Timcast IRL - SCOTUS Hands Trump THIRD MASSIVE WIN w/ Brett Weinstein

Episode Date: May 12, 2026

Tim, Ian, and Libby are joined by Bret Weinstein to discuss SCOTUS approving Alabama redistricting move, Virginia democrats furious after SCOTUS ruling, and Hantavirus fears escalate after two Maryland residents are potentially exposed.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwN... Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Libby @LibbyEmmons (X) | https://thepostmillennial.com/pod Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Bret Weinstein  @DarkHorsePod  (YT) | @BretWeinstein (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! SCOTUS Hands Trump THIRD MASSIVE WIN | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

In another massive victory for the GOP and Donald Trump, the Supreme Court issued what it's be calling a sudden ruling granting Alabama the right to redistrict, which means one by one the dominoes are falling and Democrats is cooked. Now, in Virginia, it's really funny. Instead of just realizing they've lost, they've decided to come up with some nuclear options. One is to force the retirement age of Supreme Court justice in the state to 54 years old. just old enough to eliminate all of their justices, I guess as a FU. They're just going down with the ship. Donald Trump may have some polling issues, but the way this procedural war is going,

Republicans are certainly winning. And then there's the question of Donald Trump's election integrity army that they intend to dispatch across the country. I'm wondering if it's going to have an impact in the California races as well. Spencer Pratt is skyrocketing in public notability. and there is this attack ad that I thought was a parody pro. I thought Spencer Pratt made this ad that was a gag meant to act like it was insulting him, but in fact, it's actually an attack ad where it's like Spencer Pratt doesn't want to spend

taxpayer dollars on housing for our unhoused neighbors. And I was like, ha, very funny Spencer. It turns out, no, it's actually a group that doesn't like the guy. And they just made an ad that accidentally supports him. So we'll talk about that. Donald Trump wants to make Venezuela the 51st state, I guess. It's not going to happen, but it's funny anyway. And then hauntaviruses here in the United States, I guess, which we'll talk about it.

But I'm not holding my breath. I'm not, you know, everybody's freaking out. But we'll see what happens. We'll talk about that more. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor for you guys. It is pocket hose.com. Pocketos is the number one expandable hose in the world. Super lightweight, easy to manage, easy to store.

turn the water on and it grows. Turn the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size. The pocket hose ballistic is reinforced with liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, making the anti-burst sleeve practically bulletproof. And that liquid crystal polymer fiber is actually five times stronger than steel. It comes to the pocket pivot, which gives you total freedom of movement at the spigot with 360 rotation. You move, it follows, and the water flows enhanced with an upgraded UV coating. So the hose looks new year after year.

engineered thicker washers that resist leaks. Pocket hose carries over 100 patents worldwide. And now for a limited time when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you get a free 360-degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Just text Tim to 64,000. That's Tim to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase. Text Tim to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply.

Shout out pocket hose. Don't forget to also go to Timcast.com and join the community. Tens of thousands of people hang out every single day. And they need you because people need to stand up, get involved, be active in this space. It only takes a handful of people to change the world. And we've got more than that at Timcast.com. Building new shows, making music, making shorts. Whatever you want to do, you will find people in there that can assist in some way.

And more importantly, you would be standing up and supporting the work we do and getting involved. So don't just sit idly by. Don't let the world pass you by. Join us at Timcast.com. You'll be supporting this show and everything we do. Also, don't forget to smash that like button. Share the show with everyone, you know, joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.

We have Brett Weinstein. Very excited to be here. Thanks for having me, Tim. Who are you? What do you? Oh, I'm an evolutionary biologist. I taught for 14 years at the Evergreen State College. Actually, you and I.

We did a little documentary about it. You did a documentary on it. Yeah. I have been podcasting, authoring, public speaking, that sort of thing. I host the Dark Horse podcast. We do one live every week, me and my wife, Heather Heying. That's where people would know me. Yeah.

Well, it's great to have you. Welcome. I think it's been years since we've had you back. It has been quite a while. Quite a while, but it's great to have you. Your insights will prove invaluable, good sir. Let's hope. So it's going to, yeah, absolutely.

Libby's hanging out. I'm here. I'm glad to be here with you guys. I'm Libby Amund's editor-in-chief of the post-millennial. I have a podcast to The Pod Millennial. You can check it out at thepodmillennial.com. I'm Ian Crossland and Brett, dude, your stuff kept me sane during COVID. You and Heather did a lot of excellent biologic work research on what was going on.

Also, when you and Jordan Peterson did that episode with Rogan in like 2017, it was a very dark time in humanity. I feel like that was like a moment where I started to feel like there's hope for the human part of what's happening right now. there's a lot of common sense in that conversation and that Joe brought you guys to the forefront like that after the Evergreen debacle and Peterson got canceled. It was like, thank God. Thank you for coming. I'm really happy to be here and I'm really glad that episode with Rogan reached you. It actually, interestingly, we talked in that about, Jordan and I did a very deep dive on what the meaning of Hitler and Hitlerian-like characters is. and it actually resulted in a student reaching out to me who was doing his PhD on the Holocaust,

and I actually became his PhD advisor. He has now done dissertation research on some of the ideas that we presented in that podcast. So it's a demonstration that actually this podcast stuff causes interesting changes in the world. Right on. Super powerful. Also really pumped that you're here. I watched Benjamin Boyce's entire series on the Evergreen debacle. and it's really cool you're here.

So let's get into it. Let's get the news. We've got this from CNN. Supreme Court allows Alabama to eliminate congressional district held by a black Democrat. You know what I love about this headline is that when Tennessee eliminated the district held by a white man, we didn't get that kind of headline. They didn't say Supreme Court allows Tennessee to eliminate congressional district held by a white Democrat because we know what they're doing at CNN. This is Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority black district in a sudden ruling that drew a dissent from the court's three liberal justices. We have that ruling right here.

Now, I will say, wow, the Supreme Court justes are just ramming these things through. I got to say, I'm surprised to see it. But it looks like the Supreme Court conservatives have joined the fray and are actually now deciding to stand up for this country. We've got this ruling right here. It's relatively short. The motions to expedite are granted. The petition for our rate of assert certiorari before judgment is granted. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In that case is vacated and the cases remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District, etc., etc. Today the court vacates a district court order and joining Alabama's 2023 redistricting plan and remands for reconsideration in light of the court's new interpretation. I just want of Section 2 of the VRA. I sort of really quickly stress, these states were trying to redistrict before we got to this point in 2026, and they were blocked by lawsuits and the Biden DOJ.

Alabama was trying to redistrict from the census in 2020. Right. So we have here, this is their dissent. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson joined dissenting, they say there's no reason to do so. In addition to holding that Alabama's 223 district and plan violate Section 9.

two of the district court held in one of three cases before this court that Alabama violated the 14th Amendment and intentionally diluting the votes of black voters in Alabama. That constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of and unaffected by any of the legal issues discussed in Calais. Vagetour is thus inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamaians begin to vote in the election scheduled for next week. I respectfully dissent. I think it's plain to see at this point. They are not playing the decorum game. game, which in 2020, they very much did and said, we're not going to look over this Texas v. Pennsylvania thing. It's not going to change the outcome. We're not going to do it.

Usually what we see in these lawsuits, they say, well, we don't want to affect an election underway. So we'll just next time around. This time the Supreme Court conservative, just like, nah, run it through. We don't care. Well, it's good that conservatives are actually taking some action. Yes, indeed. The final paragraph, the court today unceremoniously discards. The district courts meticulously documented and supported discriminatory intent finding and careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue. And with all vagatures of this kind of the court, the district court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Calais has any bearing on its 14th Amendment analysis of its prior reasoning or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by the decision. So, wow, we are in a culture war.

And I see us just, I guess, what is it, the exponential momentum towards physical violence and civil war? Yeah, I think, you know, that's a decent way. You think civil war? Do I think we will actually get to a hot civil war? I don't know. We've obviously been in something like a cold civil war. I must say as much as I fear the Democrats returning to power, I think they are a diabolical party at this point, I also think that this is a bit of a tragedy, that redistricting, it's not in any way new.

It has always been cheating and that it is now escalating and that the judiciary is weighing in on one side is bad for the U.S. It's bad for the republic. And so, you know, you can call me naive, but I would like to live in a country where we agree that actually we want to, poll the electorate and discover what they want in terms of governance and not go outside and, you know, draw funny lines on a map in order to wield power. Now, that's not the country we live in, but it should be. Well, here's Chicago, which I just, I just love in terms of their congressional districts and how they make no sense, but are specifically designed to maximize power in, in certain ways. You look at the whole of the state.

Illinois is just one example. The Pacific, I'm not not, I'm sorry not the Pacific, but the, the Northeast, Massachusetts, all of it, a really obvious example of just the political manipulations to steal power. So I'm actually just, uh, I shrug, I see, you know, Kyle Kalinsky is just throwing up every day all over himself on X, be like, they're fascist. Oh God. And I'm like, well, I guess I just don't care anymore, you know. Look at this district right here.

Just can we just, this point this one out right here? here, which takes this south of Chicago conservative area and just slides it up on into the city to make sure it's Democrat. Okay. Well, that's what Spanberger's new map was trying to do, right? I mean, it was trying to have like, what, five districts or something start all in Alexandria Arlington so that those rural areas were, you know, lumped in with Democrats. The thing that you mentioned, too, about Tennessee and Tennessee's ninth is the person who's representing the incumbent in Tennessee's ninth is Steve Cohen, I think his name is. And he's a white guy. He's a Democrat. And Justin Pearson, who's a very outspoken Tennessee state senator, who's always going into Nashville

and like throwing a fit about something other, whether it's trans or gun control or something else, he is running against Cohen in the 9th district as it was prior to this new redistricting. And now that it's going to be, you know, it's likely more Republican. What they don't want you to know is that the person who's going to win that, her name is Charlotte Bergman, and she's a black woman. She's a black Republican. So they're talking about how it's Jim Crow because they really wanted Justin Pearson, but instead they're going to get this black woman instead. Well, maybe not.

The structure of the district is splitting it into three different districts. So we don't know exactly who will be able to represent these new districts. Like the ninth. We'll have to see. Yeah. I'm still feeling like this Supreme Court decision was a bad one because they say you can't. You mean the Louisiana, Kelly? No, the U.S.

Supreme. court, is that what it is Calais, is that says you can't do it by race. But the thing is they're going to be like, oh, really? Okay, then it's just by political affiliation. And they'll do the exact same district. That's what they said is okay. And now everyone's got free reign to just fully redistrict everything. They don't not just now. They always had that ability. Yeah. I know. That's why I'm highlighting Illinois in Chicago. What's that? That's why I showed Chicago. It was always the case you could gerrymander in this way. Yeah. Which is why people have always complained about gerrymandering. In the Supreme Court. Eliminating five.

percent of the problem is a good thing, net positive. I don't think it actually, it looks like it was a problem that they got rid of, but the reality is you can have the same exact district and say it was just by political affiliation, even if it was originally by race, so you can lie. And this just gives people the ability to redistrict. You can't. I mean, it's like almost a one-to-one correlation sometimes. You are incorrect. That can't happen based on the arguments of the woke left and their parity, national parity argument. So if you have a district that has at this point greater than 13% than someone's going to make an argument

of black people that make the argument that it's either over or underrepresenting a certain race. But you can't go the inverse either. It's racist to say you can't have more than 13%. That's 1965 when they said that they ruled you have to have a majority black district. Otherwise, you're being racist.

Now they're saying you can't use race as the predeterminate factor as to why you created a district. It sounds like the Supreme Court's just tying up some loose ends as we train the state. to the New World Order, and then they're going to be like, okay, okay, you can redistrict back to you make, you can have whatever races you want. It doesn't matter anymore. But for now, like, they're, they're shoring up the, no, no, the argument literally was, we don't need this policy anymore. Alito literally stated back then it made sense based on the structure and the nature of our

society and culture, but the framers of this law intended for there to be some kind of sun setting. And at this point, we don't need to have districts based on race. In fact, the only guarantee a person should have is that they will not have their district gerrymandered based on their race. And that's actually true to the spirit of affirmative action. It was always supposed to be a temporary remedy and it became a permanent feature. And so in that way, you can argue that this decision is good. On the other hand, at some level, it's like we're rooting for different kinds of cancer that are in competition, right? The redistricting is in and of itself anti-democratic.

you know, in the small dissents. And we should be concerned about the fact that this midterm election was headed in one direction and that this may substantially change the calculus, not because anybody's opinion was changed. I actually don't care. And the argument is that illegal immigrants padding the electoral college in congressional seats for blue states by upwards of being nice on the low end, two to four congressional seats for Democrats they should not have. and on the high end upwards of 12 seats they should not have. And I'm not talking about the VRA. I'm talking about when you look at there's the third way they did an analysis on does illegal

immigration increase the amount of Democrat held seats? And they said, actually, when you look at the data, California may gain one seat, but Texas gains one seat as well. Therefore, it's one Democrat, one Republican. There we go. The only problem is the seat in Texas is in an urban area largely around Austin, which creates another Democrat district. So yes, illegal immigrants tend to be moved towards cities where they create urban Democrat congressional districts, even in red states.

So when Republicans say, we are going to redistrict to eliminate past injustice, I say, sure, these black majority, majority, minority districts should not exist. And so I'm happy to see that stopped. I don't disagree with you. But to your point, to address it, I grew up in Illinois. That's where I'm from. The Democrats have eliminated Republicans largely from the state. and they've maximized their power, even though the state is almost entirely conservative leaning,

they've controlled it for 100 plus years. You look at the Northeast all the same. I view it this way. If there was an issue of me and Ian largely get along on most things, we're never violent, we don't fight, we may disagree, but it's always afterwards we're hanging out, we're eating cheeseburgers together. If someone in this area or the guys,

governing authority or the police came and said, Ian now is going to be discriminated against for a particular reason. I would stand up against that as he is a member of my community. Communists aren't. Evil people who have tried putting the frontrunner for election in prison are not part of my community. This multicultural democracy they've been building is the antithesis of the constitutional republic we live in. So at this point, I just say, I may be opposed to war, to violence in these things, but in the issue of self-preservation and defense, I'm fine with it.

Yeah, this is actually exactly the point I was going to make is that I'm sure all of us are against killing people. But when you're at war, you're actually for killing people because it's necessary. If one side is against killing people and the other is for killing people, the side that's for killing people wins. And so the world becomes more that way. And so the fact is we're living in a circumstance where we have to be rooting for one cancer or another, but it doesn't mean that we can't look at it and say, actually, it's a tragedy that this is how the battle is playing out. What we should be battling for is to end this nonsense. Gerrymandering is anti-democratic, and even though it's like a court, right, we may all be

against people making fallacious arguments. But in a court, actually justice depends on each side doing so with equal strength, right? You have two sides both trying to distort the truth, and hopefully the actual truth emerges from between it. And in this case, we should be rooting for actual democracy to emerge from this dysfunctional and anti-democratic. But I'll stress it is not the Republicans in the past several decades that have been engaging in anti-democratic or anti-republicanist behavior. And so I view this all as a correction toward the better. So I wouldn't call it cancer. Well, no, it's a correction, but the point is it's a correction for an injustice that has you animated. And I agree. I don't want to

see one side put down their arms in the redistricting battle, but I do want us to all recognize it's bad for the thing that we value. So the issue of gerrymandering is interesting. Typically, when people refer to gerrymandering, you're talking about the process by which you construct a party dominant congressional district or district in general politically for that purpose. However, the problem I see with it is is sometimes districts should not be just blocks. They're going to look weird, and you'll be accused of gerryminding. Right. I agree with that. So let me let me give you an example. If we take a look at Illinois, I love this. See this district right here? Illinois's 13th 13th district. It makes no sense. It's just connecting, what is it, Champaign, Urbana and like Springfield and East St. Louis. This manufactures a Democrat district. This district, Illinois's 17th district, combines Rockford with, what is that? That might be pure. I'm not sure. Is manufactured. as a Democrat district. That makes no sense. The lives of the people who live in this area are the

same as the people who live right next to them, but the cities are distinct. And so what the state did was they crafted these to ensure they would get extra Democrat seats for the national Congress. Now, at the same time, you can look, if we go down to like Texas, and you can see an oddly shaped district like, you know, this one's long and it touches in this way. These are largely, seen as much more fair. But the important thing I understand, because we're having this, I was having this conversation, I can't remember what it might have been Matt Gates. And the issue, actually, no, it wasn't Matt Gates. I can't remember what it was. The issue is that humans don't live in blocks of the same populations. So districts are always going to be oddly

shapen in some way because you're going to have an urban center and you're going to have a disparate rural demography. So that means if you just made a congressional district a square, it might only have 35,000 people in it, and that's not proportional to, it's got to be 775. I feel like we can develop heat maps for zones for, what are these called, districts, that where you can use, I don't know, I don't want to just say like artificial intelligence is the end is like the solution, everything, but you can. They do that. You can vote by your vicinity and it doesn't have to be in a sphere or a circle.

It can like travel like through paths of least resistance to find the balance to make these, these districts without having to get some crudely drawn thing. This is exactly what they do. They use computers that draw districts. The only problem is in most blue states, they manipulate them to gain power. They bring in illegal immigrants to gain power. The general idea, at least in my moral worldview of a congressional district, is that it's supposed to represent people who live similarly and their political whims.

So if you look at Louisiana, for instance, you can look at Louisiana, for instance, you can You can see here the third district is the shore. That's beautiful. If you live on the water, you are going to have a similar life experience and goals to the other people who live on the water based on flooding, on shrimping or fisheries or whatever as you might be doing. The idea that they're going to create a district just for black people because they're black is the most insane thing imaginable. Yeah, I think a lot of these come from where you have, the city has like nine districts. It's from like the time of better men where you had the plebs that ate, you know, garbage and they had terrible IQ because they had no nutrition. And then all the rich, wealthy men that ran the show behind the scenes.

And so you've got these vestiges of people that think they're in charge. We're like, now with the Internet and high access to nutrients, like, even people in these red farmer districts can be pretty brilliant. And so the age of like consolidating power in the city, I think, is sort of coming to a close. The next big move, of course, South Carolina lawmakers will take up the proposed congressional map tomorrow, eliminating a Democrat seat and creating a solid red state. And guess which South Carolina politician opposes this? Lindsey Graham. You are correct. Lindsay Graham urges caution.

Is South Carolina radio this when you push? Oh, here we go. Well, it's going to invalidate early. This guy's a Democrat. What is this? How is this guy a Republican? He's just been incumbent that long, you know? He's the worst.

Yeah, he's terrible. I want to mute him. We got to get him on the show, dude. Lindsay. You know why he won't do it because people whose ideas can't withstand scrutiny don't come on shows like this. That's true. Well, I'll go on your show then, Lindsay.

Does he have a show? I don't know, not yet, but maybe he will. Yeah, that would be a three-minute edited piece where he would edit out any bad questions you ask him. Right. Indeed. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting, too. We're seeing this happen in red states,

and it will match a lot of what's going on in the blue states. It's like the entirety of New England is blue. And when you look at the voting numbers there, it's like each state is 40 to 43 percent Republican voters. And then people complain about like, you know, they say West Virginia is gerrymandered or whatever. And they tell you about all of these red states where there's no blue districts.

And a lot of those are either one or two senators at the most. And West Virginia is pretty evenly divided just in half. Let's jump to the story from Axios. I love this. So we saw the news. Supreme Court of Virginia said you will not redistrict. Some woman went out screaming and pointing at the court building. The argument is you can't just, you know, ignore your constitution when you try to change the rules and ice out half of the population, which Virginia tried to do. And it didn't work.

And now Virginia Democrats are discussing a court overhaul. The strategy will be to, oh, let me just read it. Behind the scenes, some Democrats considered going further after a Friday article by the down ballot. A progressive outlet proposed lowering the retirement age for Virginia judges from 73 to 54 and installing new justices to rehear the case. I say, let's go. Do it. Crazy. I'd be so excited if they did.

Why? Because they'd effectively invalidate every argument they made in 2020. Right. Yeah. The argument about whether or not there is the right of the state of the state legislature to hold and conduct their elections as they see fit. shall be upheld. The argument made by Democrats was that the courts and the governor can overrule what the legislature wants to do. Now, this question was never answered in Texas v. Pennsylvania because the Supreme Court was too cowardly to answer the question, which leads us to this

conflicted circumstance, which Democrats wish, wish they had answered now. Because the issue would now be when the judges said, no, you can't, the argument from the the Virginia Democrats is, then we have to physically remove these people and overhaul them. If they were to do that, they would surely face a battle from the DOJ or from the Supreme Court. It would just be a legal catastrophe to which the Democrats would have to argue the judiciary has no right to actually, you know, I'm going to pause. They're already doing it. They're already arguing the judiciary has no right to overturn the will of the voters in a

referendum, despite the fact they argued the inverse in 2020. So I'm just loving the hypocrisy. But the desperation is palpable. Why don't the voters notice the hypocrisy? You know, Democrat voters don't notice and they don't seem to care. And there's countless instances of hypocrisy over and over. They don't seem to care. They don't seem to care. Did you see the thing recently where Spanberger said that who, that Virginia's electoral college votes will go to whoever wins the popular vote nationally. Regardless. Regardless.

Just regardless. I mean, that seems like really overturning the will of Virginia's voters and selling them out. This is why, you know, before the show, we were talking about having kids and hospitals, I said, if you're going to have a kid, you've got to go to Loudoun County or like the Fairfax Loudoun area where the deep state is holed up. Because we'll come back to this, but I'm just going to throw it out there. That's where they use CRISPR? No. I'm only going to brief.

mentioned this before we get to this later on in the show. But every story I've heard about a baby being born in some other hospital in like any other state, the doctors come in and say, you have to get these shots, you have to get these vaccines. They separate the parents and coerce them. They tell one parent we're going to do these shots. When the parents says, no, they go, but the other parent already said yes. And the other parent actually said, no, you go to Deep State Homefront, which is, you know, loud in Fairfax. That's where my daughter was born. Doctors were like, no, you're good. And we're alive. Should we get to think? No, you don't get worried about it.

Not even a joke. She'll have superhuman vision. They were like, no. Any vaccine? Whatever you want. Nothing? Nothing. You're good. So in this area, in Virginia, we'll come back to that. To your point about they're going to give the vote to whoever they want, this is the deep state headquarters.

Rules for thee and not for me. They do whatever they want. That's why these are richest counties in the entire country, the ones surrounding D.C. Yeah, well, obviously, if it's the country, then it's the world. But, you know, Fairfax, Loudoun, and a couple of them in Maryland. And you're just, like, looking at it and you're like, you're all just fleecing us and living in these beautiful homes. And you can drive through Loudoun County, and it's like you can smell money. It's very easy to make money if you know what's going to happen before everyone else.

Right, exactly. And if you can listen in on all of their conversations and know what they're going to do. Right. You know, it's real fascinating. Trump made that. He made a declaration about energy infrastructure. And instantly a bunch of key infrastructure energy providers saw a massive spike in their stock value. But it was just before Trump made the announcement, but you know, whatever.

But anyway, I'm sorry. Well, I wanted to go back to the hypocrisy point because I think the hypocrisy is universal and the rule is obvious. Everybody wants the rules bent when they are asking for something and they want the rules enforced when the other people are asking for something. So we've become a country that views ourselves as teams. That's the cancer I'm talking about. And you can imagine a country. And in fact, I think we have at other moments in history had a country that was much closer to imagining we all want the same things.

We want to be stronger. We want to be more prosperous. We want to have a more educated, better taking care of population. And we disagree over policy how to get there. And we've so lost that that it's impossible not for to root for the team that's closer to your values and root against the others. So, you know, there's a question about the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, right? John Rawls said, you shouldn't want to make a rule that you wouldn't want to live on the wrong side of. We should want the

rules that we're happy with when we're down and we're also happy with them when we're up. And we need to get back to being a country that does that. I disagree, though, but clarify for me, maybe I'm misunderstood that we all disagree on the policies. We generally. In general, we should all want the country to be strong. We should want the population to be well taken care of. We should want disease managed well. We should want good information about our health. Those should be universal. And then we might disagree about what the policies are that are likely to lead us there. We do. Well, no. We also now disagree over the values. We are rooting against each other within the country. My point is you and I, we. Oh, yeah. We do. Libby and I do, Ian and I. You and Liby. We largely

agree on most things with minor differences. And we are. but set on all sides by political factions that don't actually want anything good. Half of them want to extract power for themselves. The other half want to extract status and appear virtuous, and they are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get it. I feel like I want to preserve the system. I think what we're talking about is maintain a system that's honorable that will function no matter where you are within that system.

But because there's been such a barrage on the system from outside, from Chinese AI, who knows where all this global misinformation is coming in and twisting people's minds and making them think Trump is Hitler and they hate this person and I'm afraid that like maybe the system, like Abraham Lincoln, you know, he suspended habeas corpus. That's so far outside of my wheelhouse of reality of what I think I would do, but he did it and he's considered one of the greatest presidents ever. So like are we looking at another moment in time like that? And if so, I don't want to be the guy that pushes the button to start it in the action. But what do you think, Brett?

Well, I want to put a model on the table. It's a level up from what we're talking about that I think explains it. There's a problem on the right and there's a problem on the left, and the two of them are functioning in a dynamic. The problem on the right is that the right believes the mythology of the market much more strongly than it should. The market is the best tool we've ever come up with to figure out how to accomplish things. Nothing competes with the market in terms of its ability to figure out that question. But the market is beset by a tremendous amount of market failure. Lots of people who are winning in the market are either partly or wholly winning as a result of rent-seeking,

and lots of people who are losing are losing for reasons that have nothing to do with their willingness to do the right thing. So the right is stingy with respect to taking care of the losers in our competitive system, and there will always be losers. What we should want is a system that takes care of people who lose, who want to do the right thing, they want to compete, but doesn't happen to go well. We should want everybody to have access to the market. What we have is a system in which the stinginess on the right and the failure to recognize the amount of corruption that there is and the amount of wealth that is generated by it is causing a large fraction of the population to correctly

understand that they are not going to win. We have a competitive system, and they are born in to lose. and they have no interest in preserving the system. So what you're talking about, the people who want to overthrow the system do want to overthrow the system, and we are under attack because of it. But we have to understand that both sides are playing a role in that dynamic. But I would half disagree with you, and I would be interested in your response to the right thing isn't universal.

And doing the right thing sometimes defies what people want, in which case to instill upon them something they don't want would be the wrong thing. So I'll give you an example of a non-market circumstance which we should not support. And I'll use a bit of an absurdity. And that would be asparagus-flavored ice cream. In fact, I'm sure someone's made it. Not the worst thing, but it's fairly bad. But asparagus is good for you. Ice cream tends to be bad for you. I'm going to do the right thing. I'm going to give people a dessert that is good for them. But guess what? I'm a loser in the market. You should take care of me. You should have to give me a portion of your labor because I'm doing the right thing.

Like solar. Well, it turns out ice cream is way better for you than we thought because everything told us about our health was a lie, but let's put that aside. That's true. I agree with you. I don't want to be, I don't want to have a system that tells people what to do. I want a system that protects people from true bad luck and exposes them to the results of their bad decisions.

We'll define true bad luck. True bad luck is you make a gamble in the market. it's a good gamble. Let's say it has a 75% chance of panning out, but the dice come up with the 25%. But what do you mean like someone taking cash and putting it in a market in the stock? Or do you mean like running a business? Well, no. When you put money into the stock market, right, you need to suffer the downside of your judgment, including the 25% chance that it's going to go in the wrong direction, even if you calculate it correctly. But let's say that we have a level of pesticide use that causes a certain number of cancers. And let's say you didn't do anything to increase your exposure to

this pesticide, but you're one of the unlucky people who gets a cancer. We ought to take care of you, right? I'm lucky. I didn't get it. You're unlucky. And so, you know, that's the nature of- There's a moral challenge in that. How do we prove the source of your cancer? I'm not arguing that I know of a system that can do this, but I'm saying, well, no, I'm arguing about what we should want the system to do. We should want it to protect you from real bad luck, That is, you weren't involved in what happened that befell you, right? Lightning struck your house. You didn't put your house in a particularly lightning-prone place.

But we should want to expose you to the results of your bad decision-making. That causes people to get smarter. And it means that when you're the unlucky one and the dice go the wrong way, you know, we come together and rebuild your barn. Where I agree with you is that there will be a firefighter's pension and it's got to be invested somewhere. It's not just going to sit in cash in a bank account. And so with all good intentions, it's placed into a series of just some funds. And unfortunately, many of those companies go bust.

The pension loses a large portion of its value. And these hardworking men and women who all had good intentions thought they made a sound investment are now hurt because of it. And we are facing hardworking retirees who now don't know how they're going to pay their bills despite doing everything right. versus a guy who is buddies with a member of Congress who whispers to him, we're going to vote on this bill tomorrow, go put a bunch of, you know, go short this stock and you'll make a billion dollars. There are people that do nothing for society but the wrong thing and extract through the market value and live like kings while hardworking men and women every day don't have access to

these systems and suffer because of it. What about something like, what about the people who lost everything because they invested with Madoff. They believed they were doing the right thing. They looked at his receipts. They looked at his, they didn't realize he had that sixth floor where he was, you know, rigging up fake stock printouts. You know, I think the answer to that is insurance, some kind of insurance. The, but the argument is... Should you be, if you are investing in, you know, investment funds, should you be required to take out some sort of investment fund insurance? Well, if we're going to bail out the elites when they engage in this, then we should bail out the little guy, right?

Bail out the people who... But the problem is bang out the little guy is exponentially more expensive than the elites. And the other thing, too, it's... No, I don't think this is necessarily true. When we, let's say, we look at too big to fail, right? Too big to fail was never properly adjudicated, right? The fact is, too big to fail is a correct argument at one level. That institution, if it fails, we will suffer more than if we prop it up.

but that does not require you to prop up the people who steered it into trouble. Those people should have gone to jail. So because we didn't do that, what we ended up doing was bailing out not just those institutions that we would have suffered more for allowing to fail, but we bailed out the people who made the bad decisions, guaranteeing that those decisions would be revisited on us in a future context like right now. So the point is none of this is as hard to solve as it seems. It's being made hard to solve by people who are winning disproportionately, not because of insight, not because of hard work.

They are winning because they have power with which to seek rent. I think that's the intention is that they are stripping the wealth from the United States through the corporate upward mobility, taking it away from common man lower and middle class to incite a communist revolution within the United States so that the United States will destroy itself so that they can centralize power in Switzerland with the bank. of international settlements. This is my point about stinginess on the right. We're not going to pay attention to the suffering of people who are unable to compete in the market because they ate garbage food, because their water was poisoned, because the schools were never properly constructed to educate. Those people discover when they, you know, reach adulthood, hey, I am

structured to lose in a system in which the winners take from the losers. Why would those people act to preserve the system. They have no incentive. I think because it's the least worst system ever made. Not for them. But if they truly understood the other economic orders that have come before, they would know. It'd be very different. It'd be very different if you were a loser in this system, but you realized, actually, I can better my station through hard work, right? If you had that system, it wouldn't make sense to overthrow it, because you're right. The horror that will be visited on us if the system collapses is unthinkably bad. But you have a large number of people who have too little stake in the system to care.

I do think there's a bit of projection in your argument, though. What if you're a transhumanist? You believe that there are stupid people who deserve work at McDonald's and when they fail, it's a good thing, and they should lose because the ultimate end goal should be a headlong rush into transhumanism, sacrificing the weaker for the stronger. You're not going to want the same world you want, and their moral worldview is that they're just. Now, of course, we can call that evil,

but they're not going to exist in the same moral framework that you are. Well, I believe their model of what makes people capable is in error and self-serving, that actually the amount of this that has anything to do with genetic differences between us is tiny, and the amount of it that has to do with mistreating people during development, even before they're born, is so large that actually if you did have a system in which didn't matter what zip code you lived in, your water was clean, that would do a huge piece of the heavy lifting. If you made sure that everybody had proper actual food, which only rich people can even access now, you would see these

fundamental differences disappear. And then the question is, how good is the developmental environment that your family and your school provide for you? I'm not saying that there's an argument to be made about nature versus nurture. I'm saying that there are wealthy, powerful individuals who probably agree with everything you just said. And they say, and still, human beings are limited, and we have to expand this through neuralink and through technological advancement, for which the sacrifice of humans in cobalt mines and sulfur mines is worth every cent. Yeah, I just don't think they understand or care to understand what actually motivates humans.

And what I've learned in traveling the world and dealing with people, many different continents, many different economic strata, is that people basically want the same things. Well, no, no, no, agreed. Okay. And there are powerful elites that know this, but view you like a chicken. Right. Chickens all largely want the thing. The wants and desires of chickens are immaterial to me because I want to build AI data centers

and turn myself into a machine that can fly around the universe. That's exactly right. I want to ruin neighborhoods because I will benefit from doing so, and it won't be mine. Well, they, again, right. So we agree on that point. Your point about the world that we want to build is challenged by those. that will lie to us and destroy what we want, manipulating our motivations and desires. A hundred percent. And that's my point is that we are actually being had by those exact

forces. They are causing us to get in the ring and fight people who aren't our natural enemies, right? We need to fight that power and we need to have, I mean, I know this sounds naive, but, you know, frankly, 50 years ago it wouldn't. We need a system in which we make rules that are good irrespective of whether you're on the upside of them or the downside. I, again, half agree. And I think because it is idealistic, maybe as you even stated, a bit naive, the challenge is we have consistently been on the side of those who just want to be left alone. We want the rules to work for us. And they're exploited by the likes of these liberals, these Democrats, these big tech companies. And so every step of the way, as we've been trying to

implement this rules for all, they've been playing at no rules. rules for me and we get crushed because of it. Oh, I don't disagree with that. And what I would say is actually, you know, it's not as hard as you would think to list the values that we all agree on, right? It's not that hard. And I think the top value is that the test of a policy, any policy, is whether it liberates individuals in the long term.

I would say- What does that mean? Well, if you, let's take the fire department to take, you know, a low bar. knowing that if my house catches on fire, all I have to do is make a phone call and people who have the capability of putting it out are going to show up and it doesn't matter what zip code I'm in, that's a good rule, right? The point is I get liberated by not having to fight my own fires, not having to contract with a private company to do it, not having to arrange things this way. There's a labor requirement from you for that.

What are you saying? You're paying taxes, a portion of the labor that you're all for it. I don't mind those taxes. I'm good. And I don't mind. I don't mind. I don't mind. I don't mind the fact that I will probably go my whole life subsidizing other people's houses being put out, and mine is not likely to catch fire. I like that. That's fine. Then the challenge for police and fire is the people who live in more rural areas that don't have access to those but still have to pay for it. Right. And so my labor is going to something I don't get without my choice. I agree, but I don't want to live under a rule, right? I don't want a rule put in place that I would not want imposed upon me, and that's what's happening right now, but you benefit from it so you enjoy it.

Well, no, but do you disagree with the top value I've put down that we can assess the quality of a policy based on whether or not it liberates individuals. I don't agree. I think... Let's talk about air travel, okay? We have tremendous regulation around air travel, maybe more so than anything else in common life. That regulation allows you to get on a plane and in less than 24 hours be anywhere in the world you want to go.

It's tremendously liberating. It's also tremendously constraining at the same time. Do you resent the constraints that come with air travel? Or do you say, actually, net, net, I want to live in a world where I can go anywhere I want. I just have to, you know, figure out whether or not the price of going there is... I would love it if I could build my own ultralight without having to be controlled by the government to do it so that people can have their $60 Spirit Airlines Airfare. Okay, so you're ultra light.

I want you to be able to build it, and I want you to be able to fly, and I want you not to have to ask. Unless... Well, unless you're going to fly it in a way that you might crash into my house, then I become concerned. It's not even that. It's just that imagine if every person had a flying car, what that would mean for air travel. It would mean that many people would lose access because large commercial airliners would have difficulty flying in and out of urban areas when people are flying cars. Too much liberty is a bad thing is your argument here. It sounds like.

You completely liberate everyone to have total power. One idiot monkey is going to blow everything up. No, but you already made the argument, right? If everybody has a flying car, you're less free because airliners aren't going to function in that world. I don't know if that's true or not. And it's not that everybody's a flying car. It's that they're capable of having one can. Right.

Other people cannot. My point is, okay. So I'm constrained by the government. They prevent me from using these things to make sure that other people can have large commercial airfare. Well, look, I have become unfortunately cynical about why the government does what it does. But my point would be we should look at the question of whether you should be allowed to build and fly your own ultralight, whether you should be allowed to buy a flying car based on whether or not the net effect is, liberation of individuals over the long term. The issue, I think, is exemplified pretty well by drones.

So when the drone, commercial drone thing first started, we started seeing them pop up in Best Buy's and things like this. My friends and I were doing crazy experiments with them. We were hacking them. We were doing live broadcasts. And we actually, I got a request from the government to consult on the expansion of this. When they first launch, I was liberated. I could do whatever I wanted. The only issue at play was the liability of a drone crashing into the person or into a vehicle if that did happen. Otherwise, I was in New York City flying it around, flying around buildings, flying over cops, and there was nothing constraining me. Then more people wanted to do it, too. So in order to liberate them, I guess, they put a bunch of laws in place stopping us from being able to

being able to do it. Well, again, you're putting me at a disadvantage by forcing me to defend current policy. And again, I don't trust it. Well, I just, I guess my idea is that you can't have infinite liberty, right? Because some liberties will infringe upon someone. else. Let me add to this. Flying a drone over someone else's property is a privacy invasion. Your claim that a rule that would enhance the liberty escalates as a value. Maybe it was a linear upward.

The more liberty the better. But I think there's a diminishing return on liberty and that you have to control the masses. This is a utilitarian argument because people be fucking, excuse me, wild animals. We basically domesticated ourselves, kind of. But we're like a dumb human that's hungry is super dangerous. So if he has full liberty, all the weapons, all the power, like... Well, doesn't your liberty end where it begins to infringe on someone else's rights? By law.

I mean, that's sort of how it goes. But in reality, like... Well, you can commit crimes. People are intentionally kept in the dark. They're... You know, people go out of their way to make sure a lot of people are kind of like stupid and docile, I think, on purpose. I think that's true. I think that is the progressive agenda primarily.

I think the issue is... liberate everyone, make everyone super powerful and strong and intelligent, but that might destroy us. Let me ask a other question about, say, having a rifle in New York City. You want to have a SCAR 20S 308. You live in a box apartment with 20 other units. You've got two on each side, one behind you. You've got a window facing outside. Should that person be allowed to have that weapon? Well, I have become persuaded that the net liberty argument strongly favors the Second Amendment, and it does so in spite of the fact that liberties are limited by unstable people who use these weapons and rob innocent folks of life. So this person in this apartment has a break-in, and this is their singular weapon, and they use it, and they shoot the guy, cavitates, vaporizes a large portion of his chest, and the bullet carries on through other apartments, striking a child.

This is the argument why in New York, they say, we won't allow these weapons. Now, if I live out in rural West Virginia, Nobody cares because I can go my, I can go outside right now and just unload and nothing, no one will get hit. I got backstop. We're totally fine. The challenge is that you maximize for, I suppose, in a situation like New York, and I'd largely agree with, we have a constitution, we have a constitution, we have rules, and people should be allowed to have these weapons. But I fully recognize a lot of people are going to get blasted if that's the case. Well, a lot of people are going to get blasted, but the hard part to calculate about the costs and benefits. of the Second Amendment is that I'm fairly convinced that the founders understood the necessity of an

armed populace to prevent tyranny. And the question is, how many skulls end up in a pile if we end up with tyranny because our weapons aren't powerful enough as citizens? Well, there was a, there's a really great meme where it's a guy with an American flag. I posted it, and he's got a big pile of guns. And then he's like, he's had something like, man, it's just so awful about these Epstein guys, there's nothing we can do, literally nothing that we can do at all. And that's the point that people keep making is, you know, around the world, the gag that they're saying is that Americans claim to have these guns to fight tyranny. We get these disclosures about Epstein, the people flung on these planes, the powerful elites. Everybody kind of knows what they're doing, but of course

no one should go out with weapons and start. I mean, what is the argument? You get to take your weapons and form militias and then go attack the government. That's not a good idea. We see that. We've seen over the past year we've seen you know at least recently Luigi Mangione right Thomas Matthew Crooks Tyler Robinson Cole Allen we've seen these young men take their weapons and go

out and do what they believed was attacking tyranny right in four distinct cases two men were murdered and Trump was a Trump was almost shot twice and just the excellent point is that

what Antifa defines as fighting tyranny we argue as fighting against democracy and vice versa. Well, that's exactly the problem. So the argument of maximizing liberty, I think the challenges moral worldviews are just very different. Let's take it.

I want to stress test the maximization of liberty philosophy, free speech. So if anyone can say anything on any network everywhere, that could be very bad. That's not the same thing. That's not the same thing. Well, one demagogue can rally.

Free speech doesn't mean access to every platform. Look what Hitler did with mass media. Free speech doesn't mean access to every platform. Well, technically, legally, you're right. Yeah. I mean, that's not what free speech is. Free speech is, you know, like, no one can come out in the town square and shut you up,

but it doesn't mean you have to be on, you know, CNN and Fox and wherever else. Well, it doesn't mean you have. And time will tell that if whether or not free speech means for sure that you're allowed to be on every social media platform. Is that you're right? Is an American citizen? I suppose to the argument about liberties. Do I have the liberty to enter someone else's property? You know what I mean? No, of course not.

That's not. But let's say there's a plot of land. It's 50 acres with a house on it that they just use as an investment. They've never set foot in at one time. It was bought by a guy 2,000 miles away. And here I am homeless. If I go on the property, no one will know. It will cause harm to literally nobody.

And I'll make sure to leave it exactly as I found it. But I have no right to that. Now you sound like Mom Dani supporters. Yeah, this. Well, that's why my argument against the liberty thing is. But this is my point about why the right has to wise up about taking care of the people at the bottom. so they don't fall off the ladder and have no investment, right? Well, I think that's what the right has been trying to do a little bit under Trump,

or at least that faction. No, no, there's a solution to that. It's very easy. Working class is part of this faction. Simple solution to the poor people will fall off later. Camps. No. Don't they already have that?

Isn't it called L.A.? Well, let's go back to the L.A. camps and New York camps. I think we should go back to the free speech question, because we're getting tangled up in whether or not you have a right to be on CNN versus whether or not anything should be sayable on CNN, right? And I would argue, you're saying, well, you know, you could have a Hitlerian figure, you know, mesmerizing the population over a platform. I agree. That's a danger. It's a sobering one. But it is not nearly as dangerous as a system that decides who can say what, where. I think that some censorship is very good because some things you want to

protect children from some networks you need to make sure. And like, I do think you should have unlimited net, maybe a network where you can be uncensored, but. Didn't we used to have people? I agree that there are things that we should censor, like we should be very sure to keep pornography away from kids, especially modern pornography. We should be able to prevent you from doxing somebody online. But there's no idea, no matter how despicable, that shouldn't be expressible on any platform. and the remedy for it is to have other people explain why it's a terrible idea. That's the best we got.

So do you think that, like, if Epstein investor class wanted to launch a primetime cable show on CNN, advocating for pedophilia, let them do it? Well, like I said, we have a special obligation with respect to pornography, and obviously you would... No, no, but advocacy of not showing it. Yeah, but still... Going on to make a political argument for legalization. A political argument for legalization?

I suppose I would have to accept that on the basis that we could meet it with the obvious counter argument and hopefully people would spot right away. I just say no. I just, I'm willing to accept that there are moral frameworks and moral worldviews that, and this is the great challenge with the liberty argument is what we've been dealing with for a long time. There is a line I don't think we should allow people to cross. And I am happy to express that as a singular moral framework that is this in my mind.

in the minds of most people, but there are people who believe in free speech that want to say that, and I say, don't care. Literally don't care. Okay. But now we're back in COVID hell, right? Because you had a bunch of people using wrong arguments to say you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the virulence of COVID or the safety of vaccines or the utility every purpose drugs. And the fact is those people got a lot of folks killed.

And it seems like the real issue at hand was that those with the power. had a different moral worldview than I did and sought to destroy us using that system against us. And so if we adopt the, we will allow them to keep doing what they do as long as we get to do what we do, the end result is we get crushed and they do the bad thing. So I think you have just gotten right back to the question about we are in a war in which we have to meet fire with fire. That's not where we should want to be. We should want to get out of that situation as quickly as possible. And the fact is, if you can't trust people in power to make decisions about what can you

can and cannot be said because you know what they'll do with it, then we are stuck with any idea should be expressable and you meet it with the counter idea. That's not that that's a good system. It's that it's the best system that we can consider them. So if someone came out and they were like, there's a virus and someone was like, this is what you have to do. They gave the wrong information. It got a hundred billion or billions of people believed it. You think that the government should not step in and shut it down or it would be up to the populace to self-regulate? You're saying that to a funny person to be laying that argument on because the government did step in cryptically and said that Heather and I were spreading COVID disinformation that we were endangering people and they muscled the platforms to silence us. And the point is, guess what?

We were right and they were doing exactly what they were accusing us of. So the right solution was not to tell them that they couldn't deploy their arguments about Ivermectin vaccines. origin of the virus, virulence of the virus, they can deploy their arguments and we can deploy our arguments. And you know what? Our arguments were better and they won. The issue, of course, is the old saying, right? When I am weak, I ask you for rights, you know, because it is according your principles, but when you are weak, I take them from you. That's according to mine. The view that I've largely had is the inadequacies of liberalism. Liberalism in the classical sense, the United States, beautiful when everyone shared a moral framework.

You didn't need police. I mean, people largely just agreed if you blasphemed you went to jail. Everybody agreed. The First Amendment didn't protect you from blasphemy. You just went to jail. You were shunned or ostracized or worse. People who would commit serious crimes often didn't get a trial. They just string you up.

Everybody agreed. And then people stopped agreeing. Different communities started to pop up. The country expanded. And then we tried to glue these things together and act like they existed under one umbrella. the reality is if I say something like you can express your political opinion, it's fine, you'll end up with Antifa going and attacking people. And then here's the problem of reality.

In the case of Derek Chauvin, a travesty of justice, the jurors were entering a courthouse under armed guard because the rioters were threatening people. Which case was it where the journalist followed? Was it Rittenhouse? The journalist followed the jurors home? Yeah, that was. And yeah. And so when you have things like that, this idea of classical liberalism makes literally no sense.

You can say we're all allowed to speak, but when one side says, oh, and we'll kill you, the juror says, I'm going to do whatever the guy with the gun is telling me to do. I don't care what your argument is. You've lost. And we sit here we've tolerated these powerful elites and these rogue street factions. And we've said, but they're allowed to recruit. They're allowed to do it. They're allowed to say it. I say, no.

I say we, within the confines of our moral. framework, there is free speech. That is, you defend free speech, you reject and denounce violence, and never seek to recruit for it, you get free speech. The moment you say we can throw bricks, diversity of tactics, and we have to crush or kill fascists, the people we disagree with, I say, then you get the treatment, you've asked for all the same. Well, I agree with that. You're not allowed to advocate for violence. But no one can stop them in the system where we all try to say, Right. We're living the, we're living the cancerous version of the system. Well, let me clarify. A man stands up on a soapbox and says join Antifa, we're peaceful. And we go, no, no, no, no,

he's lying. These people are marching with guns. And he goes, no, no, I'm advocating for peace. And I've just recruited a hundred people to come to my meeting. Then he hands out guns and bricks and bottles. It's sad to think that sometimes the more charismatic argument, argumenter will win, even with the worst idea and that you need threat of force to stop that. It's crazy. That's so antithetical to communication in the United States. But this is a human reality. There are people who don't want the truth. They don't care. There are people, you see these videos during COVID, where a guy is chasing a woman down screaming, if I have to wear a mask, then you do too. He doesn't care what's true. Fouchy going on TV and saying, at first, he says, you don't have to wear two masks. Then he gets asked. He gets asked a few days later, wouldn't it just make more sense to which he agrees? And then all of a sudden, double masking appears. These people don't care about what's true. They sought to exert force against. against you and they could because in the end, everything we see is, again, to the Derek Chauvin case. Or how about the Ahmed Arbery case? The threat of violence from 10 people versus the threat

of a finger wag from 1,000. We know what's going to happen. Yeah, I think your argument, Brett, about the best ideas will win. I believe that in if there's enough time and people are calm. But when people are agitated and it's an emergency, a bad idea can get super hot traction real fast. like some authority to stomp it out, I think. I don't think that the best idea necessarily will always win, because I do think that what Tim is saying is accurate about there being different moral frameworks. So I think, you know, generally the four of us, five of us, would have been raised with a relatively Christian moral framework, whether there was Christianity involved or not, because we were swimming in those Christian moral framework waters of the United States as it was

in the 20th century, you know, and going into the 21st century. But we now have a situation where there are a lot of people who don't think that that is a valid way to look at the world at all. You recently have, and you have a situation too where the people who don't think that that basic Christian worldview is valid think that their worldview is valid and that you, as someone who accepts a basic Christian worldview, has to accept their craziness. Like just for an example, you look at this recent viral video on X that was going around today or yesterday, and it's a bunch of Muslims in the UK demanding that all the pubs close because the pubs are next to mosques. So I have a question for you, Brett. Should parents have final say in the medical treatment of their children?

Of course. So if a parent decides they want to, at eight years old, surgically sex change their child, it's their choice? Yeah, it caught me. We have to protect kids from disfiguring. So when you say medical, I think we're talking about a judgment call over what is in the medical interest of your child. This is not a judgment call. This is the maiming of children. So then...

I would argue that that is... The reason I answered the way I did is because within the medical realm, I believe that the right to informed consent is sacrosanct, and kids can't exercise it because they can't be properly informed. So, yes, a parents have final say. Parents have final say, but not if what you have is a surgical monster who wants to man your child. These are illegal in many states. Well, I'm not, I'm arguing that they absolutely shouldn't be. It's such a clear violation.

In which case, you would argue that there should be, I should say, would you argue then? There should be an authority that can go to, say, California and say the federal government, for instance, we are going to stop you. The parents say, our child shall get a sex change. Should the federal government send agents and to stop that from happening? Yes. So then when, as you mentioned already with rules we don't want to live under, the inverse happens is that in a state like Florida, when the parents say, absolutely, you will not vaccinate our kids, Democrat federal government comes in and takes the kids and says the state has the authority to come in.

Now the only thing you're arguing is your moral worldview, not the principle. No, not at all. I am arguing that bodies function. The idea that the federal government has the right to mandate an intervention in a functioning human body is So these are different things. In one case, you have doctors maiming children and the federal government has not only a right, but I think an obligation to prevent that from happening. In the other, you have a shot with unknown impact that there's no medical need for. So I would argue that the very same principle has you preventing the supposedly medical intervention. What if the kid has cancer? And the doctor recommends chemotherapy, low success rate, and the parents believe that it's not at the point where the child is at risk of dying in the short term,

and they want to try something alternative. The state can then say, no, we're coming in. This child's body is not functioning properly. They need medicine. Well, unfortunately, COVID delivered a graduate level education in modern medicine to anybody who was ready to pay attention. I'm not saying you become a medical expert, but a graduate level education in how medicine functions. And you're talking about a case where parents are rejecting a doctor's advice. There are many places where it makes sense to reject a doctor's advice because the doctors are perversely incentive or badly educated. Will that mean that someone, like, let's say, a Christian scientist.

Christian scientists, as I understand it, believe that medical intervention is never warranted. And so you could have a child born with cancer who the parents refuse to treat, and when the child dies, that will be a tragedy. On the other hand, you might have an instance in which the parents are very well informed, and they recognize that there is a more promising therapy

for the cancer in question, and then what they're effectively getting is a pharma sales pitch for chemotherapy that's highly destructive and perhaps not very effective. So the question is... The answer to the question is, as with the case of liberal gun laws, I think we have to tolerate a tiny amount of tragedy. The number of doctors who will turn down medical treatment for their children when their children are in dire need is tiny. And so we have to recognize that the principle that is maximally liberating and valuable of humans is the principle in which you either have an absolute right to inform consent over all medical intervention or in the case that your child can't exercise informed consent, you have it in their stead. I think that's the best you can do. So to clarify, there will be some instances where the parents will turn down a known effective treatment, which will kill the child, but we have to allow that.

It's a minimal tragedy to protect the rights. Well, not just to protect their rights, but to protect all of the children who will be maimed by doctors prescribing things that are not in the child's interest, which is happening all too frequently. Does this mean that, I suppose the argument, the argument is against an authority on medicine, that the individuals shall choose whether that medicine should be applied regardless of the science? The problem, the problem is the phrase, the science in that sentence is doing so much heavy lifting. The way science works, you have inflicting evidence. Let me just clarify the point so I get you. My point is, you're an adult. Every doctor on the planet agrees, even you, that there is this, an antibiotic is going to cure your bacterial infection.

And he goes, nope. And you say, okay. Now, like we are saying, this person will get sick, they will die of consumption or whatever, or syphilis, because they're refusing. this known treatment, but we're going to allow that. Right. But what you need to compare that little tragedy too is the massive tragedy in comparison of all of the people who are killed annually by doctors. No, no, I understand that.

So again, just in order- In order- People have a right to turn down effective treatments, even if it means they'll die. Here's the deeper moral point. It's really a point about natural law, okay? You are a creature. You are built to function, and you have a mind, and you are built. to reason. We have all of this technology. It is advertised as doing one thing, it very frequently

does other things rather than what is advertised. Are we in a position to tell you as either the patient or the parent of a patient that you have to take the word of this authority? What authorities do we have that are so good that we should be able to order you to do that? And I would say none. Right. So just to clarify, if there was a person who had a bacterial infection, everyone agrees the antibiotic is going to cure it. If they don't take it, they're going to die in a couple years, it's going to spread. They're going to get sepsis, whatever might happen. That's the person's choice to get to just wither away. Yes. If you want to make it tough, then the question is with an infectious agent, what do we do to protect other people from someone who makes sense? Now we come to the next question, which is a contagion, which is hontovirus. And do we then say, we've decided that because we believe you have hauntavirus, and we don't know for sure, we're taking your right. rights from you? Actually, that right does exist. The right to quarantine the sick does exist in very exotic cases. And the case of the M.V. Hondias and those who emerged from it might be such a case. Let's pull it up. Got the story here from CBS. You see, I was walking there. I was walking there. CBS News, two Maryland residents monitored after potential haunt of virus exposure. Health officials say,

we've got this from NPR. U.S. cruise ship passengers arrive in U.S. after. one test positive for hanta virus that's it we're all done it's going to spread it's got a one i'm just kidding uh likely i think nothing's going to happen i think uh it's exceedingly rare i believe the reason it's getting a lot of attention is because it's getting a lot of clicks so it's created a cycle of you know what i described it as low event volume uh last week so seriously we had very slow news days liby was here we were talking about it everyone's shrugging like what's the story today and Honda virus seems to be the most interesting thing, so it gets a lot of plain, a lot of attention. And when I say low event volume, I'm describing at the national and international level,

things of magnitude were fairly stagnant. Now, at the local level, sure, but, you know, the goings-on of a police involved shooting in Oklahoma, it doesn't matter much to New Yorkers. Haanta virus was a story that could theoretically affect the whole world and likely would as these people start returning to their home countries, and thus it generate a lot of attention that I don't think is warranted, but correct me if I'm wrong. Well, I would say this is a story that we have to think about very carefully because hantavirus is not new. It is not new that we have an outbreak amongst humans.

The story of the MV Hondias does not add up as presented, but we don't know why it doesn't add up. We'll start there. What do you mean? All right. We have a ship that left Argentina on April 1st. I believe on April 16th. Are you sure it was April 1st? Track hanta, I'm not saying it's correct, says March 20th. You know, there is some disagreement between different sources.

I think it's April 1st, but I don't know. It could be that I'm looking at the wrong source. But nonetheless, what we have, irrespective of which of those dates is correct. What we have is an individual who shows symptoms of hanta virus and then gets so sick, he dies. His wife then gets very sick. She ultimately dies. We've now had three deaths from this ship. Hanta virus is well known in its basic epidemiology. Real quick point. On further inspection, another source says April 1st. Trek Honda says 20th, but you're probably right. I have seen this disagreement before, and I really don't know what the right answer is. I've just

seen April 1st enough times that I'm inclined to believe it. It's funny that it's not a well-established fact enough. This is very strange. Settle it. Yeah, isn't that odd? But okay, so you have a case in which Haanta virus is circulating on a ship. There are eight known cases. We have two more likely cases after the ship, the passengers disembarked. The question is, how could you get this number of cases on the ship? And there are only a small number of answers. First of all, you should know Haanta virus does not, is not conveyed between people. It's not contagious between people, except maybe the particular Andean strain. But that is far less certain than people think.

The evidence of it being transmitted between people is quite weak. If you want to look at Peter McCullough put a paper on his X-Feed, a meta-analysis. Actually, they couldn't do a meta-analysis because the data was of too many different types, but they did a review of all of the available evidence and concluded it was actually unlikely that even the Andean strain is capable of transmitting between people. So one possibility is that either there were rodents on the ship. Another possibility is that one of the suppliers of the ship had a rodent problem. And so some rice or something was brought in that was contaminated. Don't forget the bird watching at the dump.

Well, the bird watching at the dump is pretty, fishy. Because hauntavirus, here's the thing. It's a really bad disease. You don't want it. It's very... 40% mortality, right? 40% mortality if you don't get good medical help. It's much less, but it's still a ferociously high case fatality rate. So the question is still, how could you get this many cases

on a ship of something like 150 people in the period of time that you've got. And all of the various explanations are pretty weak, right? Let's say that the birdwatcher did go to the dump and he dropped a piece of food and was thoughtless and picked it up and ate it and contracted hantavirus. Okay, it's pretty if... Is that what they said? What? Is that what they said happened? No, it's my... It's my just putting together a model, proof of concept. here's how I would build this little outbreak from that exposure. Okay, so he contracts it in a known way. He goes on the ship.

He's rooming with his wife. Maybe they're doing other things. That's close contact between two people, that if the Andean strain of hauntavirus is capable of transmitting between humans, she could have gotten it. Okay? That gets us to two. Three is harder to figure.

Ordinarily, even those who believe that hauntavirus is transmitted between people, believe it is not easily transmitted between people. It requires effectively intimate contact, like doctors contacting bodily fluids. Maybe they were, you know, getting with it. Yeah, was it some other kind of cruise? That's, you know, I don't think so. These were, these were people going to look at penguins. So, you know, I guess what, FEEC. Okay, so anyway, you can get to two, it's hard to get to eight cases from a sick individual. Now, how would you, if I wanted to make the argument for this being totally natural, I would say, well, this was a ship in polar waters. It's very cold. So the HVAC system has to work overtime to keep such a ship warm,

and it has to be biased towards recirculating air that's already been warmed and has cooled off a little bit rather than pulling in really cold air from the outside and warming it up. For energetic reasons, that would be what they did. So maybe the HVAC system is possible. pumping, you know, aerosolized haunt of virus through the ship. But even that, given how poorly transmissible this is, that is unlikely to work. For one thing, the HVAC system be very dry. Is it possible that someone on this boat was some kind of UFO-related researcher? I'm not going to touch the UFO thing yet. We can go back to UFOs. But frankly, you're... So are you saying it was an intentional infection? No. I'm saying, look, the most natural way

for eight people on a ship of 150 to get a hantavirus infection is for there to have been mice on the ship. But so far, we've been told no mice have been found on the ship. That's bizarre. Well, that's probably just lying about the mice because I don't get sued. Yeah, but who's lying about the mice? You know, we've got the who and the CDC weighing in on this. Why does the ship get any say at all in what the public discovers? Frankly, the best answer from the point of view of planet Earth is that there were mice on that ship, there was hauntavirus circulating, an unfortunate number of people got sick, and the world can go back to doing what it was doing. Agreed, right?

Slightly worse if it was a supplier, because now you've got, who else got the grain, but hauntavirus doesn't live very long outside of a rodent. So basically the point is, look, if you were really interested in public health, this would be your number one concern. How exactly did this infection spread through that ship, if it was my mind? on the ship, if it was a supplier that was contaminated, then we know exactly what to do. You have to go after that supplier and make sure that anything that it distributed is cleared. You have to clean the ship and make sure there are no rodents persisting. But the point is, global issue, not remotely.

But it's never a global issue with hontovirus. Hontovirus outbreaks happen. They're very tragic. I think the media is propping it up because they were desperate. Yes, but you also have, you know, the who, I think probably in respect. to one of my posts and Mary Talley Bowden's post put out a statement saying that Ivermectin wasn't going to work. And this is crazy. Why is the who's saying this? Because you're a high-profile individual and this store. I like one hypothesis. It's just, in my view is that we have

international and national news stagnation. And it's not that nothing is happening. It's that nothing's developing. So we know there's ongoing operations in Iran. But no one wants to hear today a boat moved left and right. They want, hey, what is Iran said? What has changed? So you then post about it. They respond to a high-profile attention, you know, to a matter. How dare they?

Frankly, what I said and- There's as board as everybody else. What Mary Talley Bowden said was, Ivermectin will likely work on this. Why? Because it's a single-stranded RNA virus. And Ivermectin works generally across single-stranded RNA viruses. That's what I said.

If I had to bet... What does it do? What does the Ivermectin do? Oh, that's an interesting story. The answer is we don't know. There are many mechanisms of action. One of them, in the case of Hontovirus, is less likely to work because Hontovirus reproduces in the cytoplasm of the cell.

It does not reproduce in the nucleus. But even that mechanism may be on the table because it communicates with the nucleus. So what you have is a drug that is as safe as any drug that we've got, right? The amount of Ivermectin you have to take to hurt your cell. is unthinkable. Well, I don't know. I was watching CNN and Joe Rogan looked real green and they put a little horse icon next to him. You sure did look green. Let me just, not to interrupt, but just for the context, we don't know. During the COVID stuff, Joe Rogan made a video for Instagram, CNN ran a video where he looked green. They changed the color and they put a horse,

like a little, I kind of a horse in their description. Ivermectin is a prescribed medication for human beings to treat parasites. And when Joe Rogan said that he was prescribed, it, they put a horse symbol and called it a horse dewormer. That's a lie. A horse dewormer, even though it has been labeled by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine and been given billions of times to him. A miracle drug. Yeah. I mean, the fact is, it also works for horses, but it's not a horse medicine. Let me just throw this out there too. Another crazy thing is, on my Wikipedia, it says that when I got COVID, I explained that I was getting treated with Ivermectin and monoclon antibodies, which is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened. What

actually happened, which I did not get Ivermectin. I got monoclonal antibodies five days later on the phone with the doctor. She said, I want you to take ivermectin. And I said, no. I said, I feel great. Never felt better. The monoclonal's worked and I don't want to take something I don't need. And she said, well, I'm your doctor and I am telling you I want you to take it. And I said, from what I've read, I don't see that it's going to do anything particular at this point at this point either. And I told this story at the time. And she said, listen, maybe, but it won't hurt you at all either. So how about you take it? Nothing happens. And we're all happy. But in the event, even if it's rare, something does happen, don't you wish you would have just agreed? And I said, listen, I'm not going

to argue with the doctor. So you tell me what to do and I'd do it. They then, these lefty media outlets then wrote, Tim Poole advocates for Ivermectin. Despite the fact, my whole story was me saying no. It's insane what they were doing in the media. I heard that it was that Ivermectin's a worm stunner. I've been calling it a worm stunner, that it paralyzes the, it paralyzes the worms in your body, which then allows your immune system to kick on. Sort of. What it does is it is it takes the worm by the head over its shoulder. Back drops. What were you saying? Do you know I got multiple reachouts from media about when you had COVID? People were contacting me from all different outlets. It was like, they were so desperate to lie. Yeah. And they were running stories saying that I was

poster boy for Ivermagnon, so they called it. Okay, so this is the point. I will come back to your question in a second. Why is the who contradicting me? It can make its argument if it wants, but I'm a biologist making an argument for a very safe medication and its likelihood of being effective based on the fact that this virus happens to belong to a class of viruses in which Ivermectin is generally effective. So they have no business tamping this down. Further, it turns out that hydroxychloroquine, which I have not mentioned until now, is effective against hantavirus. That comes from a researcher who actually works on hantavirus. So we have repurposed drugs with a well-known safety profile that one of them does work and one of them may work.

So to tamp this down is absurd. For one thing, there's an obvious question. At the point that it was discovered that what was on the mvhondias was hontovirus, were they given the medications? It would have been a really good idea, right? In ivermectin's case, because it's low risk and has a probability of working, in hydroxychloroquine's case, because apparently it does work. So are we trying to control the infection or not? Why did these people go home and now we're worried about it having spread across the world? This is what I'm saying. This narrative is being crafted. Well, right. So your point, I think, was people are interested in this because it's interesting. Maybe they're primed for it after COVID.

And my point is, okay, that would be great if the only thing that was happening is the public is talking about hauntivirus. But officialdom is talking about hantavirus now, too. Deborah Birx actually showed up and said we should be testing the population for hantavirus with PCR, which is absurd. I got to say, though, a lot of people have said, you know, I will not comply, right? I'm just going to let you all know. You will. You will. You absolutely will. Brett, you will too. What will I comply with? You will comply with Hanta virus lockdown, and you will choose to do it.

No, my car may decide not to start. When there are people who are literally at 40% mortality, like if we actually saw a real hantavirus outbreak that somehow was spreading rapidly from person to person, and you look out your window and you see people collapsing in city centers, people are going to say, I don't need a lockdown. I'm getting the heck out of the city. Okay. They will choose.

But you said I will comply. First thing I want to know is, is this a rerun of COVID where they tried to lock us indoors, which is literally the only place the virus spreads? Okay? Because the exact place you should have been during COVID was out on the beach or surfing or on a trail. That's where you should have been. You should have been in the skate park, right? So Heather and I screamed bloody murder about this.

And I think, I think we're never going to know. But Heather and I were like the lone voices saying, hey, wait a minute, look at the evidence. It doesn't transmit outdoors. We can go live our lives like normal if we can figure out how to dress for the weather. It was that simple. And instead, they locked us inside. And at the same time, they told us, don't get treatment until your lips turn blue. Well, what's true about the viruses?

You have to treat them early or it doesn't work. Let me clear from my point on complying. Nobody wants to be locked down to go through what we went through during COVID. But there will be a psychological difference between what COVID was. What was the mortality with COVID, like 0.3 or very, very low. It was like a bad. Very low and it was people who were already close to death. Hanta virus is 40% without proper treatment. I think it's 5 to 15 in the first world. When we're looking at death rates of that magnitude, people are going to be in major cities. It's going to be 10fold what COVID was.

These liberals are going to be like, govern me harder, daddy. In rural and conservative areas, people are going to generally oppose forced lockdowns, but overwhelmingly will have avoid dense populated areas that would have, you know, high levels of infection. Well, I don't know whether or not the dynamics of hauntavirus look anything like COVID and whether or not the outdoor environment is safe, although there are reasons to imagine, even just based on simple principles, that it will be less likely to transmit in... Unless, of course, this is a gain of function, hantavirus. Right, which is a great question.

And then they just claim a new strain has emerged transmitting from human to human. We don't know how. Okay. But let's play that through. For one thing, we know there was a report of many vials of viruses having been lost from a lab in Australia. One of them, at least one of them, was hantavirus. So we know that this virus has been in laboratories. We don't know what it has been used for.

But the problem with gain of function... There you go. Oh, geez. AOL, Hontovirus bombshell has two vials of deadly rat virus. vanished from Australian lab in 2021. So let me tell you what we do know, okay. Initial reports on the genetics of the strain that is currently circulating, and this is all dependent on whether or not our data is any good, but early reports suggest that there

is no major gap between the strain that is circulating and the strain that we know from the wild. That's good news, okay? That means that it wasn't under development for a long number of years. It doesn't show that initial hallmark, which means we're probably dealing with hauntivis. like it exists in the wild, which means that even if you have an unfortunate outbreak like this, it's not going to take over the world by wildfire. It's not a candidate for that kind of pandemic. If it does, I think it's going to be one of two things. One of them is SIOP,

and the other is gain of function. But gain of function has, it is the solution to a problem from the point of view of the weapons makers, and it has a problem of its own, which is that once it escapes into the wild, natural selection takes over. The powers that be, the whatever you want to call, the Davos group, these groups, they don't actually need the virus. They only need three cases to which they can then start saying there are deaths. But for one thing. But for podcast world and free speech, which is exactly why I'm defending it. Agreed, but I would still argue that if every cable channel came out and said seven cases confirmed, in New York, it appears to be spreading. The podcast will run with it too.

Well, I don't know what you mean by the podcast. I'm talking about the majority of podcasts on the space are going to say we now have, if the New York Times were in report saying seven cases of hantavirus emerged in New York City, you'd be like, nope, I don't believe it. Yeah, but, but, but would, or would you be like what's being reported? Well, I wouldn't. I'm going to keep going to the evidence and saying, does it add up? And, you know, Heather and I are going to go through the same process we did with COVID, very painful, trying to sort out. I understand my question is, if the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Walsher, Journal, Fox News, MS now, all were reporting that we just saw an emergence of

seven cases in New York, would you say that's not true? They are all lying. Or would you just say, it appears that we have these cases being reported? I would do exactly what I'm doing here, which is I would say, that's interesting, because that doesn't sound like hontovirus from the wild. Let's look at these cases and what the putative mechanism of transmitting. mission was and see whether or not we're being fed a story. My point is, if with these cases on this boat, you now have a prime narrative, a narrative primed, if a managing editor walks into his

newsroom in New York and just says, we just got a huge report, internal documents from the CDC, check this out, we've got seven confirmed cases in New York. They're running that unquestionable. People who work at New York Times are going to go, I'll write it up. I'll get some comments from various health agencies. And experts. And experts. The reaction to that would be the city

would announce don't worry. It's all under control. They lock things down. You need only one lie one time from one bad person in government. And the New York Times

is going to say, they're going to go, they're going to jump up on their table and start jumping around and they're going to be saying, we're about to get paid. They're trying. That's what they did with COVID.

One lie, man, but people are immune, dude. I just read here, but I want to hear what you have to say. I just read Polymarket announced May 8th. Moderna announces it's working on a hanta virus

vaccine. Yep. Now, they've been working on that for a few years, though, right? Yes, but here's the question. And Heather and I covered this on our last podcast. The economics on a hantavirus vaccine don't make any sense. Given the amount it costs to bring a vaccine to market, the number of cases of hantavirus per year in the world is tiny. And the number needed to treat, which is the value you should be tracking, is through the roof. In other words, how many people do you have to jab in the arm before you prevent one case, let alone one death? It's through the roof. Right. So there's no reason in the world that I can think of, at least, that you would invest in hauntavirus as a target for your vaccine unless you thought there was some reason that hauntavirus was going to start doing something.

Are you saying I should put, I should buy some Moderna? Wow. Maybe. As you were saying, you sparked the fear into the people, and then they go rush to the store to get the stupid thing. I mean, I think that's the tactic. Right. Well, I don't know what the tactic. The internet just spiked 16% in the past week. Did it?

Oh, they just announced their haunt the virus. That's fascinating. So, I would just point out. In the last three months, they're up 40%. Wow. What? Fascinating. Whoa, wait, hold on.

For a company that brought out a lethal shot, the platform on which it's based being so dangerous. In the past year, for the past six months, they've been spiking up, since before that, nothing, stagnation. Why is 112% in a year? Something doesn't add up. Profit taking after hantavirus vaccine rally. Indeed, Robin Hood's literally saying the price is rallying over news with the hanta virus vaccine.

Now, hold on, hold on. Makes no sense. What if the story is actually just planted to drive that, like, they're working on a vaccine that, you know, nobody really needs? It's a hypothesis. And frankly, it makes sense, it would make sense of a story that, otherwise does not make a lot of sense. So how much should I buy of Madonna? Your interests as a citizen and as a human are counter to your interest as an investor.

But, you know, look. So you're saying I should buy Palantir as well? This is the position we're all in. I know you're kidding, but it's the position we're all in. But I want to go back to your point about the New York Times. Yes, the New York Times will do exactly what you're saying. and the majority of podcasts will go along with them. But there is a reason that they strong arm us when we don't do it.

Okay. Do you know when my podcast got demonetized? No, when was that? June of 2021, after I put on Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and talked about COVID and the MRNA vaccines. Okay. Robert is the inventor of the technology on which those vaccines are based. They claimed he wasn't.

Right. It's weird. They sure did. and it's absurd. He has the patents. It's not a subjective question. Yeah. Right?

He wasn't the only person involved. But yes, he has the patents on the technology. So Robert Malone comes on. YouTube demonetizes us, strikes the channel, is clearly going to eliminate us. I go on Joe Rogan's podcast. Joe calls it an emergency podcast. Break the story about what YouTube is doing to us. And YouTube makes a decision behind the scenes, which we can now reverse engineer.

That decision was they will make no money. They ultimately went back to putting ads on our stuff, which we didn't see any of the money from. But the other interesting thing, well, and they capped the growth of the channel. The channel was growing exponentially, and it plateaued. And it was plateaued until they re-monetized us without explanation five years afterwards. The algorithm is driven by sale volume on ads. So if they can't sell ads in your content, then the algorithm won't promote the content. Yeah, but it was worse than that.

It went like this, which... I'm saying the moment they demonetized you, the algorithm stopped recommending your channel. Right, but even when they started putting ads on our channel, it remained plateaued until they remonitized us without explanation. But the other interesting feature of what they did to us is that apparently there was some, and we know that this discussion went on in the C-suite of YouTube. We think it was with the CEO. But nonetheless, in the C-suite of YouTube, they decided to demonetize us and cap the channel without telling us that they did it. or by whatever mechanism they did it. And they decided to stop harassing us.

I think going on Joe Rogan's podcast was so painful to them that they didn't want it to happen again. So they had to go hands off. And so we spent those five years, and it remains true today, we can apparently say anything we want and they don't touch us. So that's an interesting fact of history. But my larger point is, why did they turn Joe Green? Why did they demonetize us and try to throw us off YouTube and then make some high-level decision to quarantine us?

Because what we were doing mattered, right? Because it didn't matter that the New York Times was spreading the conventional wisdom. What was going on in podcast world with Robert Malone and Heather and me and Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole and all of those people? That mattered a lot. Why? Because people were finding the channels where the information. was at least well-intentioned, right? And that's the thing we have to protect,

because it matters this time. I want to show everybody this real quick. We decentralized wet mesh networks now. I agree. So this is the CNN article. Joe Rogan, controversial podcast host, has tested positive for COVID-19, and here's the image.

Here's the AP, no evidence. Video color was manipulated in CNN news segment, and then here's the actual comparison from Instagram. It's a grainy because Instagram thumbnail. On Joe's actual post, you can see he looks normal, on CNN, he was green. Oh my God. And I can go to CNN and he's green.

Still to this day. One of the world's highest pay. They made him green. Look at it. They made him green. It's crazy. And then on CNN, they had an image of Joe. And on the left side of the screen was like a panel

where they put information on Ivermectin, calling it a horse dewormer. And for some reason, they put a little horse icon. They literally took a little image of a horse. What? Dude, it was, I mean, it was the most concerted effort governmentally I've ever seen to stifle humanity. No, no, it was like high school kids were put in charge of the SIOP. Yeah, it was clumsy, and that's one of the things that we learned a lot from, because we got to see the curtain pulled back on the SIAP.

And the fact is, you know, I said earlier that we won. We didn't really win, okay? We punched way above our weight class. We definitely defeated them. their effort to keep the origin of the virus quiet, to cause people to universally embrace the vaccines, to believe that they were safe and effective. But in the end, people are awake that something happened during COVID that was unholy. So that was an important victory. And this hauntavirus story, if it is just people talking themselves into a frenzy, fine. but if officialdom is playing games again, they are probably playing them for a reason. And we need to know what that reason is because hanta virus is not a natural for this role at all.

Well, it's easy to strip people of their rights in an emergency. Exactly. I mean, the Moderna vaccine story from three days ago is crazy, dude. How can you even begin to say it's a coincidence? It's, it's, maybe it's a coincidence, Moderna. Maybe. Maybe this just happened to happen within a week. Maybe it was a slow news day on accident. Maybe. Maybe they didn't stifle the news for three days to let the hauntavirus story go wild. Maybe they didn't do that. Well, I think people need to understand that whatever else it may have been, the COVID pandemic was the debut of gene therapies dressed up as vaccines. That's what they were. They changed the definition of vaccine. I know they did. That's wild, huh?

It is wild because if they had said to people, oh, we're going to require you to take a gene therapy, people would have said, huh? What's the value of the gene therapy? Assuming steel manning the argument, you get some badass MRNA treatment. Like, what's the good upside of it? Well, you want to know? Yeah. From the point of view of the vaccine making industry, it is the ultimate cash cow for multiple different reasons. it streamlines the process of creating a vaccine, and it cuts right through the regulatory apparatus,

because the argument that they're going to make is we tested the platform. It's safe. So we just loaded a new gene in. The only thing we have to do is test that new gene and the antigen it produces. As long as they're safe, then the whole thing is safe. Now, the fact is none of it's safe, and it can't be made safe. anything you load into that MRNA platform is going to be dangerous. It's going to do the same damage to the body that the COVID shots did, and it's going to show up

in the heart. I want to show you guys this post from Jack Posobic. He tweeted, what if instead of a vaccine we just were able to get exposed to a weak version of the virus that enabled us to build the antibodies we need to fight the real thing? Of course, Jack's point was that MRNA vaccines were totally different from the, what is it, attenuated virus? Is that what it's called? Yeah.

Vaccinations, which were in the past. what vaccines would do, and Jack was making that point. And this guy, Dave Jorgensen, said, the anti-vaxxers went so far right. They looped run and invented vaccinations. These people, I'm wondering if the real left-right divide is sub-70 IQ versus everyone else. And I'm being intentionally mean. These individuals had no idea, and to this day have no idea what is actually going on in the world. they see this post from Jack

and they are so far removed from the context of the real conversation around this technology they genuinely believed the COVID vaccinations were attenuated virus vaccines. Yeah, they weren't at all. No, they were M RNA vaccines. Were any of them attenuated?

Were those DNA vaccines? Is that the difference? No, the DNA were also gene therapy. But there was a different, wasn't one of the ones. Johnson and Johnson were, right? No, no. It wasn't an enduited virus, but it wasn't MRNA, right? It wasn't MRNA, it was DNA. But the question is, what language did you write the gene in?

It's still gene therapy. In the Johnson and Johnson, they wrote the gene into DNA. In the Moderna, they wrote it into MRNA. But it's almost the same difference. Now, the MRNA platform has a special vulnerability, but you can't, maybe I should tell you what that vulnerability is. The MRNA is basically a RNA gene. wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle.

That lipid nanoparticle has no addressing mechanism on it. They inject it into you. It flows around in your blood and your lymph, and any cell that it touches may take it up because it's basically just coated in fat. Your cells are made of fat, like dissolves like, it goes in. So the problem is, by design, that shot tells your cell to make a foreign protein, in this case the spike protein.

That foreign protein ends up on the surface of the cell and your immune system, when it sees your cell making a foreign protein, it thinks virus. Why? Because that's the only place it sees that. It's a viral pattern. So what does it do? It destroys the cell that made the protein. Now, if that cell is in your muscle or your liver, not a big deal. If that cell is in your heart, it's a big deal, right?

Your heart is not supposed to have a viral infection. They're rare. your body decides, well, killing off heart cells isn't a good idea, but leaving virally infected heart cells isn't a good idea either, and it kills off those cells. That's where your myocarditis is coming from. And myocarditis itself is misleading, because what myocarditis means is just heart inflammation. This isn't just heart inflammation. And paracarditis. Right. But these are itis, inflammation. It's not inflammation. This is inflammation, which is the symptom of damage to your heart, your heart, which has an extremely low capacity for self-repair.

So why is it that a soccer player is running down the field and his heart gives out? Because he's got a wound in his heart he doesn't know about. He's running under pressure and suddenly something gives way. Real quick, though, you said the heart doesn't usually get viruses? Yeah. Can you explain more on that? Is this like your immune system just won't let it happen? No, it's very well protected, right?

Your heart, A, it's really important that it not get viruses, so you would expect the protections to be turned up. It's also pretty well insulated, right? Your lungs aren't. Your lungs are exposed to the outside world. So in any case, I'm not saying it never happens. Is that true for any other internal organs like your kidneys are less likely get an infection similarly? No, your kidneys can get infected because they're also exposed. But I mean, your blood, it's like your heart.

You know what I mean? Like, sepsis. It happens, but it's very serious when it happens. To clarify, you're saying, OG vaccines, they would put the pathogen in the body, and the pathogen would be there in the body, be like, immune system, kick on, go get it, and now you strengthen. But these new MRNAs, they attach to a healthy cell in your body and then make it seem like it's a virus, and your own body destroys its own healthy cells, and that's supposed to knock up your,

to create an immune response. What if it's built in? And so what the whole thing was predicated on was that the shot stays in your arm, right? If the shot stayed in your arm and their little pseudovirus infected your cells and then your immune system cleared those cells by killing them off, it wouldn't be a huge deal. But one of the things that Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone and I talked about on that podcast in June of 21 was the fact that the biodistribution did not suggest that it stayed in the arm at all. Are they working on figuring out a way to make these lipid particles address properly now? They won't acknowledge the problem. So I don't know if they are...

But that would cure cancer, wouldn't it? Well, cancer is a different matter. If you have a terminal disease and we've got an MRI shot that might address that disease, you might be willing to take that risk, right? The risk of the shot might be low enough and the benefit of the shot might be high enough. But let's just address the theoretical nature. If they were to create the addressing mechanism, as Ian was asking, targeting, for destruction, cancer cells, specific cancer cells, because not all cancer the same, they injected

into your arm or whatever, it floats through the body, but specifically only attaches to the cancer, your immune system that destroys those cells. Is that possible? Yeah. Now, your immune system already has a tremendous amount of capacity to fight cancers. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it doesn't. That's when we find out about it, right? And the thing isn't properly addressed. So, yeah, and, you know, I would cautiously say, I am, I don't trust these people. I'm not, necessarily going to buy what they tell us about how effective the thing is, but I'm open to the idea that in extremely dire cases, you might be willing to take such a shot, but I'm not open to the idea that it's a vaccine, and I'm not open to the idea of preventing infectious

disease with it, because the platform itself is terminally flawed. So we're going to go to Rumble Rans and Super Jets. One quick last question, though, is how much information can be delivered to the cell? I mean, could they reprogram a cell to, could they repair damaged DNA or RNA? with the with the MRNA platform? Yeah, so imagine they took like a stem cell of yours. They had like a perfect DNA strand or whatever. Could they inject into your body so that it tells the cells to reproduce perfectly

so that basically destroys the aging process or ends the aging process? Well, we're not going to end the aging process and, you know, we'll have to talk another time about why that is. They're biological. Political reasons or biological? Biological reasons. Oh, let's talk telomeres. Fundamental ones. Could they make the cells reproduce perfectly again?

Like it's a damaged cell, but they give it the perfect information. Well, programming it to reproduce. You're kind of coming at the story upside down because the promise of gene therapy was very much like what you're describing, right? The idea is you might have cells that are doing the wrong thing for some genetic reason. And if you could get genes taken up into these cells, you could get them to do the right thing and you might cure a disease. It never panned out for reasons like this addressing problem, right? The problems never worked. And so the huge investment that we biologically put into gene therapy never returned on that investment.

Yeah, but if you were able to do like one clinical test on, say, like, five billion people, you'd get all of that data at once to solve for this. You dispatch various batches to key regions, make everybody, I mean, could you imagine if something like that happened where they were doing a mass clinical test like that? Yeah, but what I would tell you is that what can be done on paper is, spectacular. What happens when you try to deploy these things in the layered complex systems that make up the human body is you end up with all sorts of unintended consequences. I understand that. I'm saying, so imagine if you could do five billion clinical trials all at once with, like, between the year of 2021 and you know you can't do it. And you're like, how do we get the data? And they say, well, it's going to take 20 years. You're asking whether or not COVID was an experiment.

I never said that. Yeah, okay. I'm just saying that instead of doing a bunch of human trials, where you can't figure, you know, it's from the 80s and you're like, why can't we get this edgling problem right? So if only if we could test it out five billion times in a short period and get all the data, we're going to go to your Rumble Rance and Superchats, so smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. The uncensored portion of the show will be up in about 12 or so minutes at 10 p.m., rumble.com slash timcast, IRL. In the meantime, what say you? H.S. Disturb says, just found out I'm pregnant with my fourth child. I'm 42. My last pregnancy was 10 years ago, please pray for us as I attempt to bring another God-faring patriot into this world. Thank you so

much. I love you guys. That's so great. Congratulations. Absolutely. Oh, you're going to be so excited when you get another baby. I just know it. We're running around. Jay Dirt Biker says it's because Lindsay Graham is a progressive, which is still a progressive. Glenn Beck covered that today. I am surprised Ian didn't mention that. Or is he progressing too. That's what I care about. Off a cliff. Maybe. Time to regress, lens. Monkey King says, wow, Brett even cut his hair for this interview. Thank you, Tim.

Did you? No, I had someone else to it. Ah, correct. All right. K-Toth, Swiss says, Feeling bad for stupid people is what got us here, Brett. This is tough. You press the red button to the blue button.

What is that a reference? You know this one? No. Oh, you mean the sweating? What? No, there's a red button to blue button. If more than 50% press the blue button, everyone lives. If more than 50% press red, anyone who press blue dies.

Moral dilemma. Yes, it is one. And everybody just says, like, just press the red button. There's a big leap of human evolution some 300,000 years ago where they discovered the first human bone that was actually looked like it had been repaired. Before that, if someone broke their leg, they were just left to die. And that was very bad for us as a species. Once they started taking care of their weak and they're wounded, we evolutionary,

So we're sort of in a situation like that. I mean, I think that's your argument. I'm trying to steal man your argument. My argument actually is that the transhumanists, and there's lots of people who fall under that banner who wouldn't label themselves that way. But the transhumanists have sold us a bill of goods, and I think many of them have lied to themselves. And the story that they tell themselves is that there are people who are so broken, there's

just something we can do for them. And they're half right, okay? Once a person has gotten through development, it's very very, very important. it's very hard to help them. Before they've been damaged in development, it's very easy to protect them by delivering an environment that looks like their ancestral environment

so their body knows what to do, their mind knows how to develop, and that's what we ought to be targeting. So I just want you to separate two questions. What do we do for the broken people on planet Earth today? And the answer is that's going to be a tough one and we're going to be less successful than we would like by a lot. What can we do for the generation

that has yet to emerge, everything. And it ought to be our obsession, right? We can start dealing, you don't need to have children who need orthodontia. We know how to solve that problem. We're just not admitting it, right? It's solvable, right? It has to do with a feedback. When you chew as a child, you put information into your body,

and your body reshapes your jaw based on that information. All of this giving children baby food and formula and making sure they don't chew hard stuff is causing our jaws to collect. There's not enough room for the teeth. They come in all crooked. And the fact is, many, most children now need orthodontia. That doesn't need to be. If you wanted that problem to be solved 10 years from now, we could solve it, and we wouldn't

create massive numbers of new people. You'd need a tiny number of orthodontists just for the few people who had some. Everybody's saying kids should be eating hard stuff? Yeah. Look up Mike Mew. Mike Mew. What do you mean? Like, my baby doesn't have teeth, you know?

Right. But your baby. and you should go to Mike Mew for the exact advice on what to feed when. But your baby naturally wants to chew on things, right? Yeah, she does. And if the instinct is, oh, they don't have teeth, it better be purered, then what you're going to do is you're going to cause the wrong information to register. Her jaw will collapse.

She'll need orthodontia. And then, you know what, the orthodontists will tell you. It's genetic. Which doesn't make any sense. She gets puree sometimes, but we were told by all the doctors to give her stuff to chew on, so she chews soft things. What about like, do you ever do like a frozen strawberry and a little net net thing? That stuff's awesome.

Yeah. She's got one small tooth coming in. My son loved that stuff. Mike Mew calls up the big bolus chewing involving chewing a large ball of five to ten pieces of gum to strengthen the masseter muscles and develop the gonyl. The gonger corner. But how old? How young do they start? Ask Mike Mew.

Right. I don't want to pretend to be an authority on this. I'll ask AI to analyze his work. And she was rather enjoying her beats. but I was eating cheese and she saw me eating cheese. And she knew that she's dampy beats. And she reached over and she went,

uh, and I looked at my wife and I was like, should I give her some? She like, gave her a little piece. So I gave her a little piece of cheese and then she took the beats and threw them on the floor.

Uh-oh. Yeah, that's what happened. You got to mix the beats with the cheese. She's like, now I don't have to eat them. And then we're like, you're done. You're not eating. And then she started crying. He says the earlier the better.

The earlier the children start the better. That's an interesting philosophy. It makes a lot. I mean, just basic, duh. The most important thing, oh, is that we handed her a flute and she instantly figured it out. And she's just going, boop, boop, boop, and we're like, yes. Oh, I got to tell you guys, this story, totally unrelated, just we went to guitar center because we went out to eat and there's a jazz band playing. We were in Baltimore before we went to Phil's show and she was staring at the jazz band obsessed and she kept reaching for him.

And so my wife was like, okay, and she would let her watch and then bring her back over to eat and she would start freaking out again wanting to go back to watch the jazz band. are like, okay, she likes music. So we went to Guitar Center and we showed her piano and she immediately, I put her, I put her sideways on the bench. She immediately spun to the keyboard and it's going bang, bang, bang, bang on it. And we were like, she knew right away what to do. Did you buy the piano? Yes.

And when we told the man, we're going to buy it and picked her up to put in her chair, started reaching for it and yelling and complaining and then started arching her back, refusing to go into her seat because she wanted to play the piano. I hear that. That's how I felt this morning, dude. Yes, record that. Is it already delivered? Is it all in the house now? Yeah, yeah, yeah, she plays. She plays out of everything.

First court she plays. We've had it for two or three days. Love it. And she just goes, Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing. That's so great. She smashes it. She's one. Yeah. So it's pretty obvious. She loves music. That's fantastic. I mean, Alice and I both play guitar and sing. And, you know, so she sees us and we play music for her. So, you know, we've created that. But, you know, natural is. In all of your studies, as a molecular and evolutionary biologist, do you get deep on music and the value of music?

oh my God, first of all, I'm not a molecular biologist. Though I am made of molecules, so I suppose there's an argument. You are a molecular band of biologists. Yeah. When somebody asks about a microbiologist, I often wonder how small they are. But the question of music is fascinating at an evolutionary level. And I will tell you, it goes all the way back to Darwin. Darwin wondered about it.

And this is a place where I have a longstanding annoyance with Stephen. Pinker who declared that guy who declared that our love of and pursuit of music was the result of the fact that it combined a bunch of other things that we love, that it has no meaning of its own. And he compared it to, he said it was, I think, musical cheesecake. Oh, that's ridiculous. Yeah, it's ridiculous. And so this is a giant mystery where we can't admit that the answer is it's for something. really frickin' important, but we don't know what it is. And I have my own hypothesis, but let's just

say the fact that all human cultures have music, the fact that both males and females participate in music, that every human being until recent times has had their own individual relationship with music, the fact that you hear a song, even a sad song, a sad song makes you feel sad, but you want to hear it again. I disagree. Why you disagree with which part? Not all music is the same, and some things people describe.

Like Ben Shapiro says rap isn't music. He's unmoved by it. He doesn't connect with it emotionally. I'm not defending every piece of music or every genre of music. So what I would say is the important thing is to reduce it a little bit and say every society has some kind of

emotional communication through sound, Speech, for instance, it's like an evolution of music. I would argue that like mumble rap is, I understand it is music functionally, but it's actually, it's nails on a chalkboard to me. Yeah. It fills me with rage. Right. Like, I will strike the person doing it, you know what I mean?

So let's just say. I feel that way about spoken word. Spoken word poetry? Yeah. Yeah, I do too. I'm not a fan. Oh, it depends on how it spoke. Sorry to interrupt you.

I mean, it's not the occasional piece. We have a couple more minutes. I'll get a couple of these. And we'll come back to this for the uncensored portion, though, because this is fun. Freedom Stripes is, I know Brett is not a big fan of Trump, but he must know that science is better with him in office at this point. Well, my relationship with Trump, who I've never met, so I don't have a personal relationship with him. But my relationship with him is complicated. I certainly voted for him.

I would vote for him again. I think... Alternatives are disastrous. So terrifying that just even the fact that you have a person who is in possession of his mental faculties who you could haul in front of Congress and ask questions that can make a decision if the phone call comes in the night and, you know, Mr. President, the missiles are on the way, what do we do, is so far and away better than having a empty suit puppet or, you know, a demented old man or any of that stuff that covers the cabal on the blue team. It's no contest. Nonetheless,

I very definitely voted for no new wars, and I am not. not happy that we are involved in a new war. But didn't you know that Miriam Adelson was backing Trump for the purpose of helping Israel annex to the West Bank? Donald Trump had stated numerous times he would never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. He killed So Le Mani. He fired 59 Tomok missiles into Syria. So while I agree, he was the better candidate on the war things. And I think it is fair to point out, we didn't want him to start a war. And I'm not saying it's a view, but just generally speaking, I mean, we all knew the problem. possibility and the probability was decent.

Well, I think we'd be at war either way. And I think what we've really learned is that we don't have a choice on that one. Yeah, I agree. I agree. My response is like, what was that? A president started a war in the Middle East? I'm so shocked. Oh, heavens. I can't believe that. I think there's a very good chance that the, that America's waging of foreign wars facilitates our peaceful existence here. I think one, there's a couple big reasons. Or at least our leaders believe that. Well, I actually think one of the reasons the war started is because the economy is on is is is is is burning in a very very bad way I want to say it's on fire but I don't want to imply that it's good defense production is a is a great way to lift an economy and being at war

and fund you know spending all these money on weapons that's a great way to lift the economy that isn't yep so they how we got rich that's how we got rich it's it's artificially inflating but the general idea is stealing the resources from other places to inflate our own economy well I don't mean currency wise I'm saying we took Venezuela we've not got spy planes over Cuba, just like we did before we took Maduro out. So Trump said imminently, we will take Cuba. The goal is, I think the economy was really, really bad. And there's a plethora of factors involved. But I think largely it's, okay, it's time for a war again and take other people's stuff so that our economy can be better. Did you see the thing about how lithium was found in Appalachia?

Oh, no. Where? Like, like 300 years worth of lithium, like massive lithium deposits. We've got to go to the uncensored portion of the show. We'll talk more about this and music. 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. Brett, do you want to shout anything out? What are you asking for? Dark Horse Podcast.

Oh, the Dark Horse podcast, of course. And find me on X at Brett Weinstein and Brett has one T. What's the newest book? Well, the only book that I've published is A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century with, which I co-wrote with Heather. And if you're one of those people like me who likes audiobooks, Heather and I read the book for the audiobooks. So if you want to hear us tell you what it means, you can hear that too. I'm Ian Crossland. Follow me on the internet, Ian Crosson. I was actually talking to Brett about graphene a little bit before we went live on the Discord

show. I'm doing a documentary with Jim Tour and the folks at Rice University about graphing and all sorts of banging nanotechnology. So go to graphing.com. movie, sign up for the mailing list. When that goes live, you'll be notified and follow me at Ian Crossland. I want to clarify, we talked about graphene, but we didn't do any. Well, technically, every time you breathe in smoke, you're breathing it in. Did you know? That's right. Now let's Carter. Let's get funky. You can follow me everywhere at Carter Banks. Brett, thanks for coming on. It's been an honor and a privilege, and I can't wait to get into the after show with you, Libby. I'm Libby Emmons. You can find me on Twitter at Libby Emmons. And tomorrow, my new podcast

drops with Jan Yekaleck and Chloe Chung all about crazy things happening in China and how we should watch out for them here at home. Brett, have you ever smoked DMT? I haven't. I'm interested in it, though. I want to ask you about mass population reduction and the mass genocide of people over the past several years, which will be available at rumble.com slash timcast.IRL in about 10 seconds. We'll see you there.