Timcast IRL - SCOTUS Ruling Just Gave GOP THIRTY SEATS, This Is NUCLEAR IN Politics ft. Alex Stein

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

Tim, Ian, and Brett are joined by Alex Stein to discuss SCOTUS striking down race-based gerrymandering, Republicans will win the redistricting war, Florida approves a new districting map, Democrats overwhelmingly are responsible for political violence, and the new Elon pay package requires a 1 million-person Mars colony. 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/ Brett  @PopCultureCrisis  (everywhere) | @Brettdasovic (X) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Alex Stein @alexstein99 (X) | @alexstein69420 (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! SCOTUS Ruling Just Gave GOP THIRTY SEATS, This Is NUCLEAR IN Politics | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

The Supreme Court just dropped a political nuclear bomb with their ruling on the Voting Rights Act, a six to three conservative ruling saying you cannot have racially gerrymandered congressional districts. What this means as of right now, it means that two congressional districts that are Democrat based on race in Louisiana are going to have to be redrawn, likely eliminating the Democrat seats in Louisiana, Republicans plus two. The bigger picture, there are around 30 congressional seats nationwide that are drawn up due to the VRA based on race. With the ruling from the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional, we could see a cascade with all of these red states. Now, technically, being required to redraw their congressional maps, not just gerrymandering, but eliminating long Democrat held seats under the VRA.

This could swing things for the Republicans between 30 and 40 congressional seats. The big question is, will the Republicans actually have the balls to do it? Well, the good news for Republicans is that it doesn't actually require that much effort from Republican governance because individuals in these states

or in these districts specifically can file lawsuits now that the attorneys general of these states would not be able to defend because the Supreme Court already said no. It's like the end of Roe v. Wade almost. They didn't overturn the VRA. They effectively said you can use this now against these districts, meaning if you live in

one of these districts that's jerrymated based on race, you can sue saying it's racially discriminatory against me to have a district drawn up based on other races. This is a nuclear bomb. The Republican Party winning the midterm. is now in play if this happens. So we're going to talk about that. Plus a bunch of other fun news. Apparently, in order for Elon Musk to get his new pay package,

he has to put one million people on Mars, which I don't know whose idea that was, but there's so many problems with doing that, especially in his lifetime. I don't know how he actually accomplishes this, but I'd be down to see it. That would be a lot of fun. And then we've got more information on this UFO whistleblower

and missing scientist conspiracy. Cash Patel says they are looking into it, and one whistleblower issued a warning shortly before someone disappeared. So we'll talk about all that. Before we do, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you. It is True Gold Republic. Check out TrueGoldRepublic.com slash Tim.

Having sound money and financial independence is important. Hard assets are extremely important. That's why you should check out True Gold Republic. Look at the world right now. Active wars, NATO's under pressure, maybe falling apart. The dollar is being weaponized. 36 trillion in debt and no sign that it's going down. Gold can't be printed.

It can't be sanctioned. It can't be devalued by a press release. Central banks are buying it at record levels. The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print. That tells you everything. Insert true gold republic. Real physical gold and silver. Not paper, not ETFs, metal you can't hold.

Check out their independence bundle, a physical gold starter kit, one-on-one with their experts and bonus precious metals on top. The chaos isn't coming. it is here, my friends. Go to TrueGoldRepublic.com slash Tim to claim your independence bundle or call 800-628-G-O-L-D. Or go to True Goldrepublic.com slash Tim. Do it. But don't forget, join us at Tim Kess.com.

Become a member of the Discord community where tens of thousands of people hang out every day. They debate, they argue, they're friends. Sometimes they even get married. That's right. There are people who have joined the Discord met. They're significant. They got married. I think it's like five couples.

I can't guarantee it. But it's like winning the lottery. Could you imagine? You join our Discord server to support the work we're doing. The next thing you know, you find a love of your life. Probably not going to happen, but true story, it actually did. Smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know, everyone you've ever met. Joining us tonight to talk about this and literally everything else is Alex Stein.

The Pimp on a Blimp. And I do want to actually say that I know people might think that you're sounding facetious, but I want to give a shout out to Ronnie Sullivan. and Abel Garcia, who is a detransitioner, who recently got married. They finally had a wedding and their chat rat. So it actually happened. So in the Timcast Discord, the chatrat discord, any Discord, you might meet the love of your life. So thank you for having me.

Let's get the show started. What is going on, guys? It's Brett. It's been a very long time since I've been on here. But normally I'm doing Pop Culture Crisis Live. Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, which is, of course, New Pacific. You should join us there.

But let's get into it. How are you doing, Ian? I'm pretty good, man. I'm drinking coffee right now. Now, Casper, myself. Alex Stein in the house, dude. You have the Morpheus glasses on tonight. Red pill, blue pill.

I'm just a lot. I'm dark the last month or two. Which pill would you take, Ian, if he's red or blue? I would take the red pill, dude. You would. Which button would you press? The red button or the blue button? What if you took both of them at the same time?

The red buttons? I'm going to say this right now. If you're ever applying for a job here, you say red button, you're not going to do. What's the red button do? We'll talk about it in a little case. Harder Banks. What's up? What's up, man?

Let's get into it. Here's the news from the Guardian. U.S. Supreme Court rules Louisiana must redraw its congressional map in landmark case. The decision effectively guts major section of Voting Rights Act, the last remaining provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Let me just set the record straight and give you the quick gist. The 1965 precedent basically said, hey, look, there's a lot of black people there as systemic racism, so they should have congressional representation. So they drew up these maps for the purpose of correcting past injustice.

By today's standard, the Supreme Court's basically said that's discriminatory against other races now. We're well past this. In fact, Alito made the argument that it seemed like the framers of this law intended for some kind of sun setting, that it was to deal with something specific at the time that we are not dealing with today. So that being said, they have issued their ruling. You cannot have congressional districts based on race. Why does that matter? Well, my friends, we've got this from the persistence, Scott Pressler. He says two of Pennsylvania's congressional districts were drawn as a result of the unconstitutional

race-based voting rights act requirements. The RNC should not just focus on southern states, but must also sue Pennsylvania for its illegal maps. Sue Pennsylvania. Where's the thing? You don't need the RNC to do it. anyone who lives in these districts will have legal standing because you are being impacted by this. And here's where it gets really crazy.

I asked Grock, break it down for me, brother. Nearly all 20 to 30 of the VRA mandated congressional districts in Republican-leaning states are held by Democrats. That means if we go on the high end, imagine a Congress with only 180 Democrat votes, 230 or some odd Republican ones. And I'm going to lay it out there a little bit more. It's actually upwards of 40, but I will throw a wrench in the spokes for the Democrat or purple states. The issue here is that if you sue to change, to redraw these racist maps, if the state

is held by Democrats, they will take the opportunity to redistrict right now and they will make more Democrat districts. So they'll say, okay, we won't use race as the basis. We'll use something else. And this could result in every single state in the country being redrawn right now in the most insane of ways. Now, the end result, I think, is because the VRA largely affects Democrat districts in red states. That was the point. This is going to put the Republican Party back in play.

Polls be damned. And the funny thing to me is I'm going to pull up here. We got from Calci, 2026 midterms balance of power has not adjusted for. for this. I'm not recommending anybody do anything. Don't spend the money. Don't listen to me. I'm just saying. I am surprised we've only seen a two-point jump in Republican control of the House and Senate. Poll-wise, Republicans are set to win the Senate. Poll-wise, it is a leaning Democrat. So right now, we don't know for sure if it's going to be a Democrat House and Senate, or a Democrat House with Republican Senate, but I actually believe, based on this move from the Supreme

court. If these lawsuits get filed across the board in every one of these districts, these states have no choice. The Supreme Court has already said it is unconstitutional. How would they not take this action? What's their argument? What could they possibly do? Delay, maybe, but six months is a long time. And then if they don't respond, this could call the election itself into question. If they move forward with elections in what has been determined to be unconstitutional congressional districts, then you're going to have way more lawsuits. And I don't know how that ends up, but this is going to be a wacky and wild midterm. So all I can say is typically, well, I'll put it this way.

This is particularly esoteric, right? When you're reading the news and someone says something like, you know, Trump announces this guy will head the Fed, everybody runs to buying the prediction market to try and get it in before it flips 99%. They can make a profit. I don't think people who normally buy understand ramifications of this SCOTUS ruling and how it is the domino not being knocked over that will result in Republicans having a much, much better chance of winning. Not to mention, guys, the latest poll from Harvard Harris X is that Republicans are tied with Democrats. So I'm curious what you think. I mean, I think it is a big deal.

We know that every congressional district is probably race base. So I don't know what Pandora's box is open from this. but I would say also at the same exact time, you know, if we want to win elections, it's always the left that uses all these redistricting and gerrymandering. I feel like that's kind of what they're an expert in. And if we want to win, we got to win because we are the more popular opinion. We're the populist movement. Like we don't need to worry about gerrymandering and we just have to overcome it. And I know that sounds whatever cliche or too anecdotal.

I just don't think this is as big a deal for some reason because I feel like the district's already gerrymandered anyway. just don't know if they change that much if we lose how many different seats do you think it'll be 30 seats have you looked at louisiana's map bro well i figured it's probably all race base but i mean you're going to so louis this this case alone has just eliminated two democrat districts right now it's done well that's good that is good that it seems like it's a good thing but i also know that you know they try to redistrict part of california and now they're going to get more democrat seats in congress what what we might end up seeing right now is a cascade effect where every blue state, here's the problem. Actually, let me put it like this.

I'm going to say blue states will redistrict. But the problem is blue states are almost already gerrymandered the point of giving Democrats extra seats. You take a look at Massachusetts. 36% Republican, zero Republican seats. That'd make any sense. You take a look at Illinois. Let me pull up Illinois's map for you. It does happen in the conservative side more where it's a more conservative state, but then they have less, you know, less representation. Well, no, because the VRA, the red states have weird race-based gerrymander districts. Look at Illinois 13. They intentionally created a strip.

Could you imagine you live in like some rural middle of Illinois town, but they just have this line of fire going over your house to put you in a Democrat district? Look at this Rockford and Bloomington and Peoria. They create this weird strip that wraps around so they can get these Democrat districts and make a fake congressional district. Let me show you what Louisiana looks like. This is what ultimately lost. Look at the 6th and the second district.

Is that not the dumbest district you've ever seen? And they got the biggest cities. Shrewport, Badd Rouge, in New Orleans. Indeed, these were drawn up based on race and they have to eliminate them. And now the expectation is when they redraw this, there will be no Democrat districts in Louisiana. Obama tweeted out about this. He has kind of the counter opinion about, like, you know, protecting minorities and making sure they still have a in the in the republic because back in the day I think that a lot of this stems from back when they

would blockbust and all the rich white dudes because they came from money in the 1890s or whatever and the black people had been mostly descendant of slavery so they didn't have this much money the the white rich dudes would get together and be like no one can move in we're not it's it's technically we're not doing it on purpose but we'll just say no to any black people that want to move in so they would make them all blockbusting they make them all move out so then the district is this 15 block radius of rich white dudes controlling and So they had to like carve out or they felt like they had to empower the people that lived in the dregs on the outskirts. But it's been, it's like the balloon's been inflated and bubbled so many times that it just popped.

Like that, the insanity is observant at this point. If they eliminate VRA districts, this is what the South will look like. Wow. That's huge. Do you think this is likely to happen because an everyday citizen can put forth the lawsuit as opposed to expecting, Republican operatives to do it? That's the key right there is that anybody, so if you live in a racially gerrymandered district, you have standing. You are aggrieved now under this unconstitutional action. It still will come down to how the state responds. The attorneys general are going to be

presented with an interesting conundrum. So for those that are not familiar how this works, if you go to a state, or if you live in a state that you have a problem with, let's have a problem with your state, and you're like, I'm going to sue the state. The lawsuit goes to the attorney general, of that state who then determines whether or not he's going to defend the state from the action. There are many instances where the attorney general might say, you know what, I actually can't win this case. And so let's say you sue your state's a power agency or whatever. And you've got something like, hey, the fees that they've put forward on electric or regulatory fees, they've added to electric bills from these private companies, they're unconstitutional. The attorney general reads it and goes,

okay he then goes to the regulatory agency and says i will lose if i try to defend you on this one i can try to defend you on it but i'm going to tell you we will just waste money and it's not going to happen more importantly if the governor tells the attorney general not to defend it it's just done so if various political action groups or individuals file lawsuits in these districts saying they are known racially gerrymandered vr a district's there is still the prove it what is the grounds by which these are determined to be, and they may try to make that argument in court. Okay, you got to prove in court this district came about because of this. May actually be very easy to prove, considering Democrats' attempts to defend them, has already created this pretext where they've said,

we did it for this reason. You know, Obama's quote right now about how this is about fighting back against Jim Crow. Okay, agreed. Now you got to get rid of them. If the governors, the state legislatures just say, you're right. They tell the attorney general, we're not going to defend it. More importantly, the state could just do it. The state could then, the governor could say, look, we just heard what the Supreme Court said. We have no choice. We're redrawing these maps. So I do think this is more likely to happen because private individuals now have standing to take action.

Whether or not it'll happen fast enough, I don't know. But I kind of think the reason this is happening, it's intentional in the Republican playbook. They went after the VRA intentionally because they want to. win the midterms based on redrawing maps. That's why Trump told Texas to redrawing. Democrats are responding. The issue for Democrats is many of the blue states are already gerrymandered to oblivion, like I showed you with Illinois. So they won't be able to gain as much as Republicans can in this war if Republicans go all the way. So timing wise, you think they pick now for that specific reason or should they've waited longer? I think they chose now for the specific reason that there is very little

time to reverse any decision. You've got six months, meaning it's a rush job to flip these states and go plus 12. But by the time this is resolved, the election will be right in front of us. I do think we have an interesting conundrum in what happens. If someone files a suit right now, it is not resolved by the time the election happens. And then after the election, a court issues a ruling that it was an unconstitutional district and must be redrawn. They'll have to have special elections. So, so hypothetically, there's a scenario where in February of next year, we're having another series of 20 or 30 congressional races due to the resolution coming after the election. I think that helps the conservatives. I agree because how do you, how do you, how do you,

induct a new member of Congress when they're like a judge, just issued a ruling that your seat is unconstitutional. Then what ends up happening is the existing Congress says, we're not going to swear you in because you're not a member of Congress. Your seats. unconstitutional. This is going to be a weird scenario. Now, there is still the very high probability. Literally nothing happens. Yeah. I mean, maybe I'm just jaded, but that's, I'm just, you know, I'm not a nothing ever happens person. I mean, nothing ever changes person. And, and I understand that, like, for a lot of times when you're jaded about this type of stuff, I'm like, it just doesn't seem like we're going to see plus 12. Except for the fact that Texas already did. California already did.

And Virginia just voted on it. So to say, I don't think it's going to happen when we are currently in the war. Texas was Republicans gerrymandered. Indeed. But the idea here is that most of the left is already done it. Well, take a look at this. This is a viral meme. Massachusetts, 36% Republican, no seats.

Connecticut 42, zero seats. Maine, 46. Actually, Maine has one district. New Mexico, none. New Hampshire, none. These states are all one-third to one-half Republican with no congressional seats. So, California is able to squeeze a few out. Virginia, of course, is trying to put five congressional districts in Fairfax County, which would eliminate.

The state's going to eliminate four Republican seats. But Republicans can gain upwards of 30. Democrats can gain, I think, like 10. So ultimately, we end up with in the middle of the road, Republicans being plus 20. It was just something always so depressing to me about being like the Republicans in California. And they're like, we're going to squeeze a few more seats out of you as if they haven't already been beaten down enough out there. that Virginia, they really, they really showed the vulnerability and the way it had been being legalized with the in Virginia, what they tried to do. How do they split the, was it Alexandria?

They tried to split it into five. Fairfax County. Fairfax? Yeah. They tried to split into five different districts. They did. Yeah. They have five districts with thin, tiny strips stretching into just Fairfax County.

I think you're right. It's going to be hard to prove that it's like, how do you prove that? Because historically, it was, it's in the historical record. That's the point. Okay. They were literally saying this. So the issue is that when these states drew these maps, they were told explicitly you must draw them based on a race. Based on that precedent, they're going to say, we have to redraw and how are you going to challenge it. They're just reversing the precedent that was already set. We used to call, indeed. In fact, they're turning it. They're not only reversing it and undoing it. They're like turning it around and forcing a different direction, I think. We used to call, what was affirmative action in like high school? This is like the mid-90s. We'd be like, isn't that reverse racism that if a guy who's not as qualified as me, but as a black is a black guy? Is it? Is a black guy? gets the job instead of me who is better. Isn't that? And they're like, no, no, no.

It's not reverse racism, bro. It's racism. And, like, I do understand, like, lifting up people that didn't have much coming up. But, like... You want to help out marginalized communities. But to a point, like, I'm not going to stomp on my own foot to make my other foot, you know, run faster. Like... I agree.

I mean, I feel like that's a lot of what it is. It's toxic. Empathy, basically. Like, we are just trying to help people to hurt ourselves, you know? If Republicans pull this off and actually flip the VRA seats, the makeup of Congress will be Republican 247 to Democrat 182 and one independent. What makes me, when you said nothing happens, that was a weird kind of, I was like, it just seems such an extreme change that it can't. Like the way the world seems to work is slow change from my perspective. No, it's gradual then sudden.

I've heard that too. In fact, what's the same from black? Look at cell phones. Yeah, stuff. It does happen like that. The internet emerges in, you know, in the late 80s and enters into common parlance in the early 90s, but not particularly ubiquitous. By the late 90s, everyone I knew was online every time they weren't out doing something. You came home, you went on the computer.

By 2008, the internet was in everyone's pocket all at once. Over the span of one year, the internet went from something that took 15 years to see adoption to instantly everyone had at 24-7. I mean, it wasn't that like close to 2012, like with the iPhone 4? 2007 was the introduction. iPhone 3, but it wasn't mass adopted until people had the iPhone. No, that was, the iPhone was the introduction of ubiquitous internet. 3GS was when it started kicking. I guess I'm just, it's a semantic. It's like, not everybody.

The term being used is ubiquity. Yeah, we were like literally everybody had one. That was the beginning, at which point, mass adoption skyrocketed. In one year, it's a jump of double digit percentage, year over year. And over the course of 15 years, I mean, going in 2008, you have the course about 15 years of people slowly adopting the internet and arguments being made it will not take over to then win the span of two years, everybody has it. This, oh, this seems like a situation where people are like, what, nine people are trying

to decide for 500,000 people how to live their life. You mean one person decides for 775,000? Yeah, yeah, well, with the Supreme Court. Because I often think, think like, okay, I like the Supreme Court. I like that it exists. But at the same time, six stodgy bastards can't just, like, decide that I have to go smell poop. It's nine. It's nine, but six of them can make a decision. And you're ignoring the appellate courts and the lower district courts in which there are thousands. Not ignoring, but like these top-down authority does make, like, nine people, that's a very small number of people that can get corrupted, you know, so it's, you're putting a lot of faith in these nine people to make the right

decision. But again, it's not nine. It's thousands. I'm just talking about the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court doesn't hear every single case ever. No, but when it does, and it makes a drastic decision that changes society, I think if you have a grievance with that, you kind of okay to, like, investigate that grievance. What would be the appropriate number of people to make that decision on the case? He wants to pack the Supreme Court, I can tell already. I do. You do want to pack it? Of course. If they can work fast enough. Absolutely. With just conservative judges. Yeah. Just clone. You know, honestly, I don't got to be conservative. It's just not communists. Yeah. If they're not a

communist, it's fine. And the argument made for why is that there are 13 federal districts. Federal, they're not called districts. They're called something else. And when we created the Supreme Court, there were nine. So we created a Supreme Court justice for each of the nine. Then when we added four

more, we never added any new just doubled some up. So that's the argument that's been presented for a long time as to why we need to add new justices because the country got bigger and we never did. Democrats are going to do it. We better do it before them. Can I ask you question? So you mentioned Roe v.

Wade earlier. How has abortion in this country changed? It's completely illegal in Oklahoma now. Texas, too. Yeah, Texas. But I'm saying like people's attitudes towards it have changed. I still see people give statistics saying like people are aborting babies at just as high

rate before. You can't do it in Texas, Oklahoma, or I think what, Louisiana and Arkansas. It was, it was under the Supreme Court ruling of Rovi-Wade, they could not make it illegal. They could put certain restrictions on it. Rovi-Wate is overturned, and overnight, they There were several states that had, what are they called?

They said the Harvey bill. There are laws that are in place that as soon as the Supreme Court president changed, they instantly went into effect. Okay, so my point is more so is there something similar? That was kind of my point. I was drawing comparison to what just happened here. Is there something similar that could happen in like the span of just one night that will happen? Yeah, right now someone can file a lawsuit.

A regular fat middle-aged guy. Yes, absolutely. I bet as soon as the news broke, there were a bunch of NGOs that already had the lawsuits drafted and ready to go because this is a very obvious GOP play to win the midterms. Like the strategy is obvious. We want to get rid of the VRA. Now, it's funny as Republicans are cheering for SCOTUS not getting rid of the VRA because under this opinion, it's narrow. What's being argued is now the Republicans can actually use the VRA to get rid of any districts that they feel is racially gerrymandered. So if they got rid of it, then it's, okay, well, just don't do it again.

But with it still intact, you can now have some middle-aged, you know, fat white guy who makes 30,000 a year, say, he can go to a non-a-profit and be like, yeah, sue on behalf of me because they're discriminating against me for being white. Okay, well, VR races, you can't do that? There it is. Yeah, I mean, honestly, your race shouldn't impact how you vote. It shouldn't. Can you just, can we just pause real quick and just think about the degree of absurdity that at some point in this country, they said, We should have members of Congress who's standing in Congress is based just on their skin color. That's like the antithesis of this country.

That's the antithesis of what civil rights was supposed to be. It's into this of civil rights. We had a vice president based the fact that she was, you know, multicultural and a woman. I mean, Supreme Court justice. Multicultural. I don't want to call her black because she's not really black. She was a woman of color. And there are 1,770 federal judges.

The Supreme Court doesn't hear. every single case. Sometimes when a case goes for the Supreme Court, they look at it and go, we have nothing to say about this and reject it. Are the other courts beholden to states, or are they federally bound? It's federal for federal law. Do they all work out of D.C.? No. They're in states, but they do federal. They're all over the country. New York. Yeah, so the big controversy with the initial both, the initial birthright citizenship suit to the Supreme Court, Trump's administration argued not on the citizenship question, but on the, the universal injunction question, because for a long time, judge in this country had insane authority.

You could be a lower court federal judge who handles specifically Washington area. And what actually happened is that the Trump administration said, no more transgender is in the military. They get sued by three transgender individuals in different jurisdictions. The result is they get an injunction on the, so there's an injunction issued saying Trump, you can't bar transgenders. So your executive order no longer applies. Trump then appeals the higher court, the appellate court says, no, no, no, no, no, no. Trump has final say on who can his ban on transgenderes will stand. Instantly, another judge in a lower court issued another injunction, at which case, now you've got two separate injunctions.

one appeal staying that injunction, but another objection being active. And the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court, how can we have 400 plus lower court judges all issuing injunctions on literally every single person in a class without establishing class? And Supreme Court said, correct, they cannot. This means that if you sue, and this is actually a nuclear bomb as well, if you sue because Trump says no long-haired freaky people in the military. And then Ian goes, well, I'm a long-haired freaky person, so I'm suing. Remedy can only apply to you.

They can no longer issue injunctions for anyone who's like you. Oh. Yep. Only the Supreme Court technically. So the transgender people that would be kicked out of the military due to his rule, then they would get some money from themselves, but they wouldn't change anything. They would get admitted. So those three people would be allowed to go in if they win, but nobody else.

Which there was another interesting case that happened, which is really funny based on that ruling. I forgot what the case was. It was a few months ago. some libs sued the Trump administration and won on something that should be precedent setting. And the Trump administration said, okay, you win. They refused to issue an appeal, meaning that the three plaintiffs in the case got their remedy, but no one else did. Oh, this was an immigration issue. Some people were suing over birthright citizenship, I think, won their case.

Normally what would happen is the government would then appeal to bring it to the higher court. They said, okay, you three people can have your immigration. immigration status. Nobody else. But nobody else. Because if they had appealed it, then everyone could have gotten. Because it could get to the Supreme Court, which would then issue a nationwide precedent. Hmm.

Yeah. Good strategy. Yep. So they're just like, okay, every single one of you will not have to sue unless a class is established. And that's what they're trying to do. So they have to establish a class and justification for why that class exists. So could people that are suing the states, could they be like, hey, we as white people

demand you redress these or redraw these gerrymander lines. Yes. And the class would be white people. Well, literally be a thing? I don't know. White people are already a protected class under the 1964 civil rights.

You better be. The issue right now is, if you live in a district that is known to have been created specifically under the VRA, you have legal standing to sue because it's violating your constitutional rights. I, this is, spectacular information, but I want to hear Alex Stein talk about aliens all night. I don't know about you guys. I still want to talk about this more.

Elon and Ashley St. Clair and like babies. What are we doing here? Well, we got one more story to get to before we talk about Elon making babies on Mars. We've got this from Washington Post. Florida has approved its redistricting plan intended to give GOP four more seats. So let me do something's really interesting. I want to pull up 270 to win and show you where it gets real weird, Real weird.

We pull up the House Interactive map, and we can take a look at this. 270 to win is already using Virginia's map. Oh, gee. Even though, oh, we've got to reset this. Even though, can you reset for me? A court has already ruled that they're not allowing it. 270 to win still considers these

to be the official districts of Virginia. Can we just do this? Can you just look at this? Five districts. Look at this. Look at this pathetic little thing right here. Look at that. it's probably like two feet.

There's like two feet of district right there. Isn't that amazing? It's all water. So you've got all of these thin strips stretching into Fairfax County so they can artificially create five Democrat seats. Now Florida's going to redistrict and that's just the first step. That map we showed in the previous segment, I don't know if I've pulled up still. Do we have, maybe it was, where was it?

Here we go. This map includes Louisiana and Florida. So if we eliminate two and four, this means between these other states there are six seats that can be flipped. So what do you guys think? Is this hypocrisy? We're all complaining about Virginia, but Republicans are doing it all the same? Yes. I mean, technically, yes.

Literally, yes. Isn't this the argument that happens every time whenever they talk about ending the filibuster? They say, do it now, otherwise they're going to do it to you? See, the thing is Democrats do do and Republicans don't do. That's what I'm saying. Like the conservatives concern themselves with concepts like hypocrisy and political operatives do not concern themselves with stuff like that. Like going to the Comey thing too as like wrapping all this, this lawfare and war into one big picture.

We talked about it last night. Donald Trump was charged with a crime because his lawyer claimed he could read Trump's mind. Cohen's like, I thought Trump wanted me to do bad things so I did. And then they're like, okay, Trump, you're under arrest. If that's the standard Democrats are using, I say just run them over. All that aside, the one you showed with like the 48% of people were Republican, but they had zero seats in the state. It was kind of ridiculous to look.

Yeah. Just off of the stats. There you go. This is what Democrats do when they have power and Republicans don't. Are there inverse situations where there's, is 38, 48% Democrats and they have no seats in certain states? Just because big cities. No, to be fair, probably.

But the thing about Republicans' red states is that they're less populated so you don't have major urban centers. The issue with Massachusetts, the example that I'll give you is in Illinois, they intentionally connect urban centers to create districts. In Massachusetts, they intentionally do not so they can take out the, they can remove the political voice of the rural Republican. So with Massachusetts, you have dense, urban pockets. So they

take all the rural areas and connect them to the urban pocket so it turns blue. In Illinois, you have small urban pockets. So they create thin strips to create to combine them to create one Democrat district. If the Democrats did the same thing in Massachusetts, they would connect the cities creating rural Republican

districts, but they don't do that. They intentionally do this. So Maximum Warfare, right? So he Kim Jeffrey said, and when asked if he shouldn't have said that, he says, I don't give a damn. Oh, he's lost his patience. That's a sin. I don't think these people had patience to begin with. I think they are, uh, I think they're communists. I, I'm not saying literally every Democrat voters are communist. I'm saying when you look at the ethos of communists,

Democrat politicians hold it. And, uh, this is funny. I was watching a, uh, I was watching a video about the original animal farm, considering all the animal farm hubbub. Oh, Angel Studios. Shout out Angel Studios. Yeah, yeah. Okay. But, uh, the original. animal farm, it's really interesting. The reason Orwell chose the pigs to be the leaders is that pigs are smart. The reason he chose the dogs to be the guards is because dogs are not as smart, but smart. And then the pack animals are hard workers, but not very smart. The point he was making was that in a communist takeover, the ultra, the smarter people steal power to manipulate the stupid. And he brought up the point of boxer, the horse representing the the industrious working class

who truly believes in the revolution and just does whatever they're. told, then the moment they are no longer useful, instead of getting their just desserts, they're sold off to a glue factory. Well, McAvelli, he said at best, is that most people are good, but the people in power most of the time are not good because they had to do something to get in power. Like they had to do something cut, throat, or something bad. Like the deal I did with Nanjahou, you know, to maintain the show. Kiss the wall. You haven't kissed it yet, but I know you're going to get close to it. That's sort of an argument for monarchy or at least hereditary rule, the child that didn't ask for it

receives the power, he's like, I don't want this but I'll do my best with it. Like Kim Jong-un for instance. Yeah, or his, what is his daughter? Pretty sure he wanted it. Did he? He had to have his uncle killed. With 99.9% of the vote. Can you imagine 12-year-old chubby little Korean guy being like, kill him?

The crazy thing is if you were 12 and your dad died and all his buddies come up, you're like, your uncle's going to kill you if you don't have him killed right now. And you're like, I'm 12, and they're like, trust us. And you're like, okay. That's the way it always was. And if he fled, they'd kill him wherever he went. Yep.

And so they turned this 12-year-old into a, like a forced maniac essentially, to survive. That's why they kill Tsar Nicholas. Because he tried to run away? No. At first, the Bolsheviks, they lock them up and they're like, listen, we're taking over. We don't want to kill you or hurt you. So just chill here. We're in charge now.

And then it was sometime later they shut up and said, the people are worried that if you're still alive and your kids are alive, alive, they may try to make a claim for rightful governance, so bang, bang. Killed his kids, killed his whole family. That's what commies do. Yeah, they do it.

Yeah, they had them sequester. You know what else communists do is they wear your traditions and institutions like skin suits. Yuri Besmanoff warned us about this. They will infiltrate your institutions. They will twist them and burn them down. They will do things like they will

reimagine your traditional art in ways that is shockingly offensive and then infiltrate your conservative institutions to push that pro-communist message upon you and they'll pay your own friends to promote it and your friends will do it with a smile on their face. Was Hitler? Hitler was just like, really his main thing was, I hate communists? Was that his main thing?

Was anti-communism? No, we were talking about us before. He didn't like gypsies very much. He thought, part of his that they were occultists who thought that they were part of some like other race of people or something. It was a lot there, dude. The red scare was permeable. in Germany, though.

They were really afraid and angry at communists. They were a lot of that. Well, they thought that, like, one group of people would never be satisfied with enough, and they needed to get rid of those people for their own. This is the thing, though, the communists and the fascists, the principal difference between these groups, and I don't mean any specific fascistic political organization with an ethos or a mandate. I'm saying the general ideas, progressivism versus traditionalism.

They're both authoritarian groups that generally believe you must eliminate the undesirables. The question is the structure of culture. So the communists want to eliminate tradition and blank slate everything. And the fascists want to uphold tradition and have, you know, like traditional human gender. Force people to say the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance. No, that's not really it. It's more like it's more like no porn, no gambling, man and women get married, no gay stuff. and communists are like humans are blank slates that can be or do anything you program them to be.

Both groups ultimately want to kill. Gender books. Do you remember that? All the books about transgenderism, he burned? That one night they did a huge book burning. But you mean just in general and society? I'm just saying like that was. I know.

That's the thing. Hitler, if you identify him with the modern era, a lot of the puritanical mindset was like in that guy. And like, how pure do you want your society? of dirty are other people. Only a little bit. Yeah, I know. So I always say I hate communism. I don't hate communists.

Oh, I hate communists. Are you nuts? I feel like they're misguided and can easily see the light if you show them. We need to watch Animal Farm. Well, the old one, not the new one. Sometimes the kids that identify as communists are not that bad. They're just kind of like, you know, brainwash, I would say. I think Ian has actually a point.

My question then to Ian, because I don't think you'd understand it is, Ian, when the lich king stands atop the mountain, you can point to him and say, that is the lich king, correct? Yes. And you say he is evil. I think so, yeah. Right. Now, when he turns the townspeople into mindless undead, ravenous zombies that will kill you and the curse cannot be undone, do you just go, well, let them be? I mean, I don't got a problem with them.

Remember, it's not Arthus that was the one. It was the lich king himself. Arthus is only subsumed by it. Arthus raised Stratholm because the people in it were converted to undead and they couldn't be saved. Don't you forget it. I think all souls can be reunited. Let me let me just whittle through the esoteric garbage. The story is that there was a kingdom where the people had been poisoned with a disease and it was spreading.

So the king, well, it was the scourge. But we don't want to get esoteric. The point is this. The story is a kingdom had been infected. The people were dying and it was spreading so the king raised the whole city. It was also they were turning into Zionism. I know, but we don't need to be over there. So they were becoming evil.

So he was like, I need to purge the town. And the paladin's like, don't do it. You can't do that. That's too far, dude. And he's the king's son. And he's like, we're doing it. No, it's, they sacrifice these dying people. That's why it's called the lynch pen.

Well, the lich king. Basically, that act, that act of utilitarian. evil, you might call it, to protect reality, made him become this. In this, in the first step towards... In basic fantasy lore, there is a litch. It is a conscious undead entity, and it converts or it converts people to undead or makes them undead. Like a zombies, it's a zombie.

Well, so a zombie is mindless. Would control zombies, perhaps? So the point I'm making with this, outside of the joking with Ian about fantasy stuff, I'm sure many people understood the fantasy fantasy fantasy reference. There are people in the Democratic Party that know full well what they're doing. They understand they're manipulating people and they're lying in. cheating for power. And then there are regular working class people who have no idea what's going on, but believe in the cause and become NPC mindless zombies. Some of them become violent.

They become cogs in the machine. The point I'm making is that we know the Democrats, allegory, Lich King, are evil intending to do evil things. Not every single one of them. I like Rokane. I like Fetterman. But the zombies on the ground are mindless. You're not convincing them of anything. You can't go to them and say, listen to me. They're going, Can't reason with them. No. Yeah. Well, if you played Age of Empires, you know that a priest can.

A priest can turn you over to our side. So glad you mentioned Fetterman. Fetterman, 2028. I'm still on board for you. I want to jump to this story right here. And this is in light of... Is it Ashley St. Clair? Most likely.

Ashley, come back on, Ash. This story is in light of a recent report from the Wall Street Journal that claimed left-wing violence only slightly outpaced right-wing violence. Bautia Unger Sargonne. addressed this in a long post as well as on News Nation, pointing out that these studies like CSAS, Cato and others will claim that, let's say like a white supremacist in his trailer in Arkansas gets up one day and goes to his next door neighbor to buy meth and then a fight breaks

out and he shoots him. They call that right-wing violence. It's not. They will claim, they did claim, that a white supremacist who punched his wife and was arrested for domestic abuse was right-wing violence. Well, I don't care about that because it's not meaningful to me. That does not explain to me what is going on politically in this country. So here's what I did. Using Grock, chat GPT, and Google, I searched for, and I did this over a couple of hours. All instances of political violence in the past 10 years where the motivations are known,

clear, and commonly held political beliefs. boy let me tell you chat GPT basically like insulted me attacked me and refused to cooperate it kept saying things like

but Nazis are it was like so the first thing it does is it's like here's a list of politically motivated attacks and that lists a bunch of neo-Nazi violence things that were not even well known or in the press and then I just simply asked is neo-Nazism a commonly held political belief and it went no it is not

and then I said okay, then we shouldn't include that in a graph talking about commonly held political beliefs that motivated people towards violence. And it goes, right. But if you do that, there is no right-wing violence, literally what it told me. And I said, well, I guess that's the case then. So I went through a huge list. I had both GROC and chat GPT pull up. I personally fact-checked. I had some removed where I thought it was ambiguous on the left. There are some instances of left-wing violence. where I don't know the motivation was clearly cut in a mainstream way. However, as you all know, overwhelmingly, it's going to be the right wing attacks they claim that get removed.

In response to this, leftists have said, why aren't you including neo-Nazis? To which I responded, no mainstream political personality or politician endorses those views and advocates for them. So I don't care about the fringes that we've already condemned. So we pulled up a list and what do you get? In the past 10 years, there have been 460 plus commonly held left-aligned politically motivated attacks and only one right-wing aligned politically motivated attack. Some people on the left say, what about that guy in Minnesota who killed those Democrats? The motivation was not political.

It was interpersonal. And even then, there is no clear-cut, commonly held political belief. motivated him to do it. The argument from the left is, but he had some of those views. That's great. Did those views lead to the attack? Some have mentioned the attack on Paul Pelosi. DePap was not motivated by commonly held political views. If a lunatic commits an act of violence, I don't care. I didn't include in the left the killing of Arina Zarutka. But I could have. It was a black guy who said, I got that white bitch. That would qualify the same as the neo-Nazi the attack. I did not include those. This is specifically, is the motivation something a Democrat

or mainstream liberal pundit has said? When the attack happened, was that their motivation? Okay, well, then we include it in the list. This means things like the George Floyd riots. This means the killing of Charlie Kirk. This means the ICE attacks. This means the attack on the ICE facility in the Tacoma Ice Facility, where the guy yelled, I am Antifa. So long as mainstream Democrats defend Antifa and say they're just, they're peaceful protesters or mostly peaceful protests. It's in the list. Key takeaway, from 2017 to 2026, verified politically motivated violence is overwhelmingly driven by left-aligned extremist activity.

Right-aligned violence is limited to a single major incident in the entire period. What was it, by the way? January 6th. I suppose the big problem would be that the people in the left that don't really understand the way people in the right think because they see them as character. would assume that the people on the right do see neo-Nazis as a typical part of the political. Well, they're retarded. The point is, this list is not for liberals. This list is not to convince liberals. This list is because I am sick and tight of conservatives arguing with liberals. And I hear the liberal go,

the right wing is responsible for way more political violence. And then the conservative goes, but that changed recently. No, it didn't. You can't take Cato's data and claim a meth head with no teeth, who no one's ever heard of, getting into a fight over meth, is right-wing violence. More importantly, Charlie Kirk famously kicked white nationalists out of his events, all on camera saying, you are not welcome here. So when they say right-wing violence, imagine there's a guy who believes that the moon is made of cheese and that NASA is importing all the cheese. That's retarded, right? Now, imagine if he went to a school and kidnapped the principal and said, he secretly works for NASA administering the cheese distribution from the moon and kills him.

Then, Cato goes, right-wing violence. That is not meaningful to me in any way to solve these problems. The issue is conservatives keep using that as the basis for, yes, the right used to be violent. Incorrect, they have not been. If you used neo-Nazis and you made another infographic with them, I'd be interested to see. Well, I could call Neonazis left-al line because Graham Platner's, running as a Democrat. Really?

It's like whenever they had a totem conf on his chest for 20 years. Kind of like extremism is responsible for it, regardless of what side. It's like, how about we do this? Sorry, just real quick. Racial identitarianism is more dominant on the left. So neo-Nazism should be included left aligned because that's where racial identitarianism is pushed foreign government. They also, like, a lot of those studies would include, like, Islamist violence as right-wing.

Indeed. and they would include anti- anything that was pro-Palestine was removed from the list but anything that was Islamist in general was right-wing. Yeah. So if it was Islamist anti-Israel, it's removed

but if it was Islamist general against the West, it was right-wing. Yeah. Plus we know that there's one side that makes excuses for Islamist violence and I'm going to make this argument. I'm asking you a question, which political party pushes for

race-based policy Which political party? Generally, the Democratic Party has been. Indeed. So when you're looking at the Democrats push for POC-only spaces, right? They did this at the UC system in California. They wanted race-based dorm housing. Do you think a Nazi would agree or disagree with the Democrats' plan for racially segregated dorm housing?

They would agree with it. Then we should put every neo-Nazi in left-aligned. Well, I mean, if you look at the proud boys, they think that they're like, the next coming of the of actual Nazis. And it was created by Gavin McKinness, a guy you've had on the show a bunch. It was a joke. Based on what Aladdin, right?

Yeah, or no, it was a different play. It was called, like, Proud of Your Board. Yeah, it was a song from Aladdin, I think. Is that what it was? But I'm saying it started off as a joke, and they literally thought it was the biggest domestic terrorist organization in America. So, I don't know.

It can't be. It wasn't funded by the SPLC. I don't know if it was. I don't know. I know that they had allegations. They were the ones that went after Gavin the most. So, but I don't know. Did you see F-37?

Do you see who that was? It got paid like $300,000. They identified him? Well, no, but they said it was, you know, organized Charlotte's... F-9 became an informant to the DOJ, snitching on... So this is where things are crazy in the SPLC. In their response, apparently they said that their F-9,

that's what they're calling the person. Their source, informant, has flipped and is now an informant for the DOJ, indicating the criminal case is predicated upon a neo-Nazi telling the feds they were actually getting me to do these crimes. So when they say, and all the Democrats are like, no, no, it's just an informant. Actually, the informant told the DOJ apparently that they were paying him to commit the crimes and to do the hate. So this indictment doesn't come from nothing. Do you think it was Richard Spencer or Nick Fuentes? People were speculating on the internet that was one of the names?

Nah. You don't? No, I don't think Fuentes is a Fed or anything. like that. Oh, you don't? No, I don't think Spencer is either. A lot of people do. A lot of people like it. I'm not even saying that, but I mean, that's a comment. Do you think it's weird that Nick and Candice

abruptly just traveled to Rome at the same time? Italy, that was kind of weird. But Nick's clips are pretty funny though. Do you see that guy trying to get him to move his car? I saw it, but I didn't watch the video. So Nick's got a video where he's like, no one's going to believe it? Like, what are the chances that I go to Rome?

And on the same day, Candace abruptly just announces she's taking an impromptu vacation to roll. Well, you didn't hear what Laura Lumer said it was because the Vatican invited them, because the Pope's beefing with Trump. And so that's why the Pope is trying to get Candace and Nick on his side. Anti-Trump. Yes, that's what Laura Lumer said. She speculated that.

I don't know. To be fair, I mean, Nick does live in Chicago, and this is... I know. He is a Chicago Pope, and I think his brother still lives in the area. And Nick would have to address it, because everybody wants to know why they both went to room at the same time. And the only thing he could say is it's a coincidence, I swear. It is a weird coincidence. I mean, no way, I don't believe it. Do you think they're having a meeting with the Pope? Oh, I don't know about me with the Pope.

I'm just saying it's not random that Nick and Candace both went to Rome at the exact same time abruptly. Hmm. Yeah, that's it. I'm sorry. I don't believe. Look, and then Candace, did you love that true social post from Trump of the AI image of her face looking horrible? Oh, that was AI. Oh, yeah. I mean, it wasn't a real night. I don't think it was her, Actually, it was someone else. It's just some woman wasn't it. I think it was her from when she had a lawsuit and her apartment was in the last. Oh, right.

I think it's a real picture. But, I mean, I know Candace is your favorite podcaster, so I don't want to say anything to piss you off. I think it's an op. I think the Democrats realized they couldn't get their left wing Joe Rogan. And we had predicted this back in 2024 that they were going to be dumping tens of millions of dollars. Like, they pulled the contract from Rachel Maddow. These powerful interests have billions of dollars. spend. George sources billions of dollars. They're not going to sit there and be like,

we lose the media game, but you're not going to get a left-wing Joe Rogan because they want authenticity. So what happens? The interesting thing that I've brought up time and time again is that the RPMs on the search term Erica Kirk is comparable to finance, indicating there's either an algorithmic push or someone has put a ton of money on Google to pay people indirectly to make content about Erica Kirk. Hmm. I don't know. I don't know if Google is manipulating it like that. You think so? You think YouTube is sure? I said either algorithmically or someone put money on Google ads. Any person in the world can go on Google ads, set up a series of ad buys, put a million bucks per month, and say, target these search terms. And then what that does is the algorithm will promote that to sell inventory, and that search term will see a higher return for. for the person who created the video. Why Erica Kirk's volume is so high,

makes literally no sense. Typically, if you have high content volume, you get low RPMs. If the inventory is massive, then the cost per, then the advertiser can get cheap space. They don't got a bid for it. If there's limited space like finance,

the cost goes way high because it's not enough content to purchase. Well, to be fair, there are a lot of people that are newish content creators that are getting tons of views just talking about Erica every day. because there's money behind it.

Why the algorithm is promoting it and why the RPM is so high does not make sense in the real world. Yeah, totally. I mean, it's a military tactic, dude. If you can get your adversarial nation's citizenry to go at each other, you've basically won the war. Let me frame it like this for you.

I'm arguing about them. So in 2008, the most valuable search term, Do you guys know what it was? You want to take a stab at what the most valuable term? I know that the thing that Walmart sells the most of is bananas. That is a product that I sell the most of. So I'm guessing something. So the way Google Ads work for websites is if your website has a bunch of instances of a word on it,

Google Ads will scrape it and then deliver ads based on those words on your website. It's a little bit different now, but this is 20,0008. Misothelioma. It was number one? Number one. Because of lawsuits. A lot of commercials back. There were a lot of class action losses.

I remember those commercials like crazy. Exactly. It was the number one CPM. So what happened is tons of people started making mesothelioma blogs and they would compete for the top search engine spot. If someone searched mesothelioma and you were number three on the list, you were probably making a million bucks a month. All your website was was one page saying, here's what mesothelioma is. Here's a list of people and then Google ads would appear and people could go. click to find a lawyer. The lawyers were paying insane amounts of money to find these clients.

The point is, economically, when it comes to ads, the money comes from somewhere. So finance has a high RPM because there's a limited content space, but the people who purchase financial services tend to be wealthy. Poor people ain't buying wealth management for the most part. This means that a banker can spend a hundred grand in an ad because one client might net him over, you know, over three years, half a million dollars. If you're selling politics, for instance, right now, RPMs are between $5 and $8. Why?

Ain't nobody advertising in politics right now. Not a single politician is buying, but come October, come September, maybe even August, RPMs and political content is going to go up to 10 to 15 and then peak at 20 bucks. During a presidential election, political content is going to be around $20. That's usually the high point. And that's because every single political content,

institution is buying to have an impact. Right now, what money is made by an advertiser on Erica Kirk? Nothing. There is nothing you can buy. There is no politics behind it other than to destroy turning point pre-mid terms, indicative of a political play to prop up content that will burn turning point down because they're rallying young people to vote for Trump. I think it's even Republican. Although it is tied with Turning Point that it's a hot button topic that'll get the Republican parties following to rip itself apart. Happens to be Erica. Indeed. The only problem is no one cares about politics in the offseason. So RPMs are low except on anti-turning point content. So Charlie's dead and seven months later you will make bank by making videos

attacking turning point for some reason. Have you noticed comparable value to things just straight up attacking Charlie Kirk or turning point without mentioning Erica Kirk or is it the name Erica Kirk that's getting the only so I I nobody's making seven months on incessant long form videos about in support of Charlie Kirk and opposing the conspiracy theories the conspiracy theories get tons of views but specifically Erica Kirk which is why so many shows have started Kirk posting so many people have why that is the only guess I can I have is that someone is dumping money right now to destroy Erica Kirk. They're definitely coming after Turning Point right now

because they can kind of smell blood in the water. Are you still doing stuff with Turning Point? Yeah, yeah. We just wrapped up this semester. It's great. We just did Missouri, University of Missouri, had a bunch of great debates. And Turning Point, I love them.

I have no complaints. But right now, a lot of the goodwill that Turning Point had after Charlie's death, it's kind of the tide is changing a little bit. Why is it changing? Well, part of the reason is Charlie's not there. Right, but... And the Iran war, I think, is a big thing.

because a lot of people know. Charlie was in favor of it. He was loosely in favor of it. Well, when Trump struck, so before the 12-day war, Charlie said no, no, no. When Trump struck, he said, I stand by my president. Charlie was going to go with whatever the administration wanted. Exactly. You know, he was a diehard. So listen, Charlie Kirk, a lot of people are doing revisionist history when it comes to Charlie

and changing his political viewpoints. One thing I know that he might have had some criticism about Israel, but he would never stop defending them or supporting them. I don't think that was. A month before he did a video with course. whole of it where they're trying to convince Gen Z to back Israel. Exactly. Well, I think that was actually a couple months before. But yeah, that video

actually blew up where he had the Turning Point students kind of talk about the elephant in the room, you know, Israel's influence, which you don't think they have any. But I do think that I never said that. You said that they don't have any influence in that. This is what I'm going to say this about the Israel people. I think words in my pocket. So the problem that we

have right now in this country is you know, I told this to Myron Gaines. Like, I'm like, bro, when you post happy merchants, you lose any goodwill you might have to convince people. And so if you look at like Dan Bilzerians fans, if I say something on the show, like if I tweet right now, the U.S. should stop funding Israel, they will just attack me like crazy and then make videos insulting me and calling me a Ziochel, even if I agree with them. Now, the question I have is, what is the function of that? Do they want me to agree with them or to disagree? Most people, when attacked, take the inverse position.

So, right. As I explain with persuasion, social engineering, the first thing you have to do to convince someone is build rapport. rapport extreme turn. The first thing you do is you go to somebody, let's say you find a lib, you want to try and change their mind. You have to agree with them and say, I hate Trump, you know, Kamala Harris all the way, right? Actually, Bill Maherently does this on Club Random all the time. You then present an extreme circumstance they can't agree with. And in fact, Bill Maher does this inadvertently all the time. And then it forces the other person to change their mind.

So, you know, good examples are when Seth Green was on Bill Maher's show and he's like, I'm a lib, I hate Trump. Seth Green goes, okay, cool, we're friends. Then Seth Green goes, Trump, Trump made me think about thought crime and like how we're getting there. And then Bill Maher says, hate speech laws are a thought crime. He creates a circumstance where he's like, actually look at this extreme position. And it's not that heavy because it's inadvertent. Seth Green goes, wow, I never considered that. That's how you change my mind.

Like David Cross at a very viral club last week. Same thing. So the point I'm making about the Israel people is like, I'm going to throw up my buddy Clint Russell is a really great example. I have continually made the point that Israel derangement syndrome is. is when you associate Israel with things that is totally unrelated to. Like the opiate... Assassination of JFK, 9-11,

usually. Well, I'm not even getting here to that stuff, because conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. No, I'm talking about the opiate trade in West Virginia. Okay. That's Israel derangement syndrome. Well, the Sackler family was Jewish, right?

And therein lies the issue that they find one morsel to connect the threads, even though the issue of opiates in West Virginia is more closely tied to China if you want to make a political argument. Clint Russell then makes a video called Israel derangement syndrome debunked with a picture of me in the thumbnail yelling at the camera,

where he criticizes me for things I never said. So what is the function of that? Is that to convince me that I'm wrong? Or is that to just lie for views on the internet to pander to people who don't care one way or the other? I think it's more of the lies just trying to make money, just trying to create you. Because people do, you know, Tim, you are very popular,

but the more popular you get, the more haters you get. You know that. So people are just going to try to, I guess, clout chase or try to make money off that. So, I mean, I think that's more of it than it is, like them trying to convince you or make you feel guilty for not agreeing with them. The interesting thing, though, is the end result of, like in response to having Randy fine on the show, the end result of this is massive support for Israel.

The response that I've seen... Well, I would argue that Laura Lumer and Mark Levin actually create more anti-Semitism than about anybody. Oh, yeah. Engels Airman or Jake Shields could ever imagine doing. Mark Levin, I get. Laura Lumer is not Mark Levin level, in my opinion. Laura Lumer is pro-Trump.

She takes the Trump thing on everything. Mark Levin is the Israel thing, and he is insufferable. But my point is the response that I've gotten from Normies after having Randy Fine on is, why are they so crazy about Israel? Oh my God, dude. So I go play poker all the time. Randy Fine comes on the show. I talk to some random guys not big in politics. He sees the Twitter posts.

He sees the comments. And he's like, what the is wrong with those people? The visceral psychotic reaction to me having a conversation with a guy they don't like resulted in regular uninitiated people being like. Wow. The anti-Israel people are insane lunatics. So this is my point. So I told Myron Gaines this. I'm like, bro, if you have an argument about Israeli government policies, military action, U.S. involvement, APEC and all that stuff, posting a happy merchant creates a like a repulsion. Well, Kurt Metzger had a really good advice to me because we were just talking and he's very critical of Israel.

But he said you can never say the Jews. You can never say that. Because if you want to critique Israel, just never say the Jews and you'll be okay. Dave Smith is a great job because he never does any of these ridiculous things. He has legitimate criticisms over Israeli policy and influence in the U.S. government. And that's what I told these guys. I said, you should be more like Dave. Be fun, be funny and be smart and accommodating.

But when you're antagonistic, people who watch that take the side of the person who's victimized. Yeah, of course. So it's almost like these people are pro-Israel inadvertently. Because, you know, the argument is... Well, because they care about Israel so much that... It's like they're obviously a little bit of a fan if you know about Israel. That's not what I mean. What I mean is if you walked up to two people and they were both and one guy had his hands up

being, please dude, just stop, just stop. And the other guy punched him. You would say the guy swinging is the bad guy. And you would rush to the fence of the guy who got hit. What if it turned out the guy who got hit was a pedophile who had just been caught with a child? This is, this actually happened with Luke Kalkowski's friend who there was a shooting in a mall. His friend came in to stop the shooter and drew his weapon.

when the police came in, they saw him with the gun and shot and killed him. Oh, wow. The point is, when it comes to issues of persuasion, if you really do have a legitimate criticism of Israeli influence, because they've done something wrong, but you were online saying fat Jews, you piece of trash, regular people walk up and see you being crazy and take the side of the person who's being attacked.

Well, you just made $7,000 in the chat, so congrats. Sure. 7,000. If they really paid $7,000, I probably would be pro-Israel, honestly, if that was... Well, let's talk about Animal Farm. Oh, my gosh. Did you promote them?

No, no, I haven't. But I've done a lot of Seventh Angel Studios. Did they try offering you money to promote Animal Farm? I don't think so. They might have reached out to RAD, but I feel like we are promoting some Angel Studios, but not Animal Farm. A bunch of people deleted their tweets.

Finally, no... Wait, wait, take the back the tweets that... About... They were a handful of... Or ads. Paid Animal Farm promos from prominent right personalities, and they deleted them. because they started getting attacked for it.

I don't think Riley Gaines deleted hers, but hers looked like a copy and paste. And I got to tell you, Alex, it is fairly demoralizing to see all these right wingers promote welfare soda, India, gambling websites, and a pro-communist movie. For money.

They don't care. These people didn't watch the movie. They make these posts, and you're supposed to believe the person you're following is expressing a genuine thought or opinion. And I'm going to say this again. I told my wife the reason why

I made an announcement. We will not accept this money from Angel Studios. It's because I know this offer went out to a bunch of conservatives, and they're all going to start promoting this. They're going to promote... Like, bro, let me tell you. Conservatives are promoting communism for pay. Yeah, they are.

And, I mean, to be fair, you know, everybody gets attacked and accused of being a grifter. And sure, we've got to pay our bills. We've got to sell a t-shirt here and there, sell little coffee. But when it comes to paid advertising ads like that, people are just trying to make ends meet. And they're going to go,

they don't care about the movie. don't care about this. But this is indicative of the rest of their opinions. Typically, these people, when they're not selling, they want clicks because they want engagement, they want ad dollars or otherwise. So I can only presume any one of these individuals who is willing to take money to promote welfare soda, India, gambling, specifically fly-by-night foreign gambling and pro-communism films wearing our traditions like skin suits, they're probably lying about all of their opinions

because they're saying the things I think will get them clicks. Well, we're going to find out very soon. when MAGA is over and we're going to see if J.D. Vance or Rubio can just take the MAGA coalition and carry it. I don't think they, I don't think either of them necessarily can. I mean, if Hillary Clinton couldn't do it with Obama, then I don't think they're going to be able to do it. But that's where we'll know who's going to be clicking and who's going to be on the side of politicians that aren't popular because people are going to have to go with their Ted Cruz or they're going to have to go Thomas Massey. And I think that's going to cause a lot of people.

Massey's neck and neck right now, apparently. We're talking to Ed. I mean, he should win. He actually like he's not scared of, you know, A-PAC spending all that money, but obviously it's a lot, it's very scary if they're doing it. Yeah, I got to be honest, though. I think Massey's got a bright future ahead of him. I think if- What do you say that?

You think he's going to run for president? No, he doesn't need to. I think if Massey leaves, his gravitas is tremendous, and he can have way more persuasive power in the political space as a free agent as opposed to being in Congress. I don't know if that's true. I mean, not having a position.

The next administration is not going to hire him. Do you think the left is going to hire him? I'm saying he's going to be a prominent personality leading the charge in the populist right. Yeah, I mean, he kind of is. But I look at Marjor Taylor Green stepping down from Congress. It feels like all the people that are, you know, actually have the balls to speak out against the party or gone. Let me tell you what's going on. Okay.

Yeah, you tell me. We're in the political dead season. Yes. I've been there done that. I've been talking about this a lot. It's very dead. And so these people are trying to figure out how to remain relevant when it's the only thing they have. Well, that's true because there's, I think, 452 congressmen and women, and only about 25 of them are famous.

So they're all trying to stay around with it. It's not just that. It's the pundits. It's the grifters. It's the conservative personalities. Right now as the outsider, Democrats have a ton of attention. Everything Trump is doing is evil, so they are the resistance. But if you are a conservative voter or a moderate right-leaning voter, you don't care about anything. You voted for Trump and you left, just like the Obama voters who were anti-war left as soon as he got in office. this is every single political cycle. But what if you're a grifter who needs to sell ads? What if you need to post on X?

Get a million views so you can go to an advertiser who's willing to have you promote communism for pay. How do you do it if you're not getting the retweets? Well, secretly... Anti-Trump, anti-Kerk, anti-Israel generates clicks. Those three topics do, but generally, Fox News got their best ratings when Obama is president. Agreed.

So it's easier to grift, quote, unquote, if the opposite person is in power. So here's the issue. When you are massively underwritten like Fox News with carriage fees and you're getting 80 to 100 million per year no matter what, you can withstand an off year

where no one is talking. I mean, you turn on Fox News right now and what are they talking about? They're talking about largely cultural issues. You turn on MSNBC. The ballroom. They won't shut up about the ballroom. You turn on MS now and they're like,

Trump is Hitler, the world is ending, they're kidnapping children, they're the resistance. So views for liberal content still remains high. Yeah. For exactly the region you just described. Here's a thing, though, if you are a working class influencer who makes maybe $60,000 a year posting YouTube videos and ex posts, you lost all your views.

Your numbers just went in the gutter. Why? I mean, because when Obama was running for office, all of the anti-war people were on the streets every day. Yeah. As soon as he wins, they disappear. Oh, yeah, there's no... Trump wins.

This is what happens every political cycle. The president wins. It feels like we won the culture war. Right. And so what happens is after a presidential victory, you have the first hundred days. Viewership declines a bit for the season, but people kind of stick around to see what the president is going to do, and there's a lot of attention around it. But into the next holidays, before the midterm spending cycle, and after a presidential election, no one is following politics anymore. right now with the culture war

Democrats are glued to it because Republicans control everything. Republicans don't pay attention because they control everything. So there's very little to say Trump secured the border. He got the domestic issues. There are still the diehards paying attention. But if you were a guy who was making 70K a year

posting X on X and making videos and doing memes, you're not getting those anymore. So what are we seeing? Right wing meme accounts are now posting generic viral videos or they're anti-Trump now. Because you go anti-Trump. you get clicks. You go Erica Kirk, you go Israel, you get clicks. This trend is going to be interesting as we get into the midterms.

Like with the DeSantis cycle, we might see many of these people come back together. Do you remember like the DeSantis? I don't think there's a possibility where everybody comes back together. Well, they sold their audience like CNN did. CNN had a moderate audience. Trump gets elected. They attack Trump and create a liberal audience. A few years later, they try to back away under Biden. their ratings are gone forever.

Yeah. Because the moderates used to watch are like, I don't want to watch that lib crap. I was one of them. I used to watch CNN 24. I still kind of watch it just for the opposition research. But it's not news anymore. Yeah. That's the problem.

Well, I mean, Fox News is not really news. No, Fox News is news. Brett Bear talks about what's going on in news. You watch the Five, you watch Laura Ingram or Hannity. You're not getting news. Yeah. But you watch, you know, America reports. There is some news on there, but there is a lot of bias.

Let's not act like they don't have a huge conservative. I'm not arguing their pundits. I'm arguing Brett Baer and America's Newsroom General News coverage is news. You turn on CNN, you don't get it. You turn on MSN, you don't get it. So my point is, what we're seeing now, when we get back into the political cycle, I'm looking at all these people that have turned themselves into Israel channels. Like my dude, that is a small market share. It may be bigger right now than politics, because politics is the off season. But if you just decide to be an Israel poster and you abandon your base, what are you going to be? when politics is mainstream and $10 billion is spent in the cycle,

and regular people look at you like you're retarded. Well, let me tell you why I think you're wrong, sadly, and I think it was Randy Fine that said it on this podcast, is that there's 9 million Jews in Israel. I think there's 15 million Jews in America, and there's... No, no, no, 15 million diaspora worldwide. Okay, so there's 15 million worldwide, but there's 1.8 billion Muslims,

so there's always going to be a Muslim audience that is probably not going to be very pro-Israel, so you could argue that, yeah, maybe your domestic audience might get smart, But your international audience could blow up. Completely agree. My point is that you're not going to have your audience back. You may, like, they may make money off, you know, Pakistan and Indonesia or Malaysia or something. But in three years, or I'm sorry, in two years, when we're in the full throes of the presidential cycle and $7 billion is likely, I think the projections, what, $8 billion for 2020?

It's expected to be spent. I think Obama was the first billion. And now it's expected to be, you know, exponential. you are going to have every facet of mainstream American culture focused on this upcoming election. We have a dual primary for the first time in what, 10 years? So we had the Republican Democrat primary in 2016. But then with 2020, we only had a Democrat one. And technically in 2024, we didn't have any primary at all.

Because although there was technically a Republican one, or I'm sorry, in 2023, didn't really matter because everyone knew it was going to be Trump. For the first time, we're going to have Democrats and Republicans in a primary season dumping billions of dollars. That amount of money is going to be focused on economics. Israel is not going to matter to your run-of-the-mill plumber or teacher when it comes to how they're paying their health care bills. By all means, the Israel posters or channels are dedicated to nothing but Israel content may still get Malaysian viewers or a certain sect of American viewers, but it's small market share. My point is this. If you are a political channel that received a

general political audience, you have growth potential. But the focus on Israel is limited domestic potential. By all means, you can do what Jackson Hinkle did, move to Russia or whatever. Is that where you went? He went to Russia? I don't know. I mean, I know he's doing that like American communism gimmick, but I just, when it comes to this content, there is going to be an audience for the anti-Israel crowd. And so I just don't think that's just going to die after the midterms. No one said that. Well, you just said Joe Plummer and stuff that people are not, you know, the uneducated voter is not going to be that. I didn't call him uneducated either. Okay. What do you insinuated? My insinuation is a regular

working class guy doesn't care. He wants to know how to get you. If we actually, and that's the one thing, though, if you made a podcast talking all about American domestic issues, nobody's going to listen. But if you made a podcast talking about our foreign issues, people will listen. No. My point is,

during a political cycle, everyone is listening because they want to know who to vote for. Right now, no one is because nothing's happening and there's nothing you can do about it. I think even during political cycles, 70% of the population's tuned out. Yeah. That's actually, well, you know, I flip a coin on that one, maybe.

Maybe you're half right. The issue is that politics right now in our generation is pop culture. When Jimmy Kimmel does nothing every day but talk about politics, I would largely disagree. I would say right now, if you look at search trends, it's all sports. People don't care. And it's gambling and it's driving a lot of the sports stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. People right now are like, look, there's no elections.

I don't care. No money's being spent. No one's focused on it. In the next couple of months, we're going to start getting all of this crazy primary action. Congressional primaries don't matter all that much. But about a month or two before the election, they're going to be spending billions of dollars on ads. And that's going to mandate that media shift. Put it this way.

Let's say CNN. Advertiser comes to them and says, I want to run a commercial in my district on CNN saying vote for me. But you guys only talk about sports, so I'm not going to buy from you. CNN goes, no, no, no, no, no, we're doing special election coverage. Okay, I'll buy from you now. These guys who do these ad buys are going to put a decent chunk onto ESPN. You will see political ads in every space possible, but the biggest chunk of ad spending appears in political spaces. Notably, when Bloomberg bought his half a billion in ads, it appeared on political channels. Because he's trying to capture the people who are folks in politics. He wants that name recognition. More importantly, he was targeting opposition. So my channel had an insane amount of

Bloomberg ads on it. Like that dude basically funded my entire what, 2018, 2019. It was after that. It was later than that too. I was in the room. It was 19. It was happening. It was nuts. Like people would be like, bro, I watch your videos. I only get Bloomberg ads. And I'm like, because Bloomberg knows you guys who watch don't like him. He knows I'm criticizing him. And this is his opportunity to put his message in front of my content for you. It's like how Ben Shapiro's ads all pull up. If you look at Tucker, I have YouTube premium, so I don't see this, but I've seen screenshots. If you go, look at Tucker's YouTube page, you're going to get

targeted ads from Ben Shapiro. Is it like a commercial being like, hey guys, come watch? Yes. Yeah, but I don't think, I don't think. He definitely wants his audience. He wants to get some of Tucker's audience. I do not. Don't play dumb. Come on. I don't think that Ben Shapiro went on Google ads and said,

run my ad on Tucker content. Somebody at Daily Wire did. No, they probably went to Google ads and said if it's conservative, right leaning or in the space, run my ad on it, which includes it. I mean, go look at Ben Shapiro. He makes a Tucker video every other day. So I don't know.

I mean, I have a Google Ads manager. I'll tell you how it works. I think you're being naive. I think you don't know how Google Ads works. You don't think anybody at Daily Wire that works on Ben Shapiro's social media said, hey, we're making tons of Tucker Carlson content. We should probably advertise it to the people that like Tucker, whether they change their mind. But they don't like Tucker.

Well, the majority of people that want I'm saying, when you go to Tucker's YouTube page, you want to watch a Tucker video. I got it. You're going to get Alex. The insinuation you're making is that Daily Wire is not profit motivated. they are. Then they wouldn't run the ads on Tucker content if they hate Tucker. Well, you know, it's funny we say they're profit motivated.

They want to make money. But at the same time, I think you could argue that Ben Shapiro probably does work for Israel. And it's probably, I mean, honestly, I think you could make that argument. And your argument is he's really dumb. Well, no, because if they're just trying to get, if they care more about getting a certain message out, than how many people actually see the message? That's not what, that's not effective way to do it. So that's really dumb.

I think they're targeting Tucker fans. I don't know. I mean, I don't think it's as big. conspiracy and I don't think it's a big accident. I think I think that the problem I have with it is you're making too many leaps. The way Google ads works, so I'll tell you because I have an ads manager, is they do it for you. Well, you can search a certain demographic, a person that is why. And you, and you typically, you can, but you usually don't say Tucker Carlson. You say conservative, right-leaning, nationalist, foreign policy, and that will include Tucker Carlson. The insinuation

that the Daily Wire intentionally runs their kind of on Tucker's ads implies I don't want to say conspiracy, but that means they're not profit-driven because that would just lose them money. They wouldn't build audience that actually hurt their audience by doing so. I don't know. It's not a horrible tactic.

I mean, we ran an ad on Sam Cedars page, I think. Yeah. Well, to be fair, we ran an ad on Sam Cedar's channel saying don't watch Sam Cedar. It was kind of a gag. I actually like that,

but Israel is fighting an eight front war and they've spent billions of dollars. I mean, that's what they say, $1,000 million, on trying to create more positive influence. Oh, yeah. Has that worked out for them? No, it's actually heard of them.

But TikTok, you know, you can't even, like, post a juice box on TikTok anymore. Yeah, except now the Ellison's announced that 49.5% of Paramount will be owned by the Saudis and the Qataris. They own a bunch of movies and stuff. No, they own a bunch of our media. I don't know, Barry Weissau getting $100 million deal, Tim.

150. You know, she sucks. And her free press, her free press gets no views, Tim. I mean, if she got 150, you deserve a billion. She paid her $150 million for a year? No, no, no, for a buyout. To basically just have her company be the one that is running. But I think you're missing the big picture.

Yes. I think you're missing the big picture on this one. Here's what I think happened. I think Paramount, CBS, Ellison, they went to Barry and they said, we want you to run news at CBS. And she said, I'm rich and I own my own company. I don't need to do it. And they said, how much do you want to come and work at CBS?

Yes. She's like, I'm not going to do it. They said, okay, how about we buy you out? And then you come and work for us. And she said, I've got 100,000 paying subscribers. I do eight figures. I don't need this job. Why should, like, here's the question for a buyout when you're generating that kind of money. If you make 10 million profit per year, do you need to go work for somebody? The only way they could have got Barry Weiss is to buy her out for a ridiculous amount of money. Yeah, but what they were buying is not worth that money. So I feel like they bought her because she's influential and they know that what her bias is going to lean. And they got mad at CBS. No, no, no. Stop, stop. You saw that thing. Wait, I got just what you said.

What they're buying wasn't worth the money. They're buying a Zionist editor-in-chief. Yes. It's worth every penny to them. Well, probably so. That's why they spin it. But there you go. So it makes sense.

Well, and also, you know, there was this unfavorable news clip from CBS. It was 60 minutes specifically. where they talked about, you know, Gaza and said how it was bad. And they also covered the pager bombing and kind of showed a not super pro-Israel side of the pager bombing. You know, they were a little more humanitarian. Free press is called, has said Israel's got an extremist problem and highlighted the West Bank. You know, and I think that you can't really debate that. I mean, it's pretty bad.

Even the free press is saying it. I'm saying you look at the pictures before October 7th and it was a nice, you know, flourishing city on the water. And now you look at it and it's flattened like a bank. You mean Gaza? Gaza. Gaza. I'm talking with the West Bank. the free press wrote that the Israeli settlers are extremists attacking them.

And they are. They'll just go into Palestinian's houses and kick them out, literally. Indeed. Those videos that go really viral. They're like hit them with their shoes. It's a bad situation. They're definitely violent in the West Bank. I think they're definitely violent in Gaza too. Right. So ultimately, there was a, I think Arn McIntyre said, if your political elites aren't willing to drop billions of dollars to buy a media organization to support their cause, then what are you actually even doing? something like that. And I'll put it this way. What I love about the Israel conspiracy stuff

is that Israel is really, really bad at it. It's like they're, you make tons of money on X being anti-Israel. Yeah, but I think this is the problem, though, is that in the 80s and 90s, even Howard Stern, he's Jewish, he would make all these Jew jokes. But now it's gotten where like everybody's keeping score in the pro-Israel crowd.

than if you even just make fun of them, you're an anti-Semite. So they're creating more anti-Semitism by accusing everybody of being a Nazi and anti-Semite. I think that's what's hurt them in the public relations campaign. But they've always done that. There's a famous Seinfeld episode about this. Of course. But I'm saying we used to kind of have a sense. If you were about Jewish jokes back in the 90s and early 2000s.

George's dad? Well, they do festivist. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's like, everyone's an anti-Semite. And they're like, Frank, not everyone's an anti-Semite. He's like, it's anti-Semitism. I'm telling you. No matter what it was, he was.

he was because he was a Jew. Yeah. So my point is, I think that we've gotten, we can't have a sense of humor about this stuff anymore. And I saw, I do think your argument is correct and I was trying to agree with you with the Kurt Messker thing. When Myron does post the Happy Merchant, it is funny, but it gets him a lot of negative attention, which he can't really rectify. There is a, there's a, you can't debate that.

There is a guy who, you know, woke up this morning and he threw some melon into a blender with some yogurt. and then he put a little almond milk in it and drank that. Sounds like you. He opened up his sports betting app, and then he was like looking at the games that were going on. And he turned on the news, and then he heard something about his shooting with the White House, and he's like, wow, he's like, I don't either.

But do you think the correspondence thing was real or fake? One second. And he goes, I don't even know what this is. I have no idea what's going on. In the next few months, as we get into the political cycle, he's going to see more and more advertisements, and this guy generally just doesn't know or care. Okay.

Then he sees Myron Gaines start dressing up like a Jew and doing Jew dancing. And then he goes, these people are assholes. And then he bumps into a Jewish guy at a diner who or like a Hasidic Jew. And then he just thinks like, well, that guy wouldn't mean to me at all. That's the normal interaction that human beings have. If you live in New York. Or he goes into a bank and they deny him for a bank loan. And he's like, I don't like that's just not realistic for a regular person.

If you live in New York, you've probably bumped into an. an Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish guy who was nothing but nice to you. So I lived on Myrtle and Noostrand and one block over there was like a Jewish supermarket and they were the nicest people in the world to me. I would say generally most Jewish people are actually secular and not even super

religious and very laid back. And this is the point. Not that Israel is good or bad or that, you know, Jews are in Hollywood controlling what you mean? None of that. My point is the regular interactions of a person tend to be not in the news cycle. just, I got a friend who's Jewish, he's very nice to me, and then I saw this guy insulting him and accusing him of things on the internet. I hate those people. So I'm like, Dave Smith is a comedian.

Yeah, he goes into venues and makes everybody laugh and then has legitimate criticisms of US military possible and Israeli influence. And that regular guy laughs the whole time, busts a gut, and then says, that was interesting. I didn't know that, Dave. He's smiling and happy. And Dave will say to him, don't be mean to your neighbor. And he goes, I agree. Dave gets the message through to people. And these other people, they don't. But you White House Correspondentor, yeah, of course it happened. Yeah, but you saw the video where, you know, the Oz is on stage and then you see Trump

has like a normal face and then Malani looks very scared. And in the video, you hear like the boom, boom, boom, boom, you hear four booms. I don't know. There's every camera. I'm not saying it's fake, but you know I'm a big conspiracy theorist. It seems like the coordinated effort where everybody's tweeting about the ballroom too after it

that seemed kind of inorganic So some of it was Some of it was obviously coordinated Not all of it was like Ballroom tweets You have to make Mike Sternovich was roped into this I'm like that dude's not coordinating messaging The way these people are

Well there's some people that hop on it organically right But you only need a few big accounts to kind of Do you think it was inorganic You think it was because of the ballroom? Well I think I mean That's a possibility I don't think Trump would actually do a false flag

at this event 8 8 8 Just the main benefit for the ballroom, right? I don't think that that's worth the risk. I don't know. A Kamala Harris voter did not just put himself in prison for the rest of his life so that they could introduce legislation for a ballroom. Well, but what I think is the more likely scenarios, it's not that Trump is like playing 5D chess and telling Casper Tell, hey, do this. But it's that they have these like sleep or sell people that are mentally ill that they've radicalized with the internet.

And at some point, they could just do something that activates him. This guy was not your typical mental ill guy. Well, he kind of was he was a teacher. He was a nerd. That's the type of person that could be radicalized and brainwashed. The scary thing about this guy was that by all modern sensibilities, he looked normal. Yeah, he looked like he was pretty successful guy. He isn't some guy who had like, you know, pictures of, you know, upside down Rush Limbaugh

with like a knife in the wall or anything like that. You think there. He was a teacher who then traveled nonchalantly and and coherently drafted a message saying Trump is an evil pedophile rapist. But if we. Those are common main. stream Democrat views. Those are and those are talking points I've had to debate all semester. But at the same exact time, he's the guy that's probably against a second amendment, probably

not a gun nut, but there are liberal gun nuts. So somebody had to radicalize him somewhere to be like, hey, get the gun, drive across state lines, you know, go in there. So do you mean like a specific individual had to do that? It was, it's called every day nonstop, bro. We've talked about this. He's been radicalized by this stuff. They can make Alex, you have been on a show with us where we have said after Charlie was killed, the rhetoric from all of these libs is an avalanche that is normal. Actually, we said after Luigi Mangione. Yeah, because you become a hero. When they celebrate assassins, it only takes one guy out of 70 million to decide to be the

quote unquote hero the left has asked him to be. So who had to radicalize this guy? How about 70 million Kamala voters who are on TikTok saying who's going to do it? But you're in a room with like thousands of people and he didn't even hit one person. Never got in the room. What are you talking about? He said he shot four rounds. And then we did hear misinformation that he was taken out by the Secret Service and you're like, what?

But you know, he never got anywhere near the ballroom. Well, he got like in the hallway. There's a hallway that leads to stairs, which go down to the ballroom and he got tackled in the hallway. Well, if he shot four times in a packed hallway, you think it would have hit one person as all the same. You hit the Secret Service agent. Is that true? The official story is he fired and hit a Secret Service agent in the chest and then they subdued him. There was a camera every inch of that place and we don't have footage of him running or anything.

we do. They posted footage of him running. Yeah, the security footage of him kind of running, but you just think we'd have him shooting the gun. All I know is it's probably real, but now we've lost so much trust in the government that I'm not surprised at everybody in the internet saying it's fake. I think that's what we're right. Actually, I think this is a really good example of how the left is organizing to win politics. So, like the example that I'd use is Rumble, for instance. The narrative early on when Rumble launched was that the views were fake. And this was pushed by Libs who wanted to censor people on YouTube, primarily, and it's pushed today by people who don't like primarily Dan Bongino.

The only issue is, like, for us, all I can say is, like, I track the analytics, and it's the same analytics we've always had. We've seen minor growth. Our viewership's same. In fact, we've had the best sales numbers we've ever had in terms of ad sales in a political offseason because our viewership has been increasing with Rumble and we sell ads to that audience. So where is this narrative that people put out that Rumble views are not real? It's intended to say, stay on YouTube, stay on YouTube where we can ban you and then when you go to a platform that's saying we won't ban you,

the narrative emerges, your views aren't real and the advertisers pull out. Well, guess what? We've sold more in ads in the past two months than we ever have on Rumble. We've made more money on Rumble

than on YouTube. Rumble is definitely disrupting the social media hosting video sites. I mean, it's definitely one of the biggest disruptor. I think you could argue the kick and the narrative around the White House shooting being fake,

it is all part of, in my opinion, either it could be emergent, but the libs, the left, the Democrats have been desperately trying to figure out how to shatter the right. So what do you do? There's a handful of things you can do. Lie, cheat and steal. Put money into Google for content that is anti-Trump and anti-Erika Kirk, destroyed turning point USA, kill Charlie Kirk, spread lies about your political enemies and ban them off YouTube. People are pissed that I said that that was a conspiracy. I didn't know everybody here. What was a conspiracy? The White House correspondent center. I don't know everybody here's a vaccinated

People don't think this. And what we're seeing online is mass formation psychosis. That's part of it. When it happened, I'm at a bar and everyone walks over to the TV and they stare at the screen as Trump was giving a dress and they show the security footage and the guy subdued. And they're just going, wow. Well, it's like every protest. Trump is a pedophile.

Trump is a pedophile. Yeah, the last four years of Biden was in office. They didn't spend any time or resources trying to throw him in jail for being a pedophile. So I think it just proves that he was. My point ultimately is you've got a lot of people saying things like, man, I'm seeing online, everyone thinks the shooting was staged. It's like, no, you saw a video with 500 comments claiming that and you thought that was everybody. Yeah. Well, we've lost trust in the government, too. Well, you shouldn't have had it. Let's talk about Elon Musk. From the New York Post,

Elon Musk set for major SpaceX payday if he settles one million people on Mars. This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It got approval in January. He would get 200 million super voting restricted shares of stock, as long as the colony is permanent, has at least one million residents and SpaceX has hit a market valuation of 7.5 trillion. Your time frame on this that has to happen by? I don't know. Bro, how do you even ferry one million people? Well, I mean, it's going to take...

Can we just, are we going to even act like this is real? Like, you know, that's my point. I know, it's ridiculous. You type in Devon Island, NASA. You can look it up right now, Tim, on your computer. Oh, no. Yes, dude. I don't believe that we have anything on Mars right now, dude. There's no way we're on Mars, sending a video live feedback.

What is Devon Island? Devin Island, type in Devin Island NASA. That's where they expose them filming. They exposed all of this quote unquote Mars rocks. It's the exact same as Devin Island. Type in Devin Island NASA. I mean this Mars researchers rendezvous on remote Arctic Island? Are you saying the curiosity probe wasn't real?

Are you suggesting that it might be really? Yeah, dude. If you believe that, you're an idiot. I know that's going to be mad disrespectful to a lot of people in the chat, maybe Tim. But yeah, dude, I don't think that they have a freaking thing on Mars right now. Alex. Alex. I don't believe it. Alex, I'm from Mars.

Yeah, I know. Maybe. You probably are a Martian. Elon Trump and I came right at the same time together. Barron actually was already here. He left early. And there's already a Mars colony. So this is actually a setup because now Elon's going to pretend like he builds it. We've been there the whole time. Us Martians have been around on Earth for a while. And you see, what happened is our people's terraformed Earth a long time ago. And we set up, we moved our base to Mars for the past 10,000 years. And we're now going to take. back over the government of Earth, but we need a one-world government so we can control everybody. Well, Ronald Reagan did say it, and other presidents have said it. They only unifying force that would unify the entire world would be an outside alien threat, and that's how they would start the one-world order, a new world order, would be a fake alien invasion. So what is this Devon Island? I'm talking about to pull it off.

Hey, I'll find it right now. I know, but NASA said that they do research on Devon Island in 2002. Yeah, so there's a bunch of images where they actually took a real picture of Devin Island, and then they took images of, quote unquote, Mars, and it's exactly the same. So all I'm saying, just type in Devon Island Exposed. It's just, I don't believe

that something's on Mars right now, and then they make all these stories. Oh, Elon's going to put a million people there and get $7.5 trillion. It's all fake. It's all gay. Shout out, Candice. I just don't like it.

Why are you shouting her out in that? Just to troll you, just a little bit. I thought you'd get mad. But I figured. I didn't know if she'd say something about Mars being. No, she's a flat earther big time. So, no one ever accused her of being smart. Well, to be fair, I did call her smart, so.

You did win? Yeah, I said, I think she is super smart. I think she's a genius. Oh, okay. Well, I've only heard you say the C word, and that wasn't very nice. Well, that's different. I think she's a genius. I think everything she's doing is intentional.

I think her mispronunciations are intentional, too. Those are funny. Right, because it's like George W. Bush, it's relatable to regular people to be an every man. And Candace, she does the Stanley Cup. She says debacle and kerflaffle and things like that. And so people view her as relatable. and like them. I think there is an argument to that.

But yeah, Devin Island, I think that Mars, give me a break. And dude, the Artemis mission that they just did, they showed us the one picture of the backside of the moon. We got 4K cameras on our cell phones. They couldn't put a camera on the outside of it and give us like a good video of it. Outside of what?

Artemis, the dark side of the moon, the part of the moon that no human being has ever seen. We'd never even taken a picture of it. That's not true. The dark side of the moon? So first, there's no such thing as a dark side of the moon. The backside of the moon. We have photos of it from.

satellites. Oh my, yeah, fake photos. So once again, no, no, no, no, by all means, if you want to argue we've never gone there, fine, but to first start by saying we've never gotten a photo and then like we have, you go, yeah, well, it's fake then. Pick one, bro. No, it's probably a fake photo on some satellite that's probably on a balloon

anyway, because it doesn't even make sense how satellites work. Here's the truth. See, that is more likely. I'm not even kidding. I know that, oh, Alex is so dumb, but I'll tell you there's parts of the Earth that is unexplored. I'm not saying there's all these extra outer lands, but...

Bro, you know how awesome that would be if this was true? You know, there's, I think it's the 60th parallel. Let's do it. There's no independent investigation of the... Let's get a plane. I can afford it, and we will fly over the ice wall. I know. We'll look up General Admiral Bird in this long gines... We're going to make it to Atlantic's, bro.

Well, it's not that it's hollow earth, but he did say this is one of the first generals in American history to go explore Antarctica said that it was so big and that it wasn't just ice. There was actually tropical areas. You can type it in General Admiral Bird, talking about how... Antarctica was not exactly how people thought and that there's enough resources in just Antarctica enough to supply the land to the world. That's where we all live actually. Wait, so does this mean? So like, meet

Trump and Elon are from Southern Antarctica where it's all tropical and abundant. Is this the stuff about the ice wall? I don't trust Elon because he's just knocking up Ashley St. Clair and she won't shut her mouth up on the internet. I mean, so his judgment can't be that good. He's getting to space nutting in any crazy girl. Shout out Ashley

St. I'm on Team Ashley. But you know what I mean? If he's so smart, why is he just having all these baby mamas and signing NDAs? and not expecting that to backfire. Because he's from the future. Trump is probably from the future. You know what's really funny is that you saw those pictures? Yes.

From the 19-something or whatever that were golden buses that said Trump on them? No. Dude, okay. You saw those, right? Well, I know about the book. You didn't see those? No, no, no. Oh, bro.

But then if you actually look at the, if you look at the storyline of Back to the Future, it actually coincides exactly with Donald Trump because you have Biff has the big casino. And I always thought that was a lot like Donald Trump. And they base it. They admit that they base it. Look at these images. Some guy in 1800s drew these golden buses that say Trump on him and there's a blonde guy driving them. What are the chance?

And it says 4599. And so what I'm saying is Trump's in his time machine, right? And he lands in like 1892 where this Charles Delska, Delshah is sitting there like drawing a picture and he looks up. And then this vehicle appears in front of him. And then Trump gets out and looks around and he goes, Baron, you put in the wrong date. We're in 1892. We need to go to 1992. dude, let's get back in and then they disappear again.

And then this guy starts drawing this sketch of this golden. Okay, I got to tell you, if Trump was going to build the time machine, it would look like that. You know, Trump is actually known as being an artist and he actually loves to draw and supposedly drew Epstein a picture. I don't know if that's real. I'm telling you, Trump is the kind of guy who would put his name on the side of his time machine. Dude, type in the book about Barron. I know, yeah, yeah. So that and then.

The underground adventures of Baron Trump. And then you look at the connection of his uncle was the guy that went through Tesla's, you know, when Tesla died. it was actually his uncle that supposedly went through a safe. So I know it's highly unlikely that he is a time traveler, but then also if you look at a thing called Mandela effects, where we remember things wrong, like Chick-fil-A or Shazette or Kazan. Trump went back to the 80s on accident because they got the date wrong, and while they were trying to, you know, get fuel,

they had to get liquor to put back in the time machine, he accidentally bumped a glass of coffee, which spilled on the manuscript. The butterfly effect. It spilled in the manuscript for the Berenstein Bears. And it smudged the E into an A. Well, we're on a different timeline. And that's how it's changing.

And then he's like, oh, no, we turned the Berenstein into Berenstain. Nobody will notice. And then all of a sudden, everyone's like, my memory, what's going on? And now it's spelled with an A instead of an E. Fruit of the Lume had a cornucopia, dude. They said that they never had, the logo never had a cornucopia. Do you know this, Mandela Effect? Yeah, of course.

My favorite is the people who started, people started making their own Fruit of the Loom shirts with the cornucopia and putting in thrift stores. They had the icon is. Dude, they had the cornucopia. I don't see. But now people, because of that, people have actually screenprinted their own versions of it. That is part of how it happens. Like, there's recreated famous movie lines in other media.

And so then they recreate it incorrectly, right? Explain this. Flute of the Loom. And it's got a bunch of meat and veggies, and it's a flute making the cornucopia, which many people said was meant to be a play on fruit of the loom. in 1973. And so people are like, how did a guy satirize fruit of the loom

with flute of the loom if it never had a cornucopia? I agree. It's like if you build it, he will come. But it's if you build it, he will come, not if you build it, they will come. I think there was something with the cornucopia that was like that, but it wasn't fruit of the lid. No, no, listen, listen.

The CIA is trying to see if they can mass formation psychosis people. They're trying to see who will believe who won't. So everybody knows the thing is true for the Lomeda cornucopia. They then go on onto the network database. They tell the AI, delete all instances and rewrite everything the claimant never did. And then they want to see who accepts the new reality and who doesn't. They're finding who's deviant. Well, when they took out, excuse me, when they found the guy that, the pilot that crashed in Iran, they even said that they ran a disinformation campaign on the citizens there so they wouldn't know where the guy was.

Like they actually put out fake, you know, media hits as if, oh, he's in this area and he wasn't. So if they're running disinformation campaigns at the snap of their fingers in foreign countries, you don't think that they're running one right now, though, Tim? You don't think the CIA is probably cooking the books and trying to influence us to think a certain way? In what, like the CIA is manipulating everybody? Yeah, because they have...

Of course they are. What do you say? No, I'm just saying it. Yeah, they're dumping millions into social media to make everybody anti-Trump because they're trying to win. You think they're making them anti-Trump? that's what that's yeah i know the CIA doesn't like trump but what trump is doing right now it appears surface level low probability but decent probability choking off the strait of hormuz is shutting down opec and shifting oil production and oil control directly to the united states which disrupts the liberal economic order it's cut china off that is the benefit of this war is the fact that europe and these asian countries are going to have to be more reliant on what it used to be it used to be that the u.s had to plead with saudi arabia to control oil levels and the what was uh joshua last was calling it supranationalism

And it's not so much one world of government, but the structure of the world was the U.S. is the military. OPEC produces the energy, right? There's certain hubs. They're creating economic blocks. Trump is making everything U.S.-centric, so they're desperately trying to stop him. USAID got shut down to the trying to re-center in Virginia. That's what they've been doing with all these laws and all these changes. And now they're dumping money into big tech to shift the political opinions.

I think there's an elitist civil war happening. where powerful elites are fighting each other in the, you know, now you're going to have to go to Saudi Arabia and ask them to make Rush Hour 4 because they're going to own almost all of Paramount. Well, they do own a bunch of the old movies and stuff. But listen, is Tucker being paid by Qatar? I don't know if there's any evidence for that,

but I do think that Tucker realizes that young people, Tim, whether you want to admit or not, whether you think it's like this, you know, things that's just going to change after the midterms, young people are very disenfranchised with the support of Israel and just blindly supporting it. So I think that the tide is kind of turning,

and there's probably going to be an attention economy dedicated to anti-Israel content that is probably going to be bigger, I would argue. My concern with the funding of Israel. You're saying there's going to be more anti-Israel content? I think so. Why wouldn't Israel dump billions into pro-Israel content? They have.

No, but all they have to do is going to Google ads. So what Israel could do... It's a little harder than that because you can... No, it's not. Organically, yes, they can do that inorganically. Let me explain it to you. Let me explain it to you. But it doesn't have the same organic.

Let me explain it to you. If you go on Google ads and you say, I want to advertise on content that is pro-Israel, YouTube will increase the viewership to sell the inventory. So what will happen then is, if you make a video that is anti-Israel, you'll get 100K, pro-Israel gets 200K, as long as the money in the inventory exists. YouTube can flux their inventory based on what they promote to make more money. So if Israel said, let's put $10 billion on Google ads and put it onto content that is favorable towards Israel, the algorithm would put it on the front page.

Yes, people are going to see that. Andes would disappear overnight. That content, regardless of how much it's recommended to people, probably will not change their mind. It doesn't matter. It'll be auto-plagued to Normies. I just don't know if you just, through osmosis, you hear a clip in the background, all of a sudden you become pro-Israel. I don't know if that's a reality.

So there was this woman, she had a viral video where she said, she used to be a big fan of turning point until she realized, until she learned that the United States was under the control of a foreign nation. That person who made that video and went viral, has no idea what the fuck she's talking about. She never would have known any of this had it not been for the YouTube videos that she watched about Erica Kirk and Israel.

Like, if this was not true, do you think Coca-Cola would be buying advertisements the way they do? The literal background Coke ad in Times Square generates positive effect on Coca-Cola. Yeah, well, that's how we know that Artemis Mission was fake on the moon because we'd already have a big sign on it.

It would be the best advertising spot in the world. They'd have a huge Coca-Cola sign on it or Nike sign, so that's how I think the Artemis Moon mission was fake. Yeah, I just, with the Erica Kirk stuff too, you know, you look at the Drusky sketch, and I know Erica addressed that. That thing was so big. That's probably, you know the sketch I'm talking about? Yeah, yeah.

I mean, just saying, so maybe that's not an organic is all I'm trying to say. Because it's being promoted. Yeah, it is. That was definitely promoted. Right. So who's promoting Erica Kirk content? Why? She's not a politician.

She doesn't affect policy. She really doesn't matter at all. She does matter. Why? because she's one of the most influential people in America now, whether people want to admit that or not. No, she's not. Erica Kirk? Yeah.

Yeah, she is. How? She runs the biggest young political action group in the world. And who showed up to their event in Georgia? Well, I mean, that was kind of a goofball situation. But regardless, Turning Point is still the biggest and most powerful. Erica is not on the show promoting it. Colvitt is.

She's a figurehead that does very little. She's probably not even running. She does a lot. I don't believe it for a second. You don't see, I think one of the biggest complaints is that she does too much. Name something you know that she's done. She goes and speaks at every high school that wants to have her. That wants to have her.

So how many has she done? A lot. What is a lot? Give me the number. I don't know. 20. I'm telling you, bro. Once a week, it looks like.

I don't know her schedule. This is the example I try to give to people. I'm just saying she does work. She does go out there and grind. When the video went viral of the Covington kids on the Lincoln stairs and everybody said this kid got in the Indians' face, they didn't Rickon's face, conservatives were condemning him Philip the Franco condemned him and then I got sent this video

and I said what is it and they said look what the kid is doing I said I don't know what he's doing and they're like he's in the face of that Indian guy and I'm like I just see two people standing in front of each other turns out I did some digging with some help from the audience

the Native American got in his face so my video was like you are all wrong this guy got in his face why are people attacking him and then the narrative flipped because people realized oh crap we were wrong

all I do all day is watch videos, research, and fact check stories, and for the life of me, there is no coherent argument that Erica Kirk is influential. I don't mean that to be disrespectful to her. She's obviously a well-known person, but she is only well-known externally, meaning you don't watch her go-do things. You hear about her from someone else. She's pretty influential with Vance, with... She's not passing laws. She's not a CEO of a Fortune 500 that's functioning... She's organizing door knocking campaigns for...

She is not doing these things. She's a CEO of a company. The point is this narrative that she must be important comes from other people. Apple, Tim Cook, is known because he goes on stage to sell a product. Erica Kirk has done interviews about Charlie, but her public appearances are relatively minimal for the organization she is involved in. I get millions of views. Her public perception.

like her public presence is minimal compared to comparable organizations. I don't know. Bro. What's a comparable organization? A Fortune 500 company? Well, I mean, I don't know if because part of the- Hundreds of millions of dollars. Part of their company is a nonprofit, right?

So I don't know if they're really competing on a for-profit company, but I know they have turning point action, which is a for-profit company. But 95% of Erica Kirk appearances are external, not her. 95% of the videos you will see about Erica Kirk are coming from ex-ternalities. Somebody else staring it, not from her. It's not her. Someone will take a screenshot of Erica Kirk and then make a video about it. Well, considering everybody that saw Charlie's assassination had a visceral response and they were affected by it.

So now, any legacy of Charlie. And Candace said that Erica killed Charlie Kirk. I don't know if she said it like that. She literally did. They leaked a text message. I'm not saying she did. Let me stop you right there. They leaked a text message.

She said she shot the gun. I don't think that. A woman who was texting with Candice released a screenshot of the message where Candice said, my first question, why did you kill your husband? Did you say that on the podcast or was that a leaked text?

It's a leaked text message. Well, that's a little different than saying on her podcast. I mean, you're asking that. Well, in her podcast, she said,

jail, right to jail. There is no, she said, there is no way that I can believe she wasn't complicit in this. Yeah,

I don't think Erica Kirk had anything to do with Charlie's death. I'm just saying, I think Candace has been a little more nuanced with what she says. I think she says that she had prior knowledge that she didn't actually... You're wrong. Okay, maybe she did say her. She said jail right to jail. I don't watch Candice. Indeed. My point is this. The only time a regular person hears about Erica Kirk is when someone else brings her up for an unrelated reason. That's my point. There is no instance where

Erica Kirk does a press release. We're doing a new campaign in front of 10,000 people. She speaks at some events, but there's a ton of prominent people who speak at events no one talks about. Right? Yeah. And Shapiro, Michael Knowles just spoke in an event. Is anybody talking about that? That was pretty well. Twitter, maybe not in the real world. A lot of people aren't talking about. Oh, Michael Knowles and Matt Wallis. Erica Kirk is not passing laws. She is not doing anything of substantive consequence right now. I think they did pass some laws where they're putting Turning Point USA, the high school organization in all high schools. But regardless, I get it that you You don't think she's as big of a political force as Charlie.

It's not that I believe it. Factually she is not. And I think that's fair because Charlie was unlike anybody else. Why is she promoted in the algorithms on all of these platforms? Well, one thing. I'll tell you this. You want some conspiracy theories? First and most obvious.

Who killed Charlie Kirk? If it wasn't Tyler Robinson, or maybe it was, who stands to gain the most? Deep State, liberal economic order, Democrat Uniparty. He was the one who got people to vote for Donald Trump. He stood by him no matter what. why then are all these big tech platforms now destroying turning point going after erika it's to character assassinate and kill his legacy and make sure turning point can't be effective that is the most likely conspiracy yeah it could be

and the tyler robinson from all accounts was in a gay relationship like he might have been quote unquote conservative when he was little younger but it looks like it was a left left leaning motivated attack and there were people with four knowledge but we got to get rumble rants and super chats in because i'm having too fun arguing with alics over here smash the like button share the show with everyone you know that uncensored portion is coming up at 10 p.m. You don't want to miss it. Before we do, though, we got a great sponsor for you. It is Tax Network USA. Go to tnusa.com slash Tim. Do you owe back taxes or have unfiled tax returns? Or have you filed every year, but you still keep owing? Maybe you pulled money out of your 401k early

and now the IRS wants a share. How every tax issue started, the outcome is the same. Your balance is not going down. Penalties grow, interest compounds. And many of you are about to owe again for this tax year. Stop what you're doing. Call Tax Network, USA. the IRS is not waiting. They're enforcing collections. And that's where Tax Network USA can come in. They come in. With over 15 years in business,

there hasn't been a tax case they haven't seen or resolved. They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfiled returns once and for all. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million,

their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. They can do the same for you, but you have to call now. They're offering a free investigation call the IRS. After that investigation, they put a clear case plan in place to resolve your tax problems and get you back on track. Don't wait. Call now at 866-686-186-1535. That's 866-686-1535, or visit TNUSA.com slash Tim. Now let's grab yo rumble rants to chats. Jailer says,

Alex, what was it like to be sexually assaulted in, by that trans person in Chicago? It was kind of fun, honestly, because it was a biological female to male, so it's not gay, so I'm okay with it. It's all good. I don't have like a great fantasy. Oh, man. What's, I'm just, someone just mentioned, uh, mention, uh, message to me. Tucker Carlson's promoting animal farm now too. Oh, man.

Tucker's a communist now, busted. It's, it's as simple as this. If you accept money to promote that film, you're a grifter. with no integrity. And... Real quick, you watched the whole movie. I did. It wasn't there.

It didn't have like a conservative slant at all. Okay. And I trust you. I don't think... Let me tell what the film's about. Yeah. The film starts... About the book.

It's not about the book. It's completely unrelated. Old Major is not in the film. Oh, really? So Old Major is an extremely important character in the book. He's the old... I remember how good it used to be. He rallies people and says,

it can be better. It doesn't exist in the film. The animals are happy and they like their farm. They're going on vacation. Turns out Farmer Jones couldn't pay his mortgage. So Elon Musk's mom purchased the animals in the farm, purchased the debt so that when the bank was coming... In the actual movie, Elon Musk? Oh, that's...

Well, no, it's Frieda Pilkington, but she drives a cyber truck and she looks like May Musk. That's what they're trying to insinuate. Indeed. Everybody agrees when you see this. She's in the trailer. So Farmer Jones can't pay his mortgage, so Frida Pilkington goes to the bank and acquires the property after they go to liquidate. The animals, fearing death, chase off her employees, but the bank says, no, no, no. someone's got to pay the mortgage. So he's like, I'll be back in a week.

The animals team up and hold a big market to raise money together. When they go to pay the banker, he says, this is too much. I'm taking this, you keep the rest. The pigs then get to keep the profit. So what do we do with it? He says, go spend it. So they go to the mall and they buy a bunch of stuff. The animals get mad that they're doing all the work, but the pigs are taking all the profit.

So Napoleon wants to buy a car but doesn't have enough money. Elon Musk's mom helps him get a credit card, but then he can't pay off his credit card debt. So he cuts a deal with her to sell the farm in a private equity acquisition so she can liquidate the animals and the farmland and use the farm properties and use the land about the hydroelectric dam she can monetize Turnkey. The animals decide to revolt to keep their land to stop the corporation from taking it over. So they plant explosives in a hydroelectric dam blowing it up, killing her and all our employees. Is that really what happened to me? Yes. The pig, the new character Lucky, then kills Napoleon. polion, swims out of the floodwaters and says, we should not be forced to work.

We should just work for each other because we want to. And then it pans up and says the end. Yeah, it looks like it's like anti-big business, anti-capitalism. Andy Circus explicitly stated he wanted to target themes of capitalism and overconsumption. The funniest part about making an anti-capitalist movie in Hollywood for that particular film is that they're not willing to. Hollywood adjacent. They're not, they're not willing to, well, no, this was.

made traditional Hollywood. It's distributed by Angel Studios, but the point is, is that one of Hollywood is one of those capitalist industries in the world, and one of the reasons they'll make movies like this, even though they'll change the story completely, is they're not willing to let Andy Circus write a movie. But you know more than anyone? We got to try and read some more of these. The capitalist thing is kind of not true. It's already cut you off because they put a gay character in every movie and ruin it. You know that? You cover that. Here's the other issue, too. There's not a single reference to Marxism or a single action of government in the whole film.

not a single one. The most egregious is that in the in the book, the pigs take the eggs from the chicken by force. The chickens then complain and Napoleon has the chickens executed by the dogs. In the film, the chickens agree to sell their eggs in a big fundraiser, but then get mad because the pigs are taking the profit. Literally they're like, why are we doing the work, but they're spending the money on stuff at the mall? It's like, bro. Anyway, let's read some more of these. We'll talk a little more a second.

H.S. Disturb says, what do you guys think? Ballroom should be named after Charlie Kirk. He could have been present, but never got the chance. Agreed. The Charlie Kirk Ballroom. What was his middle name? I don't know. I don't know either.

Demetrius. Kevin? I don't know. But, Brett, I'm sorry to cut you off. I don't know. I think they should name it after Charlie Kirk. James. They tried to name a highway.

Jay Kirk. They tried to name a highway after Charlie, and that got shut down. I think it's, you know, people kind of. to use it as a political rallying point, too, like how you said, the momentum of the left, they use it to have somebody to attack. Pino Shea says, Alex, as an informed plumber in Massachusetts, I take offense to your comment. Well, I didn't say that you were uninformed just because you're a plumber, but I were kind of using... Because I said plumber, then you said, you added uninformed. Well, because I was trying to go with like the old Joe Plummer, you know, slant, where the guy's just

kind of everyday America, not worried about who's in power, just trying to pay his bills. The Fallen says Martian colonist, quote, Earth was promised to us 2,000 years ago. It'd be really funny if Martians actually exist and they come to Earth and they were like, a long time ago, we were chased off of Earth by you. And that voice I'm doing is in fact not Native American. It's a reference to Futurama.

That was a good cartoon. The Martians and Futurama talk like this and they have headdresses because they're literally Native Americans. Well, there's something... They're called the Native Martians. There's something weird about the pyramids. How were they able to build that without any power tools? I agree.

You don't know? Slaves? You're going to say slavery? No. Alex. What? When Earth was being terraformed, the original colonists had a mechanical failure on their ship.

Yes. And so they could not contact the home world. So they created three large beacons with gold tips to blast a signal up to Orion's belt where the home world is located. And then they were rescued. However, some of the colonists were left behind because there was infighting that led to the destruction of their cause the mechanical failure. And so those people, people left behind, that's who we are. I mean, it's crazy

things have happened. All right. Yeah, but Trump says, Admiral Bird never claimed that it was his daughter. Well, that proves that. That proves it. Admiral Bird is one that saw different tropical climates in Antarctica. Neglectful sausage says WTF's welfare soda. A bunch of conservative personalities

all simultaneously posted on X. Why are they trying to ban soda? If I get government benefits, I should be allowed to buy whatever drink I want. This is communist to tell me that I can't buy soda with welfare benefits. Well, to be fair, there is diet soda, so not all soda's unhealthy. How about this?

If you get welfare, you're only allowed to buy rice and tuna fish. You would lose weight. You'd get protein and starch and nothing else. You get one chicken breast. No seasoning. Why would we? Why do you get seasoning? They get a little seasoning.

No, no. Luxury is not for people being given free stuff. Salt. They get salt and black pepper. My friend's been down and out and he lost his apartment, so I'm going to give him the master bedroom. What? No, you can sleep on the basement floor. I don't know if seasonings are a master bedroom, but okay. I still believe that they deserve seasoning. But white people don't even use it anyway, but they probably use the least amount

of social services. But Brown Bear says, I can't wait to see how Republicans use the Supreme Court ruling to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Yes, but intentionally. All right, everybody, we're going to the uncensored portion of the show. Smash the like button, share the show and all that good stuff. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Alex, do you want to shout anything out? Guys, follow me, Prime Time, Alex Stein. Prime Time Stein on Instagram and watch my show.

It's at 10 p.m. tonight, a Real America's voice. Actually, stay on this show and watch us, but you can watch a replay. Real America's voice after ours with Alex Stein. Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. Thank you. Guys, if you want to follow me, I'm on Instagram and X at Brett Dassevik on both of those platforms. Watch PCC. We are live five days a week. Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. YouTube and Rumble. We will see you there.

And follow me at Ian Cross on. across social media. Happy to go back 20 years and check out my stuff. I've been doing this since 2006. Let's keep it going, Carter Banks. That's true. Man, Alex, thanks for coming out. I really hope we talk about General Bird after in the after show.

Like Admiral Bird. How he flew over the whole hollow Earth theory and got abducted into the earth by aliens. I don't know if that's where he should, but there's a lot of weird stuff with it. Yeah, totally. But anyway, you can follow me on Axe at Carter Banks and on Instagram at Carter Banks. Official if you want to, follow our label at Trash House Records on YouTube, Tim. We'll see you all over at rumble.com slash tipcastIRL in about 30 seconds.

Thanks for hanging out.