors or special interests for the purpose of propagandizing young people. Peter Thiel. I don't think he was involved in anything. No, I'm saying. What's his, what's his group?

Dialogue. Dialogue. What do they do? I guess technically it is log, it's L-O-G. Well, it's, you know, people, people liken dialogue to Bilderberg, but I don't, like, they're having a conference in Dublin, I guess, and the information got leaked from it, and one of the things is, like, how's your sex life? And, like, Ted Cruz is going to be there, so I'm not.

They do, like, a bunch of, like, politically, like, people from across the aisle, they can talk about this stuff because there's not supposed to be any cameras, but there's also a lot of celebrity. Like, Josh Brolin got asked, like, what he was doing there. And he's like, how did I get involved in this? What the hell's going on? Asra Klein's going to be there.

There's some other actors. Was it Joseph Gordon Levitt, I think, is going to be there? Well, he was one of the original ones because of his stance on big tech, which he's not a huge fan of. I don't much have any problem with people getting together for a, like, a private hangout. It's what all the CEOs do. They show up in their Patagonia vests, and they decide. The concern is with Bilderberg and with some of these other big group,

is that CEOs and world leaders are explicitly meeting to discuss international policies off the books and away from the people and their obligations and their obligations. But if a bunch of rich people are on a boat, like, I went to summit at sea with tons. I met Lady Gaga's manager and like it was a, it was like, what was it 10 grand to be on the boat and everyone is there as like a well-connected person. I'm like nothing, nothing happened. Well, most, I mean, I'm assuming most of that's just network. for a lot of...

Exactly, right? They spend a lot of money to stay connected to the right people. Dialogue is doing this thing where they're talking about Big Tech, AI, fears of World War III,

and one of them is just like having sex with each other, I guess. Yeah. I wonder if they leaked that one on purpose to make it... No, someone, the website was private... Like, sort of.

Apparently, the website for Dialogue is a member member login only, so you got to be invited. But the information was available upon inspect, meaning you didn't really hack it, you just right-clicked in, put inspecting,

showed you everything. She did some work to get the information on it, and they've been... I don't think that's correct. My understanding... No, no, I'm thinking she did more work than just reading the website. She went and did inspect and got more details. It was by this one journalist. My understanding that the information that was released was because she inspected the page

and all of the information on the conference was front-facing available on the homepage. This wasn't visible. So when you right-click and go inspect page, it showed all of the... But it's invite only, so she got access to the... No, no, no, no. Again, what I read from Wired was that you didn't need to log in. You just went to dialog.org, whatever, right-click, inspect, and it listed all the private details.

So there's a web guy looking for some new work right now. Maybe, maybe. But there was still like a login screen that you were technically supposed to use if you didn't remember. Yeah, because the people had to be invited by somebody else who was already a member, but she just did the bare minimum of just doing inspect rather than having a login. Right, the argument, again, being that. that the information on the conference was not behind a login screen.

Yes. It was on the front page, just not visible. It was probably supposed to be, but it just hadn't been set up correctly. Honestly, I wouldn't even make the argument that it was supposed to be. Really? Okay. Again, like when I was reading about it and like the things they're doing,

it doesn't sound all that crazy. I like, like as Reclines, again, as Reclines gonna be there, like guys, he's not setting governmental or news policy. He's a guy on Twitter at this point. So where it gets interesting for me is groups like the World Economic Forum, where they then have these alumni programs where they're specifically explicitly telling the world, we are going to find people that are ideological bedfellows with us, train them, and then we will infiltrate your cabinets, I think was the expression that was used there. So I'm kind of with you, Tim, people are going to just get together and hang out with like-minded people or industry people, networking, et cetera, no problem. But the minute they start to say, no, no, we're actually going to direct the future of the world here.

That's where I start to get worried. Yeah, Wired says Dialogue claims it was hacked but a misconfigured website left its members exposed there was no break in needed to access any of the files so like when I read the story

my understanding was that she just clicked she right clicked and put inspect element and then it popped it all up it was some of the rewrites had it they were very generous in their description of the work

she did to get into it the later I mean maybe but it was the Wired woman who did it right they did the original story Let's see. Viewing the files required

Little more than inspecting the page with any browser. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's it. So, like, you just, I'm not going to do it here because I don't know what. What else will come up?

I'm on post-loney and like I right-clicking and like all of a sudden Libby's password pops up. Yeah. That easy, huh? That easy. Indeed. Let's jump to this next story. We've got from The Advocate.

Gay Jewish Lawmaker running to replace Nancy Pelosi chased from San Francisco Transmarch. And he was called like a genocide. They have the actual tweet up here. I'll pull it up in a second. And Schumer was booed in New York. Scott Weiner. He is like probably the gayest.

Politician in the country running for office in San Francisco. Like very, very, very, very creepy guy. I'll be very careful how I describe him. But a whole boy is creepy an understatement. And they chased him out screaming because like, he is anti-Islam or something. I don't understand what pride events have to do with being Islamic, but apparently they do.

Well, because it's all part of it all falls into the same identity politics, right? Can we just pause and appreciate how insane that headline is? Every single word just makes it crazier as you go through. Again, it's a right-wing headline generator from like a meme website. Yeah, yeah. It might as well be a word salad. It just happens. it happens by luck to have made sense.

Yeah. Gay Jewish. Gay Jewish lawmaker went to a place. They got every buzzwood in there possible. It's insane. Oh, the media, dude. I don't know. What's your solution?

Gosh, to this? Just the fucking life in general, man. All this, like, what do you, you mentioned Bitcoin earlier. How are you handling this tech move? Well, okay, so my whole philosophy is subsidiarity. get powerful people to be less powerful and put that power back in the hands of ordinary people. I'm a libertarian slash anarchist, and the older I get, the more I'm heading towards anarchist.

What we have is a situation where power is the only truly zero-sum game in existence. People obsess over money, communists obsess over money. They think that it's a zero-sum game. They don't recognize that wealth can be created and wealth can be destroyed. The only thing that is actually a zero-sum game is power. No one can gain power without somebody else losing some. that's the thing that we should actually be concerned about the equity and the distribution of if we're going to be concerned about anything.

You mean just political power? Power in any sense. So the more we can make sure that decisions are made by the people who pay the price for being wrong, a gosh, Thomas Sowell, the more we can put the decisions into the hands of the people that actually are affected by the decisions, then on average, the better the quality of the decisions. So you're saying that people could become powerful through technology outside of influence. So anyone that becomes powerful through money, as long as they have actually been engaged in genuine capitalist activity, free exchange, has actually been voted powerful. We actually, we vote with our money.

When we make someone rich through money, we've voted them into that. But just to the statement that power is zero sum. If you gain power, someone loses it. I don't agree with because in terms of someone's ability to influence the world power or freedom, you can do that without affecting a politician completely. No, no, no, but if you've gained power over somebody, by definition, they've lost some power over themselves. But power doesn't always mean over somebody. Okay, then we're... That's why I asked, you mean politically.

Well, I mean power. Give me an example of power that wouldn't be over people. Well, the reason why I ask politically is because power has several definitions. We could say your ability... So some people define power as ultimate freedom. Oh, I see. That's why you asked about technology. Yes, if you develop the power to be able to fly, for example, that has... You are no longer constrained by airlines. But that's not a zero-sum loss of power.

Now I understand you. In that capacity, you can hinder somebody or you can compete with them to a greater degree without actually taking away someone else's power. I understand. Yes. If that's the question we're asking, then I would have to say, yes, I'm talking political power. Politically, there, so, you know, someone tweeted, Elon Muskry tweeted it, if you want to make a billion dollars, help one billion people.

They each give you a dollar, now you're a billionaire. the wealth and the value of an individual is determined by the benefit they give to people, the value perceived. So in terms of Elon Musk having power, no one loses power by Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire. There's not a single person on the planet who lost influence over others because Elon Musk gained technological wealth. Except that they all lost influence over Elon himself because now he's able to. That's not correct. You don't think so.

Before he became a trillionaire, he was already the richest man on the planet, and he has a few money. Bill Gates said that money truly became meaningless at $700 million. He said at that point, anything he wanted he could just have. He didn't even think about money at that point. So all of the billionaires, over 700 million, are at that point where you go to them and say, I can do things to you, and they go, you can't, you can't, you really can't. And so for Elon, moving from 700 billion to 1.4 trillion, he gained power. He can buy things.

He can build rocket ships and go to Mars. Nobody lost anything from that. He didn't gain power in the sense of political power any more than he already had it at $700 billion in the same sense that people didn't lose power over him in that journey from 700 to 1.4. Well, I disagree. I think he gained power in that transfer. When he became a trillionaire, he now has more money to make loans.

he can do more than he could before. Sure. So in that economic sense, yes, but he's been voted into that position. This is how money works so long as you're actually doing it honestly. Agreed, but again, it didn't take from anybody. Like, nobody was hindered by that process. In the sense of political power, though, this is the game where a politician, a government, they make a rule, they make a new law, take COVID comes along. Oh, state of emergency.

We're now going to exercise power over you. That is a zero-sum game. That's the context in which I'm talking about that. So you're talking about like hierarchy? Just the life and reality is generally it is a hierarchy always, and you can measure power based on where you are in that hierarchy? So government, by definition, has a threat of force behind everything that it does. And so every single time it turns around and says, we're introducing a new rule. There's an unspoken or else at the end.

So I guess what I'm talking about when I talk about is power being a zero-sum game is anyone that is actually speaking with an or else on the end. When a politician writes a new law, when something passes through Congress, that has by definition reduced the amount of decisions that you, get to make for yourself the amount of power that you have over your own life because you'll get punished by the police or whomever if you step outside of what someone else has decided on your behalf. So you know what I would argue, and I sort of agree with you that life is a power struggle and where you align, but if you give every common man, I'm not saying you're saying this, but if you give all the humans of earth unlimited power, for instance, to try and reset the playing field, that some idiot would blow everything up. So we have these hierarchies in place to protect power

and to centralize it where it's safe, safely wielded, you might say. And of course, that seems to have been corrupted by finance years. So by definition, unlimited power cannot be equal. We cannot all share unlimited power. What we can share is equal power. And this is where the philosophy of human rights comes from. If they're inalienable to us, innate to us as a human being, then they have to also be equal. If they're unequal, then they're not innate to our humanity. They've come from somewhere else. That's where might makes right, or I will because I can comes in. So if they're innate to our humanity, then they have to be equal between us, which means I have the rights over myself, but the minute I start to exercise rights over you, I'm now violating yours.

Well, it's... You said, we both have a right to free speech, but my dad gave me a megaphone because you had money and you don't get one. Sure. But we still both have the right to free speech. The issue of political power, where I completely agree is that political power is the confidence of people. Government is the confidence of people. If people believe that U.S. dollars are valuable, they'll trade with each other.

Sure. And if they believe that they're not, they'll stop using them. And that means the U.S. government, which relies on printing and controlling money, loses that political power. That's why Bitcoin is worrisome to a lot of people in power, because people might choose, or like Venezuela is a really great example. Venezuela enforces its political control through violence over people to use their ridiculous currency. When Bitcoin emerged as a more valuable alternative that gave people more worth,

the state was furious, and it was a serious criminal offense to be using external currencies, cryptocurrencies. Look at the guy who made, you know, the Liberty Dollar, right? Remember that? Yeah. Famous case in the United States, a guy was making his own coins, just called him Liberty Dollars. They locked him up through the way the key because it threatened to take away the power of the government to control economic transactions because political power is just how many people are playing your game in your system. Now, it's also true that, to a great degree, power itself is imbalanced in that if you have a pizza restaurant on a

street corner. And you are servicing, you know, 100 individuals every single day to buy a pizza, and then across the street, a new pizza restaurant opens up. They've just cut your market in half. They have taken power from you because you are no longer maximizing your profit. Your ability to expand is curtailed. So in many capacities, just general economic power and political power are any power that derives from the labor or confidence of a person, I would argue, a zero sum. So I don't see the economic side of things is coming under this, because money, wealth can be created, it can be destroyed, it is inherently not zero sum. At any moment in time, the amount of time... People can only eat so much food. Well, sure, there's only going to be so much

consumption, but you can convince other people to buy yours instead of somebody else's. And that's not a matter of taking power. Not in the location with only 100 people. Okay, sure. But if you're offering better value, if someone comes along and starts to cut your lunch economically, it's because they're doing something better than you. Better price, better quality, better something. No disagreement, but it's still zero sum. So, hmm, in the, in the very specific case of of food to a very specifically limited market. Let's talk about media.

There's only so many hours a day a person can listen to a podcast or watch a show. And so we experience this with AI content expansion. We are now in the podcast space competing with an infinite amount of content. And a human being only watches a couple hours per day of content, which means everybody's power is being diminished by the expansion and the ease of access to producing media. So it's an interesting thing there. On average, people are only watching a few hours of content. will rewind 50 years and people were watching far less.

I disagree with the premise that there is only a certain amount of content. People are now listening to podcasts while they're working. People can be- Right, right, but again, there's only 24 hours in the day. But also, so I listened to the show the other day when you guys had it out about AI and AI content, fascinating conversation.

And what I find really interesting is, Tim, I think you, myself and a handful of others who were around before this AI revolution happened have a massive advantage in this particular marketplace. because trust is going to become the deepest and most important currency. And how do you trust when someone comes up now? How do you be sure that they're not AI? Well, at the moment, we can kind of tell.

In two years, we won't be able to. I disagree. People want to be told what they already believe. This has been a function of social media. And certainly there are people who want to be challenged and want to think on a higher level. But the average person, the macro, by which you'll be able to sustain a business, is going to be, are you saying what people want to hear? A really great example of this is Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens Rain.

now. So for us, we've never been the biggest show. Well, that's actually not true. In 2020, for some reason, my morning show was like the biggest podcast. We were doing like $120 million per month, which was just nuts. But after that, we've always kind of been middling, big, but not the top 10 or anything like that. Now, if you're in the top 10 and you've built a business with employees and you have an expectation of revenue, you are getting worried when this off cycle season hits, when Charlie Kirk is assassinated, when the political moods change, you are going to see a massive down swing. For us, we've always floated around the same type of audience, the same, you know, largely as Chicago, based on it's a biggest demographic, California, Chicago, New York,

for obvious reasons, but Chicago is the dominant one because probably my worldview aligns with many Chicagoans. Which a hippies, too. Well, Chicago is a, is like liberal, but fairly moderate. And so when the whims of the, of the country change, we don't get impact as as hard, so we can sort of just stay where we are. But if you're Candace Owens and the, the zeitgeist is no longer with the anti-woke. You're going to be looking at a 60% drop-off. So what does she do? She changes her worldview to be, okay, now Israel. And Tucker Carlson has a quote where he says, he used to criticize Islam, but he was hysterical and he was wrong. He has to change fundamentally to try and stay at that level, attracting a large enough audience. I think you're both right

that people want to be told what they already believe. There's a huge segment and part of the human brain that wants that, you know, that alignment. But that's not an opinion statement. There's also a part of the brain that doesn't know what it wants until it gets it. And when it's something healthy and new and you don't even know it exists, all of a sudden you get splashed with this great new thing. You want that too. So you want to do both. You want like a hybrid system where you sell them what they want, but you also give them new things that are better. Most people don't.

This is not an opinion statement. This is generally just true. We've talked about it in terms of generational changes to the United States. We've got big, big political changes coming because the boomers are dying. and Gen Z is hyper-polarized and Gen-UFA is tiny. There is no reality by which you go to an adult and fundamentally change their worldviews in mass. Individuals might change. Typically, what we see, though, is the grifter, people who change their opinion because it suits their economic needs or whims or desires.

So, again, ultimately, people aren't looking for truth. They're looking for their truth. And the left is capitalized on this tremendously. I would also stress that AI has gotten to the point where it's very difficult to discern for the average person. And if you go on Instagram or TikTok, what are you going to see? New reaction channels that are bubbling up and making tons of money are making fake videos to react to, pretending they're real, and no one cares. I just thought about making a reaction channel where I watch people like paw ingrown hairs and stuff. I just have AI render the videos for me.

I don't even need real. I know I saw one. I was like, I could do that. It is. It is. But I watched it. There are a bunch of channels. There's a guy who got interviewed because he makes $200,000 per month.

AI generating automatically six-hour-long narrations about ancient Rome. Here's the best part. It's probably all fake, gobbledygook information, but no one cares. I agree that a lot of the people, they call them the plebs in Rome, they're just led around by what they think they want more of the plebs. But Tofi, you're making a good point that some people want honesty and a real human to lead them right now. here's the question. It's adaptable. How many people do you need to sustain a business and can you sustain the business in an environment where most people, so for us, the level that we are at in

terms of the revenue generation that we are at, we are ab- like, I think it's just because I've not pursued going after mass audience for the sake of lying about what I believe. So we have generally the same audience, the same revenue, it's been stable for several years. But again, for Candace Owens, who just says whatever is popular, by her own words, she believes the people believes. When the people's beliefs change, her beliefs change along with them to maximize the amount of money she's making. So I'm 100% with you. An audience capture is a massive issue. We've seen that with some personalities in Australia as well, where they'll turn on a dime as soon as they sense the money is somewhere else. But the point that I'm making is in a world

where the AI is ubiquitous, the supply is endless. Apply an economic lens to that. It's also, therefore, worthless. It doesn't actually hold value. What does hold value? I personally believe we're going to see a significant split, particularly in Gen Alpha, because they're being raised in a world where it's very difficult from the get-go for them to be able to discern what's real and what's not. And we're going to see a situation where people are going to begin to value human interaction once again, face-to-face events, the return of the pub. I don't know what you call it in America. You call it a pub? I like calling it a pub, the bar. Can you say the part, you said that the AI content doesn't hold value? So in economic terms, supply and demand determines value. If the, if the, if

supply is infinite, the value is zero. And the supply of AI generated content is practically infinite. But also the supply of tweets has been practically infinite for a long time. Anyone can sit down and bang out, you could literally have monkeys put out gobbledygook in endless quantities. That didn't mean that the people who were good at what they did couldn't then differentiate themselves. And the fact that you are a known real human being, as best as I can tell, I haven't sort of checked your working parts yet, but I'm pretty sure you're real. And the fact that I am and we predate the AI actually gives us an enduring advantage. On X, I make most of my money when I post some pointed political statement and get thousands

of retweets on it. It is retweeted by people who share the opinion that I stated. These are opinion statements. And because of that reach, I make money on X. When I post things that are goofy and immaterial to news, I get nothing. It didn't used to be that way. But now that everything's algorithmic, if you want to make money on X, you need to post maybe 10 times per day some generic and obvious political talking point that will adhere to the maximum audience size. So it is not in my opinion.

I think certainly this is an outlier because there is a small sect of people who are intelligent and want to be challenged or hear truth and hear arguments. But again, most people 99% are not going to fall in that can't. And I will tell us again, say this again, you can't compare the amount of money that Candace. someone's is making to what we make. Oh, sure. Or Tucker Carlson. Okay. So the big picture, big media, big apparatus of stuff will always be liars.

The big audience, the top 10 on Apple is always going to be manipulation and lies in the AI space, largely. But I will say this even of Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan's been particularly scared and walking on eggshells with many of the, with a lot of his commentary around the Trump administration. He backed Trump. It was actually the popular thing to do. The election proved it. But then we see Trump's polling go down.

And what is Joe Rogan? He falls back to the middle and says, I don't like what Trump is doing. I mean, is it possible that he just didn't, that Trump went directions he didn't actually think he was going to go? I think that's what happened. Like, especially with immigration, like, I think immigration for a lot of them, they didn't realize that they didn't have the stomach for the immigration enforcement. Again, Tucker Carlson saying like, I'm talking about Joe Rogan's. I understand. My point is that as I've already stated with Joe Rogan, he was in favor.

of all of Trump's campaign rhetoric and supported Trump when he was explicitly saying, we're going to deport everybody and everyone in his camp was saying it. Then when ICE goes out and starts doing it, he says, no, this is too much. I don't believe it for a second. You do not back Donald Trump's immigration agenda when immigration is the second biggest political issue for the election. And then when Trump acts on it, you go, oh, no, I can't believe he's actually doing it. And again, the point I was making with Tucker Carlson was that he said, forgive me for pushing this. I didn't know what he would do. And his brother then immediately, says maybe Miriam Adelson's money meant something. And then Tucker goes, ha ha ha ha. Because of course

Tucker Carlson knew Trump backed Israel. To be surprised now is a lie. Or severe short-sightedness, which indicates low intelligence. And I'll stress this point too with the UFC fight. The right was celebrating it. This is awesome. And the left was attacking it. And Joe Rogan said that he had to convince like Shane Gillis to go because they didn't want to go. And he was like, oh, come on. It's going to be amazing. And then in that same statement, he has to, for some reason, criticize the right, even though there's nothing to criticize the right over. Showing, again, what I believe is that Joe is concerned that Trump's populator is going down, so he's shifting back to the middle. With all due to respect to Joe, I think he's a good dude, and I don't mean to be disrespectful on any way,

just an observation that I think is worth pointing out. Well, that's what happened with what's his name, Nate Bargatz, the comedian or whatever, he had like a movie that just came out and he went to that event. I guess he knows RFK or something. And now people like, oh, my gosh, I never, I never knew he was a fascist. So for a lot of those guys, their popularity and their money is based, especially with actors and stuff like that, it's based on whether they have people

that are going to come out and spend money and what they're making. Regarding like people's integrity being one of their valuable currencies to sell. Like I found that when it comes to audience capture, there's two valences of audience. There's the norms, the plebs,

where you make your money by selling them the product that they've told you they want. And then there's all the people that are selling them products and all those people are looking to someone. Those are the people that want to innovate.

And they'll look to you. You can actually, like I found on the early days of YouTube, it's a little anecdotal, but my stuff did not appeal to the masses. It appealed to all the people that were making videos, the creators themselves. So that's how we made Maker Studios. I understood the mind of a creator. They liked the way I saw creation in general and internet connectivity.

And so you have to decide as a business owner and like, where am I going to market? How niche am I going to be with my communication and market? and communication. I think also there's one of the differences in what we're talking about here is the scale. I think Tim, once someone gets to that point where they really have approached some sort of a market saturation for their brand, for their appeal, those sorts of considerations do become much more critical because their cost base is also increased to support the business at that size. But they're the biggest shows and they all do it. Yeah, agreed. As an Australian

who is an Australian political commentator, so Australia is a small population, politics is not popular, who is a libertarian, which is basically a niche within a niche within a niche, I can tell you, market saturation has never been a concern of mine and trying to generate some sort of a living out of literally a few hundred thousand active followers in Australia is its own kind of beast. But the currency has to be authenticity. The minute that audience senses that you've got your finger to the wind, even to them, even to their opinions, you lose the only currency you have. And over 17 years, that's literally, what I've built my brand on. And I think that's going to carry me. And I think it'll carry you as well.

I think when you look at the dramatic shift into like the anti-Israel space and the people chasing after it, I think it shows the opposite is true. Okay. People, there are people who I see, let me put it this way. There are some influencers that on Facebook are pro-Israel and on Twitter are anti-Israel. Because it's just what the Facebook audience is largely boomers and they love Israel and the ex-space is younger and you'll get more retweets from foreigners, I guess. I think that the whims of the public will change. And so certainly with a smaller audience, you have less to worry about because there's less people to offend. But again, if you're at any of the, like the higher you go, so again, when it comes to the AI world, the people who will win are not going to be us.

We will always be middling, you know, and the biggest podcasts are going to be 100% fake AI generated garbage to millions of people, manufacturing reality. How do you define winning in that? Power. You said that in the context of which we are talking. What do you think is a loss in that, really? Because we could be influencing what comes later, you know, like a tree that we never see. We planted seeds of authenticity that are swarmed by, you know, a malaise of grotesque, you know, confusion.

The people who are going to have maximum political power in 10 years are the people today who know how to make convincing AI generated fake content. Let me say something in support of that, because we've just had a story break in Australia, that some analysis has been done into some of the Facebook pages and social media pages that are supporting the One Nation Party, which is rising very quickly in Australia. And they've found that a lot of them are actually just bots and farms from mostly Southeast Asia. Now, the media have seized on that and said, oh, the rise of One Nation is fake. It's all been done with bots. Well, that's actually not what the research has found.

What the research has found is exactly what you're talking about, Tim. people have discovered how to monetize eyeballs, and they're generating fake content, not because they're trying to lie about the popularity of One Nation, but because everyone wants to know about One Nation. So if they make fake content about that topic, they will get paid by Meta and by X, et cetera, because they get lots of eyeballs on that content. So that is definitely happening. Can I make one more point on that, though?

In the early days of Instagram, it was all about the perfect Instagram photo. It was all about people who would spend an entire day fabricating this photo for this reality that does not exist. And people fell in love with that and would scroll that all day long on Instagram. And there are still people who do. But predominantly now, at least what I experience on Instagram, is people being much more real. People fatigued of the fake. We grew up.

We realized that that was a fantasy. I believe the same thing's going to happen for a lot of people, by no means all, with the AI content. We will fatigue of it and we will go looking for the thing that's real. Do you mean of people like that you let you know feel that way or that that's the general public perception? because most of what I see on Instagram is all skits and like... Yeah, yeah, no, exactly. But if you rewind, I don't know, seven years, you know, pre-COVID, I think in terms of pre-COVID and post-COVID,

you go back to that era. There was an era where it was all about people who would spend 24 hours of misery trying to get that perfect shot so that they could put it online and make everybody think they had this most amazing line. Well, it's more monetized now. Now it's about creating the skit that falls in line

with whatever the algorithm is saying is the right thing to be talking about today or making a skis. Yeah. Yeah. And fundamentally, being shared online is about making people look good. Someone will share your thing because they believe it makes them look better than before they shared it. Whether that's because they agree with it, which is point Tim has rightly made,

whether that's because they think it's going to make people laugh. Fundamentally, people share things online because they believe it's a positive reflection on them. And so ultimately, there's multiple different ways to hijack that. But that's ultimately what all these algorithms are looking for. I was setting up my studio to play a song and put it on Instagram. And I'm like, I'm all into the authenticity. I wanted to be, but then I was like, well, I better fold that blanket so I can make this whole experience presentable. Don't do it. I'm like, I need to present my authenticity in a way that I can manipulate, I can make certain lighting, I can make certain angles. And like at what point how there's a fine, who was it that said once you can fake authenticity, you've got it made?

I don't know. I don't know that. Steve Martin might have said. Yeah, it's a famous, famous quote. And that's what you're doing. At what point. That was that was always going to happen the second that you had to that we had cameras that where you could retake the phone. right and you know what it looks like like I saw I've been skating so long I I have skating photos from back when we took pictures on 35 millimeter camera did you did the camera did he get the photo you don't know until like a week later when he developed it and that was just that's why photos in that time feels better right it didn't feel so hampered by your own self-consciousness yeah for sure I think in the entertainment industry in Hollywood a lot you have an agent and you have other people run the cameras they tell you when to go so you're there you do it

it's authentic but when you're the one that has to turn the camera on For me, it always kind of felt disingenuous of like, I'm gonna be as real as I can be in about 19 seconds as soon as I title this video and get it monetized and I'm like, I'm a shill, dude. Unless I stutter in the first five seconds, then you start over and do it again, something like that. Well, I try to avoid it.

I try to just show my mistakes as I went and be like, I'm nervous right now. I don't know what I'm even, that's how I got started on YouTube. I'm like, if you feel, no, say it on the video and that'll make it way easier to get into flow state. Okay, so there's a wonderful principle there in filmmaking. in filmmaking or in documentary making or these sorts of things where you're not controlling the

entire environment. If you have some sort of a noise issue, make sure you're showing where that noise is coming from. So, for example, if you have no choice but to film next to a busy road, make sure the cars are visible in the shot. It can be in the very background of the shot, but give people a visual reference for why they're hearing the thing that they're hearing. If they're looking at a park, but there's a busy road behind the camera, they're thinking, what's happening with the car? I don't understand. My brain doesn't understand. So when you've got real, when you've got, authentic, acknowledge it. And it actually, it then deepens that connection. You know, when it comes to

currency and like the future of authenticity and the value of authenticity, like Elon Musk has said many times recently, especially recently, that we're headed towards a post-money society where currency becomes about electricity. How much electrical current can you produce? How much and how much of a payload can you move? And then what? Is it just like political power at this point? You think authenticity breeds political power? Because if you need to make, to get people to do something they don't want to do, really got to believe in you. I mean, unless you're paying them, like, they've got to believe in you. And you ever read Tom Sawyer and Huckabayfin? Only parts of it in sixth grade or something. You know about the whitewashing the fence? He tricks the kid into doing the work for him.

He says, look how fun this is. Does Huck do that or does Tom? I think it was Tom. It's like your parents telling you you're really good at washing the dishes. Yeah, that's how you make a political movement. You get people to get excited about this, dreary. Oh, I'm so good. You make your kids race and whoever gets the most. It gets the most. most clean, every dish is a point, and whoever has the most points wins. So that's the gamification approach. Can I, sorry? Oh, I'm just starting to see, like, in an age where money has lost value, and you might

say because you can print infinite money, that money has zero value or near infinite zero value at this point, that maybe, maybe, you know, relying on the bureaucracy to solve the problem of financial, of the financial situation, which is a Ponzi scheme, is misplaced, and that it has to be a populist personality. I always find that revolutions led by a personality devolve into vanguardism, communism, totalitarianism. It's usually the American Revolution was fascinating because it was on paper.

Usually that charismatic leader ends up losing their head by the time the revolution is done. Revolution always eats its own children. Can I make a comment on the wealth aspect of things, though? People focus on whether or not money will still be present as a concept, as an idea. What this is about is how much production is possible without requiring human involvement.

And this is where Elon Musk is coming from, that robots and AI and energy being abundant allows you to be super productive without having to involve human beings. Now, fundamentally, as a race, as human beings, if on average we produce more than we consume, then the species gets wealthier. We leave more to the next generation.

If, on average, we consume more than we produce, we get poorer. That's obvious. What's happening now that hasn't really happened in this way before is that we're disconnecting production from the human beings that need to consume. Now this has happened to a certain degree. Machines, machinery, the steam revolution, etc., allowed a machine and two people to do the work that used to take 100 people. So to a certain degree we had disconnected the production from the human beings that then needed to consume.

What's happening potentially, if Elon Musk is right, and I certainly would not be betting against him, he's the last person I want to bet against, if he's right, and we're going to end up in a world where all of the mineral extraction, purification, mining, refining, manufacturing into the robot that's then going to go and do the production. that's creating the thing that the human can consume. If all of that process can be done involving zero human input, none of the consumers, that's where we end up in this really fascinating situation, where that link, that limitation between how much am I willing to produce today, that's the ceiling of how much I can consume, that link gets broken.

And how do we then decide who gets what to consume under those circumstances? It used to be that if I can figure out how to bring more value to more people, what Tim was saying before, if I can solve big problems for lots of people and get paid lots of money, well, I get to live a high consumption lifestyle because I've produced a lot of value for a lot of people and they've paid me for it. But if the value is being created by something

that doesn't consume, how do we decide what goes well? Well, that's a concern. I feel like this is like a cycle of a problem that leaders have dealt with throughout time is how much power can we realistically give the masses if they have infinite supply and everyone can have everything.

One of those monkeys is going to go crazy on accident or on purpose and destroy the world because they have infinite supply. So infinite will never be a thing, but abundance supply. But the other thing to keep in mind is we already live in ridiculous abundance. The lives that each and every one of us in this room lead would be the envy of a king from 250 years ago. The medicines we have access to, the communication tools. Even think about 30, 40 years ago, we now have access to essentially military-grade surveillance

and planning satellite images. They might not be real time, but we can plan all kinds of things based on you. I'm spending nine weeks touring the U.S. right now, planning where I'm going. Just jump on a website and I'm getting airfares, and I'm able to plan this and decide that and have a look at this and check that out. This is insane the lives that we live already. People don't understand travel agencies. Like, even millennials having grown up with the internet, you used to have to go to an office

and say, I need someone to coordinate my travel for me. I just assume most of them are spies anyways. Oh, man, what was that system called? because I used it back in 2000. They probably still use it to a certain degree. There's a, like, Unix-based system used at airports. They probably don't use it anymore, actually. I mean, it's been 20-something years.

But travel agencies would have access to this network that would show you the flights, the scheduling. So you'd go there, and they'd have a computer with a green Unix. It's a terminal. Yeah. And they would type in, and you'd see all these three-letter codes, and it would say, like, okay, so if we get your flight,

so in order to get connecting flights and return flights, they'd schedule it. Now it's all on it. Nobody realized how easy it is these days. And the power of that. So we already live in insane super abundance. One of the things that concerns me is people saying that AI is going to mean that there'll be no jobs. I understand, and like I just said, this is a new level.

This is disconnecting the production from the consumers entirely has never happened before. And we may not actually get there in this revolution. But at every revolution in the past, the invention of the microprocessor and the computer, before that, the introduction of electricity, before that the introduction, of machinery and steam power. Each and every one of these has come with a group of people that we know as Luddites saying this is going to be the end. This is, you know, these people, how many coal miners are we going to put out of work

because we're bringing machinery into the coal mines? Well, we put a bunch of coal miners out of work, and that proved to be a good thing, because on average production rose, because fewer people were now producing the same amount of coal. And if average production rises, then average consumption can rise. This is a wealth creation strategy. It does temporarily mean that those people lost work. Do we have an entire cohort of people still unemployed?

No, because the coal mine has found a new thing to do. Sabre. Man. Yep. That's what it was called back in the day. Oh, right. Yeah, it was an American Airlines thing, but it became independent in March of 2000. And that's how travel agents would search, price things out.

Because we didn't have the internet or the means to do it. Okay, so can I make a comparison? When I'm traveling on the fly, I'm changing my schedule at the last minute because bookings come up. So I'll decide I need to get a hotel for tomorrow night. I'm going to be in that city. I will search for hotels. It'll tell me, and I'll put in the dates.

It'll tell me what's available at what prices. I'll click on the hotels, look at pictures, read other people's reviews and opinions. I don't have to go to what were the old lonely planet or whatever. I don't need to go and find a resource that's three years old, you know, that happens to apply to the correct city. Now, I can get real-time information. Then I click on the one that I want and it brings up all of the various booking sites with all the different costs, et cetera. All of that's being done. Here's the best part.

based on your travel history, it'll give you higher or lower prices. Oh, I didn't know about that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What decides it. So your browser, they're tracking you with cookies. They know what you're willing to spend. They know based on other affiliates of the airline or whatever, what your budget might actually be. And so they always say, search for the flight on like a private browser or get a computer with no history. and then search.

I did not know that. Yeah. So that must be why I'm always finding really cheap prices because my phone knows I'm an absolute cheapcake. Jeez, for better or for worse. They're like, what can we do to make money? And if you will look at something and click it away, they'll be like lower the price and maybe he'll click it.

Yeah, right. Dude, I asked you about that because like, what was like the Washington Post got caught doing that or something like that? Washington Post? Like what was the one that Bezos bought? Is that the Washington? Yeah. Yeah.

And like. charging memberships based on your browser history? Because a lot of people quit because when he took over, they didn't like the fact that he took over the newspaper. So the company was selling? Basically, they're like, if you're going to stay after he bought the paper, you're really going to stay. So we're going to raise the price. Well, if they generally just raise the price. No, based on like your re-up on your subscription, stuff like that with the cookies on your computer.

Yeah. Well, most people don't know this too, that like your cell phone provider, you can go to a company and call and say, say, yeah, I need a transfer code because I'm going to be quitting. I'm going to cancel my service. They're going to say, we'll give you $30 off for the next three months. They do that with some of the streaming services, too, if you cancel. They're like, hey, hey, hey, hey, not so fast. Like, we'll give you some free months if you stick with us.

Streamyard did that to me. $800 a year. And I was like, I'm done. They're like, we'll give it to you for four. I was like, wait until I told you I was leaving. Yep, of course. I'll do it for four. Because when you're like, I'm going to click cancel right now, they're like,

better to take four than zero. But related to what you were saying about the ability to create, like, there point a while back, right, I made a point of saying that what Jeff Bezos had created with Amazon was incredible, given the ability to get people packages as fast as they could. But it's not just about that, because other companies have offered that for quite some time. It's the fact that you tie it to a marketplace. So now you've not just improved the lives of people who live places, perhaps, that don't always have the fastest shipping, but he's built such a massive infrastructure. But you've tied that to businesses that can also use it to then sell to it.

So that's where you get that, because FedEx and UPS have existed for a very, very, very very long time, but I don't have their numbers in front me, but I'm guessing their growth is far more stagnant compared to theirs. Okay, this is a brilliant point that I wish more people understood. People complain, oh, you know, Amazon just made Bezos a billionaire. It made Bezos a billionaire. It didn't just make Bezos a billionaire. I now can sell my books anywhere in the world and some, I don't have to own a printer, I don't have to bind the thing, I don't have to put it in a package, I don't have to ship it, I don't have to deal with returns. I deal with nothing. I wrote the book, I uploaded the manuscript, people buy the book on Amazon, click their local market, and everything's

taken care of. What that means, if you think it through, is that essentially each and every one of us owns a printing company and a logistics company, not to mention all of the other industries and businesses out there. We all have all of those businesses at our fingertips, and here's the best bit. We don't have to pay for any of it until we use it. Amazon is selling me the ability to print a book for a marginal cost above their costs. Oh, I got a going for you.

Yeah. So you're talking about authenticity. I'm going to tell you the apocalypse is nine. So, guys, would you like to be rich? Here you go. Every year there is a new material entering the public domain. And the public domain isn't actually that long, meaning most of the materials that are entering public domain are still somewhat prominent in our culture. So, for instance, Peter Pan, right?

I believe Peter Pan is already public domain, not the Disney version, but the original story. Sure. So what you can do is you can actually just copy verbatim a Peter Pan, for instance, AI generate illustrations to go inside of it, put your name on it, and put it on Amazon. I just need to take some notes here. Sorry, can you say that again? What's the strategy? Are you selling this is like a downloadable how to get rich?

Well, I don't do anything like this, but it's actually pretty dang simple. So let's do this. Let's do this. list of things becoming public domain in 2027. So let's see what we have coming up. Is there a website that public domain countdown? Let's see what we got. Here we go.

So January 1st, 27, you've got the moose hunt, Pluto. Wait, what? The movie or the dog? Is that literally Pluto? I'm sorry. Yeah, it's right. As he appeared in the moose hunt. Yeah, right.

As he appeared in the Mousant, Pluto will be, wow, public domain. The shadow, wow. I didn't realize the shadow would be becoming public domain. That's incredible. That's really interesting. Detective Magazine, the shadow. That's very interesting. Free Soul, Bad Girl, City Lights, all from basically, I guess, 1931, Dracula.

So that means the character of Frankenstein. A lot of the Universal Monsters. So you can, films are hard. to do for obvious reason. But these books, we've got sanctuary, The Adventures of Mickey Mouse. You will be able to copy that book verbatim that Ventures of Mickey Mouse cloned as public domain and you put your name on it, put it on Amazon. And then when people search to buy the book, they see it and it's by you. That's where the authenticity is important because like if they like you, they'll be like, I'll buy Tim's version of the repurposed content. Well, I mean, that's being done

already. So, 1984, for example, there's numerous different versions of this. that that float around. And, you know, I wouldn't have actually thought that'd be out of the public domain. Wow. Anyway, there's... Donald Duck. An unnamed version of Donald Duck will be appearing in it. Bring it on. This is interesting. And I did exactly what you said. When I went looking for the copy, I discovered that Rebel News had published one. So I went, oh, I'll just get it, because I haven't to know Arvi in Australia. And I'm like, I'll get their version of that because I like them, even though I know the content's going to be exactly the same. But Tim, have you, have you, Have you, like, there are people who charge money for this.

You're familiar with the get rich, the original get rich quick scheme. They put an ad into a newspaper and say, send me $5 in an envelope and I'll teach you how to make $30 in the next two weeks. And what you would get back in the mail is instructions on how to put an ad in a newspaper and say, send me $5 in an envelope and I'll teach you how to make $30 in a week. The ultimate sort of ponsie scheme. That's what they do. I reckon you should just get into like how to make money on it. Well, but this is actually, this is actually, this is not like that. No, no, no.

You actually want to do the work to put together a new edition. It's verbatim, but you want to do the minimal work to make the book. You will grab a portion of their sales. Technically, you could rewrite the book any way you want. You could insert a few things here and there. Maybe talk about graphene. If you want, Ian's version of Mickey Mouse is going to make Mickey Moose. Why don't you do it?

Why don't you remake Dracula? So is what you do, Ian? Except he sucks. So interestingly, what you should be able to do is Dracula 1931. You should be able to turn the script into a book. It's all public domain. All of this, it would be public domain. And then you just make your own fanfic version of it.

Just a little more erotic. Just intersectional feminism, Dracula. Uh-huh. Eventually, Robert Eggers will end up making a movie based on your version. He's a time-traveling demon from the past, which was actually the future. So I'm really mad that no high-profile author has done what I'm about to say. I just want J.K. Rowling or someone where their book is super anticipated to do this. I want them to write six different endings to the book.

tell nobody, just release the book. And then of course, all the fans are going to buy the book, read it, and then they're going to start talking online. And they're going to have had six entirely different experiences with this book. And pretty quickly, people are going to start figuring out, hang on, not all these books are the same. Then people are going to start cataloging, which, you know, how many are there? What's she done or what's the author done? And then I want the author to come out and make an official statement about this book that has six different endings. And I want them to say, yes, you got me. I released this book with seven different endings and then watch the fan base completely lose their minds trying to find the seventh

non-existent ending. Well, has no one done. Well, what you do is, Fort Knox. You make, no, no, but actually, you just make books where you list the endings and you don't know which book you have until you get it. Yeah. And then it will, at the last chapter, it'll say chapter, edition one. And then what you do is you do one, two, three, four, five, six, eight.

Yeah. I'm thinking a lot about modular endings for art forms, too. with movies, particularly in books, and with my songs that I release online, I'm not looking to finally get the recording of it. Like, they used to be, like, that one version of it that everyone knows that went on the record. Now I'm like, how many times can I publish this song

over the course of my life? So you can see how I sang it when I was 27. You can see how I was saying it was 37. You can see, and the feeling, how the feeling changes. You're like, I really liked him, you know, late 30s, early 40s, that vibe. He was killing it with his songs.

Oh. Nancy Drew, his public domain, as of this year, as of five months ago, you want to make an erotic graphene Nancy. Yeah, the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew finally done right, dude. Finally done right. Yo, get me those graphene maxi-fids.

Some people should not be allowed anywhere near AI image generators. That's all I'm going to say. But now you sound like a technocrat deciding who gets the power. As Nancy Drew appeared in the secret of the old clock has been public domain as of January 1st, 2026. So you can take that Nancy Drew character

as she appeared in that book and make your own versions of Nancy Drew. Why this matters is that while you can't, because the later versions of Nancy Drew are different, different depictions, different characters, if it's based on the Nancy Drew, you can use the name Nancy Drew

and write your own Nancy Drew novels. And now you can sell them under your own name. In fact, here's work. It's fun. You can go on Claude and say, write a book based off of Nancy Drew as she appeared in The Secret of the Old Clock, an original, it will write the full book for you. You don't got to read it.

You can then say, Chad GPT, make a cover, make a back, put it on Amazon, and it takes you one hour to do, and people will start buying it. Then here's what you do. Find a budget. What you want to do is you want to run ads on Google and YouTube, maybe even X, I'm sorry, at Facebook as well. You want to figure out what your cost per sale is. Presume $5 in ads will sell one book. Then you want to sell the book for $6. So you'll make a $1 profit off of this book for every sale, and then you automatically generate money.

You come back and check your Amazon account because the ads are selling the book for you because they're adaptive advertisements. They change to maximize sales. And then all you've got to do is transfer money from your Amazon account into your ads account once per month. It'd be nice if I could automate that. You actually could probably using something like, if this, then that, or just write a simple script. Well, actually, actually, no, it's probably much more simple than that. You can probably set easily just set on your ads account an automatic charge every month. And it'll just automatically charge your bank account.

Amazon will send the money to your bank. Your ads account will then charge your bank. And then every month your money just goes up. Now, here's the best part. Do 100 books like this, which you can get done literally in one week, just all based of public domain. You can have 15 Nancy Drew murder mystery novels. And people are going to know the name. You can have Nancy Drew fight Mickey Mouse and people are going to be like, I'm going to buy the book.

You know what you do? You release it as a sub-series under the title, Nancy Drew, the lost manuscripts or the found. Oh, yeah. And so now all of a sudden people are like, wait, there's these Nancy Drew novels that I didn't know about. History. Yeah. And then here's the best part. Here's the best part.

You make 15 of them. Then you start calling schools saying you're selling packages for schools of the Nancy Drew mystery books. Have they introduced the children to the family-friendly and educational Nancy Drew Mysteries? Well, we sell bundles for $250, which contains two sets of 15 books each, which we will deliver to you, and then you start taking orders. I'm telling you, dude. Nancy Drew reimagined for the cyberpunk era. He's got a brain neural interface with the cybernetic eye, but she's still badass. I have a few.

Your original fans are. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do it literally right now. I'm going to have clawed right. Did she make her own version of ghosts in the shell? Are the Hardy Boys also public domain? No? I don't know.

They were tightly connected to Nancy Drew when I was growing up. The three investigators, that's where it was at for me. I read every single one of their books. I don't know how many times, just could not get enough of it. The Hardy Boys? No, no, no, the three investigators. I don't know that. Okay.

It's also making me think of Choose Your Own Adventure books, which I feel like have gone out of style. I used to love them. The gamification of novels. And then I had to make sure that I had taken every single possible pathway through the book. I'd always leave my P-E-In. See where it went and go back?

If I didn't like it. It's keeping a safe point in the book. Yeah. You guys get into like GrailQuest, those books? They were like, choose your own adventures. It was an RPG though. You'd actually roll dice, but I would just always just act as if I won. Actually, yes, my older brothers did.

I never did. But my old brothers got into Grail Quest? God, Grail Quest was awesome. You play as this guy, Pip. You like animating this guy's body and they call him Pip and he's got ex-calibre Jr., this sword. But he's just like this peasant. Middle Ages and then Merlin comes in and is like

all right, welcome back. You ready? Your sword can talk to you. It's great fantasy. High fantasy. Is the book done yet? Tim, did you finish your novel? Let's see. Sounds like he's about ready.

I would also be careful with anything public domain with Disney. It says Nancy Drew became public domain January 1st. Let's see, two real constraints. I can use the 1930 Nancy plus Carson Drew, Hannah Gruen, Helen Corning and the Old Clock plot elements,

I can't pull in later copyrighted editions like Bess, George, or Ned, and I'll write fresh prose rather than reproducing. That sounds good. So cool. I said to write a Nancy Drew mystery based off the secret of the old clock, where she's trying to track down an evil corporation experimenting on people that turns them into cyborgs,

but slowly as she investigates it, they keep making her become more and more cybor. Yeah, like at what point when you're undercover are you just actually that thing now? I was thinking about that about evil. And then we'll make some tweaks, But my idea is that she like breaks into a lab, and then she like finds the evidence,

but then they capture her. And then they start like trying to replace her arm, but then like her friends come in like, like, oh no, her arm. And then she gets like a nanite, a trap. Like someone spikes her drink. And then she's like, what's happening? And then in the end,

we're going to totally change who Nancy Drew is into some like superhero cybor. Nancy Drusky. You know what's hilarious to me is I stopped reading Nancy Drew once I realized there was just a formula to the plot. Of course. The plot was a formula. And so that,

Scooby too bothered you too. That intellectual property is probably one of the most AI-proof intellectual properties because people are going to be like, oh, but they're all the same, but they were all the same. It's always the same. It'll be undetectable AI. We got to get your Rumble Rants and Super Chat, so smash that like button, you share the show and all that good stuff. We also have a great sponsor for you guys. It is backyard Butchers.

Head over to Backyard Butchers.com. Use promo code Tim for up to 30% off in two free 10-ounce rib-eyes plus free shipping. Man, I could go for a rib-bris. buy right now. I did not eat enough today. Here's got my attention. This week, my friends, well, actually more than this week because this is a script. The Secretary of Agriculture publicly warned that America's consolidated meat supply is a threat to the country itself. Think about that. Just four companies control the majority of America's beef supply, and the largest is foreign-owned. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is national food security.

And here's what most people don't realize. A single pound of conventional grocery store ground beef can contain the DNA from hundreds of different cattle. Every time I read that, I'm imagining like a gigantic cow blob with like 100 faces going like oh and like someone being like like would you like to eat this actually that was um what show was that is that the plot of your nancy drew book no no no someone already made this where they were like they have a gigantic cow blob that just is in a giant barn they what what show is oh you know what there's a cow blob think about it and i'll read this ad that's disgusting don't eat that eat real beef from real ranchers Backyard Butchers offers premium American beef from real Texas ranchers born, raised, and process ready in the USA.

And you can actually, you know, when you go to Texas, you can see the cows. They're actually just standing there. You know what you're eating, right? 98% grass fed, 2% grain finished, zero hormones, zero antibiotics, zero preservatives. Go to backyard butchers.com. Use promo code Tim for up to 30% off and two free 10-ounce rib buys plus free shipping. And this summer, they got the America 250 box. It's going to be, you get a free 250 box when you purchase a steakhouse box, complete with burgers and hot dogs.

built for my favorite holiday the 4th of July. Guys, if you are not grilling burgers and having hot dogs on this American 4th of July, I do not envy you. Go to Backyard Butchers.com. He's promo code Tim. Shout out to Backyard Butchers for support in the show. Big fans, beef. Don't let any of those lone star ticks get you down.

But now let's grab your Rumble Rance and Superchats, see what you all have to say. Salty Pepe says tens of millions of illegals brought in under Biden, all of their offspring, tens of millions of men. millions are citizens somehow, our country is over. I refuse to live under the tyranny of traitors. Yeah, we're in trouble, man. Satan says, hear me out. There's actually a bold move from Scotus. They noticed we were having too many wins and needed to remind us on the eve of Independence Day that the tree of liberty is still quite parched. Perhaps. Amy Coney-Barrant pulled the hero we need, but not the one we deserve, is that it is?

I think of the show. It's bothering the hell up. I think there was, was it uploaded where they have one big cow with a bunch of udders? Well, I know, hitchhiker's gone to the galaxy that had the cow that wanted to be eaten, that would come and serve you at the restaurant and recommend which of its cuts were most suitable. Yeah. All right. General T says the Heritage Foundation should be destroyed. ACB should resign and disgrace.

They deceived MAGA and Trump. That place that I am says, F it, Trump should pack the Supreme Court and have them overturn this thing. I don't know why he doesn't do it. Just stop playing. I don't get it. Just stop playing games. Pack the court right now. Done.

Thank you and have a nice day. I think, I don't know. Just insane. Daring do says this is worse than you think. The way it's warranted, it could be used to challenge red states that close before Democrats wanted to. Agreed. The Democrats have made the argument incessantly that every legal vote must be counted.

So they are going to play this game. The Supreme Court has said there is no deadline for receipt. The presumption before was that we had a day. And in 2020, they created a universal exemption. The Supreme Court has now confirmed by precedent, yep, day means forever now. Good luck. All right. Jay Carrick says, keeping with Timcast tradition, born Saturday, please welcome a new patriot to the world.

Cade Carrick, the little guy is toughing it out in the NICU, so please send out some prayers. God bless. Mayors and best of luck. Hopefully everything works out for the best. Let's grab a couple more of your superchats over here before we, oh, what's this? We got Rola says Dominic Urquolis, as I said, was born and we're watching. Wow. Tim Pool for the win.

Our son is 7 pounds, 11 ounces, 22 and a half inches. That's a big baby. Nice job, dude. Great job, good. Congratulations. More babies. Welcome. All right.

Ben says, Hope Tofer brought his marbles to teach them about preference voting and also his you, hopefully his DVD, think free. I have a DVD of my documentary Battleground Melbourne, but think free is my slogan. That's my, that's my tagline. But I'm known as the Marbles guy in Australia.

We have a very different voting system. It's quite complex, but I actually think quite brilliant, and I use marbles and buckets. And I've done more to educate Australian voters than our education system has. That's awesome. Sadly. All right.

Relatively objective says Amy Coney-Bert is a technical to a list who identifies as an originalist, which is saying not an originalist. I don't believe there are any originalists. I don't. I make this argument all the time. You ask any conservative, should blasphemy be illegal? And they say, no. So there's no originalists. Thank you. Have a nice day. All right. Actually, Mary says that blasphemy should be illegal. But I still think she wouldn't identify as an originalist because she'd think the founding fathers gave too many freedoms. Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely.

She thinks literacy is a mistake. Yes. Universal. The acting press was the worst thing that ever happened to the country. You know, the interesting thing is I don't entirely disagree. I think she makes an interesting argument. Mary's argument is that there are too many people who lack the capacity to understand what they're reading. So they read words, don't know what it means, and then mingle up these meanings, but think they're intelligent, and then act upon these misconstrued understandings. And this is actually argued back in the Bush administration that the average people,

The people should not go to college. This was an economist that I like to cite. I forgot who it was because, again, I was like 16. He said, you need to have an IQ of 110 to make college work. The problem is we tell everyone to go to college, whether their IQ is below that or even below 100. So what ends up happening is you get young people of average intelligence who can memorize things but can't understand them. What happens? When they get of college, they generally remember things they heard without knowing what they mean. So they jumble them together in ways that don't make sense and then tell people what is when it's actually not. and I thought that hit the nail and head with the hammer. I'm certainly on board with the whole college should be, unless you have a very clear vision for what you're going to do with your life and you need a college degree in order to do that thing, please don't go to college. Just watch a couple of episodes of dirty jobs with Mike Rowe and then go out there and earn a real living.

Just college is not for everyone. I mean, that's a bit of a trap that people are in nowadays, though, because of the way the economy is and the way the job market is, it heavily favors the employer so much that they can put ridiculous college level, restrict, you know. By and large, they're not. That was a phase that we went through in the 90s and into the 2000s.

And I watched this happen in Australia because I was homeschooled and I was never going to go to university. I had no interest. I'm one of the least educated people you're ever likely to meet. And at least in terms of official education. And people said to me, oh, you're ruining your future prospects. You will never get a job. They're never going to employ you.

You have to have the piece of paper just to get in the door. And I watched that change in real time in Australia as the degree. became so ubiquitous that they actually became next to worthless on a resume. But in America, a lot of it doesn't have to do necessarily with the specific degree, but having a four-year degree in general means that you can laterally transfer to other businesses. But if you're going and you're filling out an application online and you're not meeting somebody in person, first of all, the AI program they're using to check all the resumes, just going to reject you off the face anyways.

Yeah, in time, those companies are going to get punished for having such poor hiring practices. In Australia at the very least, what we saw was a real shift towards your actual character as a human being. Can you actually show up on time, present yourself well, do all those things? There's that old joke about the guy who graduates at the very top of his university, and he goes to get the ideal job, and he gets the job and he's super excited, prestigious workplace, and the owner meets him, and he gets the guided tour, and all the while he's excited waiting to see his office, he's going to be a corner office, what's it going to be? And a wonderful, wonderful guided tour, and finally they get to the...

with door and the boss says, well, this is where you start. He opens the door and it's a broom closet. And the owner pulls out the broom and hands it to him and says, well, you can start sweeping in that corner and then sweep all the way to here and then put all the rubbish in the bin, then come and see me. He says, excuse me, I'll have you know. I went to university and I graduated at the top of my class. How dare you? And the business owner looks at him and says, oh, I'm so sorry, you went to university. Let me show you how to use a broom. That's, it's a joke, but it's also a reality and business owners have caught up to that reality. They want people with real world experience and actual character.

Yep. I went through, I think at the time that I was getting started in my career was when businesses had begun to adapt. And I, when I said the first time with the story, I like to tell about my friend who went through several college applicants who failed at their job and were miserable. And then when he ran out of money, he said, I guess I got to go to the bottom of the barrel and just go for high school grads who can take less money. And they did the job with no problems. he said, the people who moved to California with college degrees proved only that they were ever good at being told what to do, but they couldn't solve problems on their own.

The people who moved to California, having dropped out of college and made a decision for themselves, proved that they were willing to take a step to solve the problem on their own. And he found it was cheaper, faster, and more efficient to hire people who did not go to college. People went to college and needed to pay off their student loans, they needed more money, and they actually were just people who did what they were told to do.

When you look at somebody who goes to college, you'll find often, not always, somebody who said, what should I do? He's 18, what should I do? They said, do this. He goes, okay. Whereas people who never went to college said, I'm going to figure it out of my own. Not a guarantee, but we're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show, my friends, and talk a bit more about all of this.

So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Sir, would you like to shout anything out? At Tofa Field on all the socials and Tofafield.com. You can also find my books on Amazon. Guys, thank you so much today. And if you want to follow me, I'm on Instagram and X at Brett Dasevik on both those platforms. You should check out PCC.

We're normally live five days a week, Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern Santer time. We're just Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday this week, but I'm potentially thinking about doing another show on the weekend. But we also do a Discord show twice a month, so not this week, but next week. So go sign up for the Timcast Discord as well. Thanks, guys. Follow me at Ian Crossland, all across social media. Go to Ian Crossland. dot net if you want the portal

to all my social media accounts. Also go to graphing.comy and sign up for the upcoming documentary. It's still upcoming. Check it out. At Ian Crossland, you'll find me. See you later. I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks Everywhere and at Carter Banks Official on Instagram. Thank you to everyone who purchased or streamed the

song that I released last week. I really appreciate it and we did get not, we didn't beat Lizzo, but maybe next time. Yeah. Thanks a lot. And let's get into the answer. We'll see you all at rumble.com slash Timcast.IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.