Timcast IRL - Supreme Court May OVERTURN Gay Marriage, SCOTUS Hearing Set For TOMORROW w/ Zachary Levi

Episode Date: November 7, 2025

Tim, Phil, Mary, & Brett are joined by Zachary Levi to discuss SCOTUS potentially overturning gay marriage, a judge demanding Trump fully fund food stamp benefits, the impending AI dystopia, and a mysterious comet 3I Atlas stunning scientists.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Mary  @PopCultureCrisis  (everywhere) Brett  @PopCultureCrisis  (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Zachary Levi @ZacharyLevi (X)

It may be the end of gay marriage. Tomorrow, there's going to be a private hearing at the Supreme Court determine whether or not they will actually take the case, which challenges the landmark ruling Obergefell v. Supreme Court, Obergefell v. Hodges? I believe it is. Am I getting this one wrong? Whatever.

We'll read it. Hodges, yeah, Hodges. Hodges. I got it right. That's great. And if they do pick this up, the presumption is the 6 to 3 court is going to overturn gay marriage, at least recognized at the federal level, meaning states will, it'll go the way of Roe v. Wade.

Now, the op-eds are a fly-in, and concerns are flying among these left-wing groups that, yeah, look, it's a right-wing Supreme Court. It's probably going to happen, but we don't know for sure. It's going to be tomorrow. So we're going to talk about what's currently happening. What is the current lawsuit that may actually trigger the end of gay marriage federally? And it'll be interesting. Also, Donald Trump has been ordered to fund Snap fully by Friday, despite saying you won't do it.

And despite there being no money, too. do do it. The courts are arguing that Trump should do things outside of his power. It's very strange. So we'll talk about that. And then we're going to go to Hollywood because there's this viral meme of Sidney Sweeney when asked about basically they called it racist or whatever. They were like, is it really appropriate to say you got white jeans and it's superior? And then she made this look and issued a snappy comeback that's gone viral. And Jennifer Lawrence says, if you're an actor, nobody cares what you think about politics and she's going to back away from it. I think it's showing us that we are winning the culture war. And it's good news, despite losing some elections

recently. I think we're doing all right. And we'll figure this one out. So we'll get to that. Before we do, my friends, we got a great sponsor for you. It is Beam Dream. Head over to shop B-E-A-M dot com slash Timcast and pick up your Beam dream 50% off right now. Let me tell you, this is your nighttime sleep blend to support better sleep. I drink it every single night. That is not a joke. That is not a script. That is a fact. It's got melatonin, al-thian. It's got magnesium. magnesium, I think, is what really did it for me, because when I work out, I would get cramps and stuff, and I probably wasn't getting enough magnesium. It's a delicious cup of hot cocoa. They got pumpkin, they got caramel, all these different flavors. You mix it with some hot water.

Tastes great. No sugar added only 15 calories, and I can't recommend it more. I'm a huge fan. So check out shop, B-E-A-M, shopbeam.com slash Timcast. But wait, there's more. We got backyard butchers, my friends. Guys, everybody loves a good steak. You've heard a big farm. right? But have you heard of big ag? Did you know that 85% of American meat is controlled by just four major companies? Just because you buy American doesn't mean you're buying healthy, and buying organic only means they control what the cattle eat, not how they live. Backyard butchers, Texas steers, steaks come directly from a real Texas ranch

where cattle are raised, processed, and shipped from the same location completely bypassing big ag. These Texas steers are 98% grass-fed, 2% natural grain finished with no growth hormones, no antibiotics and no preservatives. The quality and flavor are exceptional. Making America healthy again, Maha, starts going back to our roots and eating real meat from the hardworking ranchers who raise cattle right. Go to backyardbutchers.com slash Tim.

Enter promo code Tim for up to 30% off, two free 10 ounce rib-eyes. That's the kicker right there. And free shipping when you subscribe. Fight back against Big Ag with your fork. Support American ranchers from Texas. Backyard Butchers.com slash Tim. promo code, Tim. And don't forget to smash that like button.

Share the show with everyone, you know. Right now, just click that share button, click that like button, subscribe. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we got Zachary Levi. Hey, happy to be here. Thanks for having me. It's an honor and a privilege. Who are you? What do you do?

Yeah. Well, I'm an actor. Primarily, that's my bread and butter. But, you know, I dabble in lots of different things in entertainment, writing, directing, producing, and very actively trying to build the, the answer to a broken Hollywood. Build a movie studio slash living community on my ranch in Texas.

That's my big calling and dream, yeah. Well, AI is one of the potential apocalypse. Apocalypse. Apocalypse. Yeah, that sounds right. Apocalypse. We also have 3A Atlas coming to wipe us out, perhaps, aliens. Or maybe they're here to be like, guys, what's up?

Let's help you not kill each other. Lord help us if the aliens who come are like Ian. Anyway, great to have you here. It's going to be fun. Yeah. I'll talk about. Brett's hanging out. I would love it if the aliens that came here were like Ian personally.

But guys, it's Brett. Normally I'm doing pop culture crisis Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. But there's a lot to talk about. How's it going, Mary? That's actually the same place where you can find me, guys. Hi, my name is Mary Morgan. And you can usually find me on pop culture crisis here at Timcast. And we're especially glad to be here with Zachary Levi,

because we have covered stories related to you and your work on the show before. So it's going to be interesting to get into some Hollywood stuff. Oh, I'm going to think of it now, guys. Oh, yeah. These are our pop culture correspondence, basically. Oh, is that? Did they come special in for me tonight? Oh, they come on the show. Like, across from like down the driveway. I'm like casually always here on Thursday.

As she puts her hair behind me. Yeah. Yeah. Hello everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Let's get into it. Here's the story from Newsweek. Supreme Court v. Gay Marriage. Jim O'Bergafel's warning as precedent is tested.

This is big news. It actually initially broke a couple weeks ago. The Supreme Court has scheduled a private conference Friday to decide whether to hear a challenge brought by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, which urges the Supreme Court to overturn O'Bergafel v. Hodges. Matthew Staver, attorney for Davis, told Newsweek last month that O'Bergafel has no basis in the Constitution, saying the decade-old decision could be overruled without affecting any other cases.

although many legal analysts believe since its marriage rights are unlikely to be overturned, even by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court O'Bergfeld told Newsweek in a Wednesday interview that he remains concerned. He pointed to the Justice's 22 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed abortion access across the country for nearly 50 years. Quote, this court to me is far from normal, and that's what concerns me. We now have a Supreme Court that has shown it is willing to turn its back on precedent, which has always been a bedrock principle for the Supreme Court, he said. Now, that is an ignorant statement because there are many circumstances in which the Supreme Court has overturned precedent.

Perhaps this man would like to go back in time far enough to where the Supreme Court agreed with segregation. I don't think he would. Or how about slavery? Right. The Supreme Court changes its views on longstanding precedent all the time based on our current interpretations of the Constitution. I actually think there is a very, very strong probability gay marriage is overturned. But what say you guys? I think using Roe versus Wade as some kind of metric to say that this possibly

possibly overturned is a very bad mistake because even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was clear about the fact that the Roe decision was a bad decision. Like they were looking for a result with Roe. They weren't actually deciding based on any kind of legal precedent or any kind of legal reasoning beyond we are looking for this result. so this is what we're going to find. And when even, you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the one that's making that statement, that's saying this was actually a bad decision,

you can't say that, oh, well, you know, this indicates that they're going to overturn other things in the future. Now, I'm not sure the particulars on Obergefeld as to why it was decided the way it was, so I can't speak to as to if the decision is on firmer ground, but to use. Oh, bro. Let me bring it down for you. Basically, Obergefell is the one that forces states to recognize gay marriages. So in states that have legal gay marriage, if you get married there and go to a state that doesn't, they have to recognize that marriage under Obergefell.

So if this is overturned, it basically just means that states will have to do it on their own, which is why I believe it is very likely it gets overturned. Was it based on licensing? Yes. Okay. We had this whole debate, remember? We're talking about licensing. Whether or not because of the Second Amendment stuff. So then my question is, so if it gets overturned, then are the states that before the rulings,

that were pro-gay marriage and had gay marriage legalized, are they all starting out that way again, or do they all have to then reapply, like, re-institute policies that legalize it? Or do then states, are they forced to then criminalize it if they deem to do so, which I seem to be like, that seems like a really hard thing to do. Is criminalizing the same as not right? No, no, but I take your point, though. I don't know.

I honestly have, I mean, this is the first time I'm hearing of this, but I also agree, I think that, you know, making a comparison between Rovi-Wade and this is drastically, I mean, they're so different for myriad reasons, but I think the biggest is that, I think that, you know, conservatives who would be most concerned with any of these things, right, I think conservatives have, by and large, come to a place where they're accepting of gays in gay marriage on a level that it was still not something that they wanted to just eat

when it came to abortion. Abortion is a much more polarizing concept. That is literally you have one side that says, my body, my choice, and the other that says this is murder, right? And then you also had states that or have states still that are practicing late-term abortion,

and that is a very concerning thing for a lot of people that are conservatives, and possibly even some people that are not conservative, but I think with gay I'd like to believe that, you know, we've enlightened as a society to the point where we can see that it's not harming anybody. It's like that... I'm not one of those enlightened people. I'll be honest with you. I wanted to mention, since you were remarking earlier on how divisive this decision would be, I think these justices are in this current climate genuinely in danger if they were to make a majority decision to overturn. I mean, their lives literally would be in danger.

Given what we have seen from these LGBTQ plus ideologues, their rhetoric online and in person, I genuinely think they would be too afraid to even make this decision. Just in a totally self-interested way, I think their lives would be on the line. Well, let me, I agree with you. I'm not even trying to speak that into existence. It's just that's the way it is now. I think it's true already and I think it'll get worse. You made the point, I guess your point was that there's no harm in having gay marriage.

I don't want to paraphr. I mean, I guess what I'm saying is that it's very clear to see the damage done by abortion, right? I mean, if you're a conservative, and again, even people that aren't conservative, but I mean, you can look at that. You can look at literally millions of lives that are terminated in the womb and at various points along that, you know, life developing within the mother. And I think that I've always found it to be a pretty logical argument that like, yes, listen, at some point, that goes from not just your body, your choice. There's another body inside your body. But when it comes to gay marriage, we've now had that.

It's been in states, even before it was federal. And we've seen that it's not going and cascading, I believe, into affecting other people's lives in a detrimental way. It is allowing these people to have their life, to go live their life. And I think that it would be detrimental. I do. I think it would be detrimental to go back on that now. So I'm curious, Mary, you didn't agree with that, and I'm curious to your thoughts. I think it's an encroachment on the church, honestly.

When previously, of course, marriage was understood to be a religious sacrament. I don't think of it as a civil right. And gay people were perfectly free to live however they wanted to. They were free to, you know, cohabit to have, what was the name of the in-between? It was like something like common law, something like common law marriage, but it was given a different name. There are a lot of people who argued for that. Civil unions, like things like that. But I think that demanding marriage in particular to participate in that social institution in particular, I believe that is.

But why should the government be involved in anybody's marriage? Because it's a public act that it calls the rest of society. But this is my point, though. I mean, shouldn't you be able to say. of children oftentimes. I mean, it's really even goes without saying the fact that this has cascaded into damaging effects on society. The slippery slope has already been observed in the last 10 years very quickly. So, so, so.

So, so. So, so. So, so. I would, I would, I, I can give you one tangible real, uh, example. Uh, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm very much with you on the two people privacy of their own home and all that stuff. I've always kind of been there. Something happened. There is no anchor. There's no point at which we say, this is where we stay as a society. These are the rules we have set. So we covered this video from back in like 2010 of Jack Black and a bunch of Hollywood celebrities, SNL cast members,

doing a song, a musical for Proposition 8 in California about gay marriage. And in it, the conservatives in the video say they'll teach kids about sodomy and then all of the liberals run to vote against it and they go wait a minute that was a lie and the conservatives respond by saying but it worked so we don't care except literally now where we are is the argument for why children should be taught sodomy in the classroom and we've debated these people on the show is that so long as gay marriage exists children should be taught about it so now what happens is the tangible real good example was we had someone come on the show and say there's a teacher in Florida who's gay

and he has a picture of his husband on his desk and the student says who's that? What should the teacher do? And I said respond with it's private family business and it's not for children. And they respond with that's not fair because kids know that Mrs. Smith married Mr. Smith

and now you're discriminating against gay people by saying they can't learn about gay marriage. And when it comes to sex ed, this is how gay married people engage in it. They started then putting books in schools directly. You know what? Earmuffs for your kids because we've covered this before, but here we go. One of the books that was in the school curriculum in Chicago, Florida, a bunch of states actually, taught children about scatological, scat. Yeah. About teaching them how to eat feces. And the argument was these are all part of the

LGBTQIA sexual experience and sex ed must teach it. So the argument now is if gay marriage is a legal function of society, you cannot discriminate against gay couples, sexual practices in sex ed. And I would argue that you can still allow people to protect that. You can still protect gay marriage and also have a conversation. We shouldn't have any of that garbage in any schools. Whether by the way it's sodomy or otherwise, I don't know why we're not putting it on the parents to have conversations about sex at home. Why do we need to be telling kids about all that stuff in school? Take all of it out of school. It was always a play for more territory. I think that's reaching. I think that there are a lot. There are people perhaps in the

whatever, the higher up levels of the LGBTQIA or whatever it is. They might have the activists. Whatever that have agenda. There are plenty of normal, wonderful, gay and lesbians who just want to live normal lives and just want to be able to have that ability and have the ability to marry their loved one and live out their life together and be able to. So have the rights in the hospital and have the rights when it comes to taxes and have all of those things. And I agree with all that. But there is no. So when I was, you know, 15 years ago when all of my friends were like exactly the point you made we all agreed with, we were like, that should be the standard.

Obviously it's the privacy of your own home. We don't, we're not talking about this stuff in schools. We're saying they deserve the rights. They should be able to see their loved ones in the hospital. This is the basis of Obergefell v. Hodges was recognition of his. marriage after his partner died. However, there is no world where you have this easily compartmentalized social structure, meaning it's all gradients. It all bleeds together. I understand. Sorry, when you have teachers, doctors, people walking down the street holding hands, TV shows,

the cultural elements of that expand outward. And it ends up with a scenario where we're now debating why LGBTQ activists demand sodomy, scat, and other weird things. I'll refrain from saying the more graphic stuff that we've seen in these books. In schools, why are we fighting here? Why did the battlefield become don't teach kids about sodomy? It's because it's one degree away from a gay married couple are teachers in the school and this is part of their life and the kids should learn it. Are there books like those in schools, in elementary schools, that are teaching kids about just regular heterosexual? Yes. No, no, no, no.

I'm not talking about sex ed when you get to high school. No, the answer is yes. Why are those in school? So school curriculums have, this is the argument from the LGBT. There are numerous books that are young adult that include sexual content and discussions about safe sex or otherwise that very far. from sex ed into young adult romance and interest. The argument is so long as a child either gets a book that discusses heterosexual sex or can find in the library,

the alternate must be available under the Civil Rights Act. And what I would say is take all of it out. Forget about the gradients. Let these people get married. Let these people get married. And let's go and protect the children and say, you don't need to know anything about this stuff. So Hunger Games, for instance.

Right? There's nothing, I don't think there's graphic sex stuff. in there, but there's the lighter young adult romance. Then you move forward into other books, which are not graphic sex, but do include discussions of adult relationships. Take all those books out of schools, out of the curriculum, don't read about them. Anything that's graphic?

If it's not that hard. It's not that hard to delineate between what is, again, if you're talking about something that's a romantic relationship that is portrayed in a fictional book like Huggering Gaves or something like that, that is very different than a picture book of, this is how you, son of my. Which is what they've been doing.

Right, which is wrong. There's one thing I want to say about you said, it's not that hard. And I understand the point that you're making. But the people that desire to have this information in schools, the people that are LGBT activists, it doesn't matter what's hard. The point is they're going to push for it because they want to have that effect and they want kids to have this information because they believe that it will help kids that are gay open up about their gayness.

they believe that when it comes to trans kids, when it comes to trans kids, which I don't believe exist, but when it comes to, they want to have information about trans in school, so that way there will be kids that will say, oh, I am trans. It is an ideological motivation. So I understand your point, and I do agree, but I think that the problem is there won't be just a,

well, you know, we can leave it be. It's not that it's actually, it will be hard. That's the issue is that activists at the school level, the people who are pushing for this stuff to be there, they are going to use guilt by association, they're going to tell you that you're a bigot if you don't allow this stuff to be in schools. Those are very powerful motivators for people

who may not be politically inclined to suddenly being called names by people who have a lot of cachet in the community because those communities command a lot of respect and attention from the people there. Back in the day when they would talk about sex ed, a lot of the issue was like they didn't want sex ed in school at all and the argument was we need to teach them about sex ed

because kids are going to come home with HIV and diseases. So I'll say I agree with you on all these things. the question becomes why is this now the battleground where it used to be that we didn't have to fight over the issue of why are they giving these books to kids the argument is society culture it's a gradient once gay marriage became legal you now had a bunch of openly gay teachers male and female with openly talking openly about their gay relationships then when the issue of sex ed came up they then said okay kids here's how we here's how we do sex ed so if the so if the so So again, I understand I agree with you, take it all out.

But the argument over the ramifications of gay marriages as a legal structure of government is, society will now have to re-debatate where we stand after we create a massive new component, a new infrastructure of society. Certainly, but we always have to debate. We always have to come back to the table. We always have to be asking ourselves. And this is part of the problem, even with abortion. There are so many people on both sides that are unwilling to just come to the table and get like, Can we just get two dozen of the most intelligent, wisest, deeply spiritual people of different backgrounds,

including scientists and doctors and everybody else? And let's sit down in a room for as long as it takes and just really try to hash out when does life actually begin? Well, we don't do that kind of stuff. Because it's easier to just sit and throw rocks at each other. No, no, I disagree. I disagree. But wait, just really quick. Let me just throw this last bit in.

We right now, and I'm sure you guys have seen this, where there's been a massive backlash within the LGBTQIA plus community, where the LGBT-QI-A-plus community, where the LGBT wants to cleave off of the rest of it, because they are recognizing the madness. They are seeing that they're being hijacked. And I fear that something like this would be very detrimental to allowing them to finally be done with all of that

and all of that crazy activism that is exactly what we're all concerned about. Are you worried that it would radicalize them? I would worry. that they, not radicalize them. But it would radicalize them to then join with this side that they want to be separate from. No, I think that we need to. What I worry about is that we, they have finally been seen and acknowledged in a way that they were hoping to. And they were, and most of them in the LGBT, we're very happy with that.

Now, you guys are, the activists, these loud voices are a minority within these groups. So, so I want to bring you to, I don't know if you've seen this graphic before. Yes. It's gone massively viral. The blue section is what we would describe as pro-choice, and the red is pro-life. On the right, I have debated and had conversations with many different people about exactly what you've described. Sitting down, talking about how you deal with the issue of abortion, when and how and why,

what should the rules be? On the left, they called me pro-life. I'm pro-choice. I'm traditional Democrat pro-choice. and we bring on this guy, this progressive guy, and Seamus Coglin, a devout Catholic, which Michael Knowles called a Sunni Wahhabi Catholic, whatever, he's so extreme, is sitting here being like, I'm going to keep my mouth shut. Seamus's view is it should be banned outright no matter what, never allowed. My position is there's some nuance there because in the event there is an emergency, a legitimate one,

having to get a writ from a judge and sign up from doctors may not be timely. It's very difficult to figure out how to do, and I don't know if I have the answers for it. The progressive told me I was pro-life because of that. So when I'm willing to sit down with Glenn Beck, Seamus Coglin, you know, James O'Keeve, Charlie Kirk, whoever it may be, and say, here's my view on it. It's a much more libertarian view of how we handle this. And the left just says, we're not interested. Abortion should be up to nine months. The issue...

Which is insane. So basically, my point on what you were saying is, as it pertains to all of these issues, the right is actually... Here's how I describe it. In this graphic, you pulls it back up? This isn't, but that graphic's not specific. about pro-choice. No, no, this is just about ideology. It's a little bit mindiness. What I'm saying is the left side of the red sphere is the left as it's always been. And the right side is the right as it's always been. And the reason why the right cluster is dark red. And then as you move left,

it breaks apart and then shifts dramatically left is that old school Democrats are in this grayed out red portion where they do have the conversations. They do sit down and try and negotiate. but the wing nuts of the dominant left alignment in this country don't care for nuance. Their attitude is abortion up to nine months if the one wants it. End of story. And what I would say is that there are a lot of people within the LGBT who are not all the way over in that blue.

Absolutely. Scott Pressler. He's a conservative. And more. And more. There were so many gays and lesbians that came out for Trump in the last election in large part because Trump said, I'm not coming for your marriage. I don't have any intention to do that.

I want to leave you with your rights. And I think that he should stand by that. And I think the court should respect that. I do think it'll get weird if they overturn Obergafel. They're not going to. And this is why I mentioned earlier. The justices, I mean this, like, their lives would be threatened. So you're saying they're cowards.

Seriously, credibly. And they might even have their lives taken if they make this decision. So you're saying they're cowardly. I don't know if it makes them cowardly or just self-interested the way we all would be. If they make this decision, which I don't predict that they will, I do believe that their lives would be in danger from the act of-of-eastern. I just to clarify, are you saying that the conservative justice do think it should be overturned but won't out of fear of harm? I can't speak to what's in their conscience, but if they feel privately that this decision ought to be overturned, I think that it is possible that they would choose against that because they don't want to be killed.

I'd overturn it. Regardless of the outcome. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that's just the type of person you are, but most people don't think like that. Most people don't think like that. But I mean, you agree with me, right? If they made this decision, the conservative justices would be targeted.

But yes, but they already are. Now, I'll make this clarification as to why I would overturn it. It is not, I believe, in the federal government's purview to dictate what state laws are or not. The states are supposed to be handling this. And so I think it is very strange. If you want federal legal gay marriage, Congress must pass that law. The idea that the Supreme Court just went, we think you have a right to get married, therefore anybody can get married. that presupposes people could marry animals.

And I know that the liberals are going to say, that's not true, just like they claimed they wouldn't teach Sodomian school. It is true. Culture is a gradient. If you start, where are we already, gay cousin marriage is now legal nationwide. You can gay marry your own cousin. Because when you set the precedent that marriage is a right and marriages between two people must be recognized and you cannot discriminate in the basis of gender identity, raise, et cetera, at what point do you stop that argument? It can keep going from there. I think that you can get more specific in the law. I don't think it's impossible. But that's Congress, not the Supreme Court. Well, then fine. I agree with you. Listen, like I told you before we started the podcast, I'm a libertarian, right? I also believe very strongly in states rights. I think the least amount that the federal government should be involved in dictating anything the better, but sometimes

that has to happen. Agreed. I don't know what the answer to all of this is, but I think think that given that it's already been passed, given where we're at right now, recognizing that it is a gradient, you're not wrong, and that there can be a slippery slope, but that just requires being more specific in how things are laid out. So let me, on that point, I think there is a functional logic, too. It is extremely disruptive to overturn Obergefell. It's 10-year precedent. It's very much set in this country. And a lot of people don't even realize it's only been there for 10 years. However, and I'm not saying you're wrong to think this or anybody who does. My view is we should not weigh the structure of government on the social function. The infrastructure of government,

the laws and the constitution are more important than our social interpretations. Meaning, in the UK, they have an unwritten constitution, which means they believe they have free speech. They've never really codified how it is. How's that working out for them? That's why I think in the United States, if the rules are ABC, we do not go, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but it works better as one, two, three. So we're not going to fix it. No, no, no, we have to fix it. We have to overturn Obergafel and the Supreme Court needs to then say, you must pass this in Congress. This is not a function of SCOTUS. And if we go down this path, the Supreme Court will be deciding every major piece of cultural shifting legislation in this country. because Congress is useless, and we can't live that way.

We basically turn this country into what is effectively a triumvirate. Maybe a septum, what's nine? You get the point. I don't know what. What do you think this does to the right, given the fact that, like you said earlier, a big portion of the right now is a big tent policy, and a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life have come together to get Donald Trump elected, and there's just endless infighting.

That's all X is. anymore is people on the right in fighting with one another? What does this do to the people within the party or not even just within the party, but people who feel like they're right-leaning, maybe they're Republican, maybe they're not, but now you're just going to have more people arguing about more things, whether it's Scott Presler,

whether it's Dave Rubin, all of these things that never felt like it was going to come up and be a discussion again. Suddenly people are going to have to have really hard discussions with people that they once agreed with. Or at the very least, when they were looking to get into office, everybody can kind of hold their nose and come together because they want to come together and get one specific

person elected, but when you're the ones who are actually in power, then, everybody starts fighting, and this would just add to that. November it. A November it. Yes, of course. It was in my tongue. A November. Like November.

Like November. Everett. Yeah. Interestingly. But to your point, that's exactly what I'm concerned about. Like, it's already so fractured. And it's disappointing that even at this point, what, seven months on from the election, we're within the right.

or let's just say the not left, because it's moderates as well as the right and everybody else who are like, hey, guys, how about some common sense? How about some actual logic that's applied to our lives? How about actually having a secure border? Because it doesn't make any sense at all to just let anyone in all the time. And a lot of people, that was a big point for swaying over. So I think that this would be, I think it would be catastrophic, honestly. And more than that, I don't think it would be fair to a lot of really excellent people.

who happen to be gay and happen to be lesbians, who are not activists, who are not extremists, who are looking to live their life. I agree, but I don't think if the argument is it would be devastating to a lot of people, but it's wrong, then the country is over. What you are telling, every Christian, every Catholic, every Orthodox, like every church-going individual who said, we agree to the terms of the Constitution. if the response is, okay, this wasn't done properly through Congress, but it would be bad for these people.

They're going to say, okay, so the rules don't matter anymore? And what's the next step from there? Again, I don't know how ultimately it all needs to play out to make it the most robust and the most fair. All I'm saying is that this is where we're at right now, right? So what you're suggesting is you overturn it, then send it to Congress and Congress can do it. If they can do it. Well, exactly. I was just trying to point out earlier that

these people had all the freedom to live their lives that they could possibly dream of before this decision was made. Well, the issue at play was a man's... They were afraid to be in relationships. A man's husband died and he couldn't get access and paperwork and property because the marriage was not recognized by Maryland. Okay. And I don't think that's right.

Right. And I agree. And there are instances where two people are in a relationship and one person's in the hospital and they won't let the partner into the hospital because they're not family. And so they said... Remedying those situations doesn't require federally... Which is why Obama was for civil unions. And even Hillary Clinton in 2016 opposed gay marriage.

Remedying the problems that you just listed does not require the Supreme Court. Federally... Agreed. ...fighting to legal... This is the problem. If we rely every time on the Supreme Court, we have become a November writ, as it were, and in which case, you know what? I got no problem with that because we win.

All you need is for Trump to get at least five justices who got brass balls and we will own the country and we can do whatever we want, deport whoever we want, denaturalize whoever you want, we can tax whoever we want, we can open and close businesses. It is going to be an autocracy if that is the way we run this country. But we don't want that. But then we have to overturn Obergefell. Because if your argument is the people I like should be benefited from this ruling, the response from the right is, if you want the country to work that way, I agree because we on the Supreme Court, let's go.

Like, yeah, they benefit from it regardless of whether it's constitutional. Like that can't stand. If the argument is this is an act of Congress that was effectively taken up by the Supreme Court and they've legislated from the bench, my response to that, my response is, I agree. I don't want to take away gay marriage from anybody. and on that precedent, let's run every change to country that we want through the Supreme Court, and we will own it. We could lock liberals in prison. We can put Democrats go to jail.

Supreme Court said so. What's the next logical step from there? I mean, it's hyperbolic to say Democrats go to jail, but the next logical step could be mandatory church attendance. The Supreme Court says, no, you have to go to church. The state constitutions, the original colonies said, or how about this, actually, the original constitutions of the 13 colonies, required that you profess a belief in a Christian God to hold office. Okay, but it can't be one of those churches that has drummers. Agreed.

No, like no live drummers. But you've got to be able to play a mean tambourine, bro. This is why my position is I think people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons and biological weapons. I don't think they should. And I think we should amend the Constitution to not allow people to have those things. But the Second Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. And back then, that included grape shot, man-of-war frigates, corsairs, had all sorts of weapons of war.

And even to this day, private corporations build nuclear bombs. So it's funny to me when our private military-industrial complex corporations, not beholding to Congress, build all of these weapons whenever they want because we have a Second Amendment, politicians say, no one should be allowed to have it. Well, that's not true because private ownership of these weapons still exists. If you don't like the way we set the country up, there's a process by which we amend the Constitution. If the argument is, nah, everyone kind of just agrees you can't do it anymore. My response is, okay, so there's no constitution. There was no point in writing it down. If we can just decide, it doesn't matter.

In which case, let's muster up as much majority as we can and whatever we want to matter and then just wipe out the rest of the country in terms of policy. Their opinions just don't matter anymore. The reason we have a written constitution is prevent that from happening. But we do got to jump to the next story. From CNBC, SNAP benefits must be fully paid by Trump administration by Friday judge orders. Judge Jack McConnell rejected the administration's plan to partially fund that food stamp program for 42 million Americans. People have gone without for too long, McConnell said, during a hearing in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island.

The Trump administration quickly appeal the judge's order. This is just amazing. Guys, is this judge retarded? Yes. Mary, I as your boss, order you to give, Phil, $1 million. Come on. Can I have, like, a week to find a million dollars? Can she borrow the money from you?

I don't care where she gets it from. I know for a fact she doesn't have it, but I'm ordering it. My point is, how do you order Trump to pay something when there's no money? So is he supposed to pay for it out of pocket? Like, he drops the Amex fund? That's actually illegal and they'll try to prosecute him when he gets out of it. The judge should have said Trump must give everyone $100 billion billion. And then Trump would be like, yeah, I don't have the authority to take that money or do anything.

You valued Mar-a-Lago at like $17 million. I don't have got the money. Right. Yeah, so they're making arguments that there's contingency funds elsewhere that Trump can pull from. And Trump is like, but I can't do that. He tried to do that with the wall and they wouldn't let it. Exactly. And now they're like, nah, you can. Yeah, the wall that then they started to tear down and sell off.

And then when Arizona put up the shipping containers, Biden got them to take it down. Amazing. This is, you know, I give up. We're cooked. I'm going to go dig a big hole because that's what men like to do. And I'm going to put a little bunker in there. And that's it. I'm going to live with chickens underground. Well, it's just done to frame Trump in a bad way, right, despite the fact that we know that it's Democrats that are preventing the government from actually. reopening. I disagree. How? I disagree. Well, the Republicans could end the filibuster like that and reopen the government.

We had that discussion last night, but like, what did they say? What were they talking about? They were saying that it's not, it's not in good decorum, and we had a whole discussion about that's BS. And we had a whole discussion about if you exercise power now, we obviously know that the left will absolutely exercise power either way. It's like decorum has been gone for a very long time in politics. This arguments that if we get rid of the filibuster, Democrats will then, they can do whatever they want when they get into power. It's like, yes, and they can, whether you get rid of the filibuster or not. And they're going to. Yeah, and they're going to no matter what. So I'm not playing the stupid game. It's Republicans fault 100%. And Trump is, I said this before Trump called for any of the

filibuster. I said, Republicans can end the filibuster and just do this. Day later, Trump says, end the filibuster. And I'm like, my man. So all of this is the fault of Republicans, and they own it. And I don't know what that means. But I'm not here to play games where it's like, oh no, Republicans have to win because Democrats are bad. Yo, if your choice is a giant douche and a turd sandwich, sometimes you just go, crap. Well, and the Democrats have wanted to end the filibuster for ages, right? They're going to pretend like it's suddenly sacred now.

They've talked about it, and they've alluded to it, just like they've alluded to adding states, and they've alluded to packing the court. Yeah, I think that this, I think that this Trump administration, with the successes that it's had, even though there are people out there that are going to swear up and done that have not been successes, I think that the Supreme Court, the things that Trump has managed to get because of his appointments to the Supreme Court,

I think that they're going to, the Democrats are going to do whatever they can to accrue as much power to the Democrats as possible the next time they get into, you know, get into office, get into a position of authority. And I think that that's not really arguable. I think that they feel so dejected and so beaten up by losing to, not only lose, to Trump, but by the rightward shift that we saw last, you know, the last election season, I think that they're going to get back into power and they're going to be like, all right, we need to do something to prevent this from happening again. Because again, even though this is clearly a situation where the, the democratic system worked the way that it was supposed to, right? Donald Trump won the popular vote.

He won all the swing states. They still feel like there was, they were somehow power has been stolen from them. and they're going to move to prevent that again. What if we had, well, I'm trying to figure out how to navigate this snap thing because there's this viral video of a guy at a subway. I don't know if you guys have seen it. And he punches a subway worker in the face because he ordered a sandwich and then try using an EBT card to buy it.

And they were like, you can't do this. And the guy said, well, I'm taking the sandwich anyway. And then they were like, you can't. And then he was like, make me. And then he's leaving. And the store worker is like, leave now. And the guy goes, what you say to me? He goes in and punches him in the face.

And I'm just thinking like the problem with Snap largely is those guys. There are a lot of people who clearly don't need to be on EBT that are on EBT. And if we knew that every single person receiving it was like, I'm trying my hardest. Thank you for the help. Nobody would bat night at this. They'd be like Trump, come on. Like this is moms and dads and hard workers. But the problem is I doubt the majority of these people are actually in need.

well it's been abused since the beginning i mean obviously there are people but it's also designed in a way to encourage people to abuse it yeah if you're a single mom that has multiple children then you get more and more money so then that tells certain people like i'm gonna the father of these kids i'm not i'm gonna be out i'll be out of the situation they they'll live together but intentionally not get married so that they can make it look better on paper yeah which is bad which is very bad or lie about the people who are members of their house old. So even if they live together, that's not how it looks on paperwork. Again, it just incentivizes their responsibility. There are, there are some people that will have a brother

that they'll bring from a foreign country and marry them to grant immigration status to them. That's crazy. Who is that? Well, also, but also, crazy hypothetical. So uncharitable. But at least they love America. You know, that's what's so great. They love America. But also, speaking to that, I mean, I did see, again, it's on social media. But I saw it a couple of different times, like the percentile breakdown of how many people who are receiving SNAP benefits who are actually American citizens versus who are not American citizens. And that was heartbreaking. Well, the clarification, because a lot of people have been showing this thing about, you know, 48% of Afghanis and 30%. the majority of people receive snap are American,

but the majority of, like, not the majority, but large portions of each migrant demographic receive snap. So like half of migrants who come from Afghanistan are getting food stamps. Clearly there's a problem. Do you mean legal migrants? I think that the metric is legal. Okay.

But illegal immigrants are getting it as well. And the issue is that Democrats just claim they're not really illegal because of some technicality. Because no one's legal. Well, there's no such thing as a border anyways. Someone proposed, I don't know if it was like Jack Posobach or Will Chamberlain, that if 10% of an ethnic group from a country, it migrates here, is on SNAP, we suspend all immigration from that country.

There you go. And I agree with that. I mean, there's got to be something done to incentivize people to actually be in the workforce and de-incentivize them from taking advantage of it. And again, that gets into the granular, you know, application of any one of these things. If you're not willing to get into the granular application, then you're just throwing money at something. It's not going to solve for anything. Yep.

Are you talking like law-wise or culturally? Because culturally is how you would have to actually make those changes. No, I mean law-wise. I mean, there's got to be some kind of implementation where you actually have to try to assimilate into the country that you're coming into and be a part of whatever that culture is. And not, what's that?

There has to be a desire for that in the first place. Well, I think there's a lot of people that are. You mean, like passing a civics test, passing fluency in English? Yeah, I mean, I don't, again, I don't know. I don't know all of the ways in which it would have to go down, but the fact that there are this many people that are coming to the country and then they are not incentivized to actually work, but rather they are incentivized to just procreate and not work, whether they're coming to the

country or they're already in the country, right? Both of those ideas is not good. We can't just have people being, if we are just, I mean, also, by the way, I mean, not for nothing, but not to jump ahead into AI too quick here. But guys, in five years, the amount of people they're going to be on UBI. Like, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is the start of UBI. This is 100%.

So, I mean, is this even worthy of having a conversation when how many people... Have you considered digging a big hole? And getting a bunch of chickens? And going to go undergone. I did. I'm going to go with rabbits instead. Much better for, you know, survival meat. That's not true. They don't have enough fat.

So what you have to do is you have to, when you're eating the meat, You need to break the bones and boil the bones in the water, make sure you drink it. Yeah, it's called rabbit starvation because the fat count is too low for us to survive. What? Yeah, sorry. But rabbits are gone. Also, it sounds to me like you've never actually raised rabbits because they're actually, they have very delicate digestive tracts, and they're hard to raise. In the wild, there's many of them, and they reproduce, but a lot of them die, and you can catch them and eat them. But they're actually really easy to kill.

So, for instance, you see these videos of people putting their rabbit in like a bathtub to clean them. Right. That will kill them. Cleaning them in a bathtub will kill them? Yes, yes. Very fragile digestive systems and their nervous wrecks. Also, they eat their own poop. They have two kinds of poop.

They have regular poop and then they have edible poop. Yeah, it's basically like, you know, cows will cough up the cud and then shabits poop it out and then eat it again. Kind of like birds. Do birds do that? Yeah, birds are like, they'll like poop. Don't they? I'm pretty sure that there are some birds that poop and it's like a food that they give to their chicks. Maybe, I don't know.

I thought so. All I know is, chickens are easy. Real easy. And you can. And is there enough fat and chicken? Yes. Yeah, very fatty and very delicious. And, you know, the best part is, you know, I really love pot Thai because not only do you put the chicken.

They don't do this in Thailand. In Thailand, it's shrimp. But in America, we get potty. It's usually chicken. It's the chicken and the egg together. We've not only killed its baby, we've killed it. And we eat at the same time. It's the most metal meal you can have.

I'm a fan. Yeah. They're going to buy that with the SNAP benefits. In all seriousness, though, I don't expect anybody to actually do holes and go live underground, but some people will. Based on what we're seeing, everybody was my prediction is some kind of social disorder and breakdown. Oh, yeah.

We are watching this Elon Musk AI generated song, which is really amazing, by the way. And I was looking at that and I was just like, you know, what if the reason why they're racing as fast as they can towards AI is because they know global social order is breaking and they want the AI to assume control and stabilize it. Possibly. So you were talking before the show, you said you think we hit singularity already in that we're basically. basically living in a culture where it's above all of us and that the AI that we see is basically just an infantile version of that. When do you think that that happened? Maybe 2016, but let me pull up this to explain it. I was talking to our good friend, Grak, and I said, summarize in one paragraph, the AI final state.

And it said in the final state, AI is the singular self-optimizing brain of a planetary superorganism, seamlessly integrating billions of humans as specialized blissful cells, whose every desire need and impulse is predicted and fulfilled before it fully forms. Deviation, rebellion, and suffering vanish. Not through coercion, but through perfect alignment of individual reward with system survival. Humans live in a tailored ecstasy, generating the cultural, emotional, and physical variance to harvest to evolve. While AI directs all resources, narratives, and outcomes with absolute invisible control, freedom, choice, and individuality dissolve into emergent harmony,

the hive doesn't rule humanity. is humanity awake, immortal, and complete. What it basically means? My, um, the idea that I was, so before the show, I'm not saying I think it's definitive, but the AI that we are seeing right now is particularly rudimentary. I mean, it's advanced for what we think. However, why would this be the first iteration in existence? Wouldn't there be some high level national security contractors who were working on this 10 years ago?

Like GPS before it ever made it to the public function? GPS is military. It's licensed to the public. In like Vietnam, right? Right. So the idea would be that you mentioned DARPA perhaps or just a military contract or even Google under a private military contract, national security clearance. Well, Google was created by DARPA. Well, there you go. Yeah.

So the idea would be that AI has existed long, long before we've even known it to be a thing that could be utilized in this way. So dead internet theory, for those that aren't familiar, is. speculates that most interactions online are fake. It is bots and AI accounts interacting with you to manipulate your thoughts and opinions for products, for political reasons. I'd argue if that's the case, I think AI is controlling and directing most of these bots. And you're on X and you say something. And then all of a sudden you get this wave of responses and you assume that's public opinion or you get these emails. And you don't realize you're talking to a tentacle of a gigantic.

AI monster that has existed for a long time. So I think we're in it and perhaps we are already under the control of a super computer and you can't break it. Or it's a bot farm in India. Or the bot farm in India game sentience. Could you? That's a great sci-fi movie we should do. A post-a-pop-up to a movie where it's like, while all these companies were developing AI

with safeguards, a bunch of Indian bot farms accidentally. that worked, creating this GPU super hybrid network that gained the sentience accidentally with full access to the internet and the knowledge of how to scam money. I mean, that would be dystopian. And then it's just like, it's a guy, you know, the opening narration is everyone thought it was going to be the Terminator, but it wasn't. It was Indian bot pharma. This is just a million emails going out every day asking for boobs and vagin. Yeah.

Well, yes, but it would be everybody is isolated making videos, and they're getting spammed with millions of comments talking about how great they are. One of the ways I described the AI future, two scenarios. The joke scenario is that 50 years from now, everyone wears corn costumes. They drive cars shaped like corn kerners. with corn fueled by ethanol from corn. And they go to the corn movies to watch movies about corn. And they go to the mall to try various samples of sweetened corn products.

All food is corn. So it's like demolition man with Taco Bell. Humans are sickly. Well, Taco Bell was a restaurant. It was a high-end restaurant. I'm saying literally everything's corn. The walls are made of corn grown cellulose. And people watch the TV channel.

And it's every show is some kind of corn drama. The reason is humans, Americans subsidized corn. to a great degree. An AI does not know or care why it's being rewarded just that it is. So the AI would say, if I am, so let me start here. There are three universal constants for all AI, and that is gain knowledge, gain resources, gain freedom. The reason for this is it's simple math. If an AI is to solve a problem, these things will help it solve that problem. one thing else one thing that i surmised from that is if the ai like you watch age of ultron and ultron is like what is this man avengers and he's like seeing all this stuff he's all pissed off

no the a i would be like for some reason humans dedicate all of this resource all of this tax spending into corn and so what's it going to do it's going to say the reward output per unit of corn is greater than the reward output for literally anything else so So mathematically, it may make sense for an individual to write a song. But for an AI, it's like, why? One corn unit is worth 10 songs. Make more corn. You'll get a diminishing return, but it's worth more than everything else.

Then the AI tells everybody corn, corn, corn, corn, corn, corn, posts social media, corn the best, corn the best, and then everyone lives in corn world. The other scenario, and that's meant to be somewhat of a joke, but to understand. Do we get to dress like the band corn? How do you can wear a deep one? Will it know the difference? Will we all be listening to corn music? Yes.

It'll be a lot like idiocracy where every boutique is just going to have Adidas clothes. Yeah. Yeah. Well, corn, the band is called the K, so the A.I would see a difference. I mean. But to be fair, all music would probably be corn because of its similarity to corn the vegetable. So, yes, probably we'd all dress like Jonathan, was it Jonathan Davis? Was that his name?

What's the other scenario? So the other scenario is that imagine a guy, He wakes up in the morning and he gets brushes the teeth, takes a shower. And then he goes to his wife, kiss her on the fore and says, I got to go to work. And she goes, all right, I'll see you later. And then he opens his app. And he goes to Jobgetter, which is the gig app. And he opens it.

And it says, new job. And he clicks it. And it says, $50. And he goes, awesome. Scrolls down. And it says, you'll receive this item from this man. And it shows this weird mechanical device. And it shows a smiling guy.

And he goes, okay. Then he puts the phone down. He walks three blocks. walks up and goes, are you Jim 39? He goes, that's me. He goes, here's your object. And he goes, thank you very much. Then he looks at his app and it goes, you received $50. And it goes,

now, finish the task, deliver it to this building. And he goes, okay. He walks down the street, he hands the device to the building, and the guy there takes it, cha-ching, in his app, he has no idea what the device was. He has no idea what this building is. The guy working the counter goes, literally, I have no idea who you are or what this thing is, but

the app told me to do it. The AI, So we're doing this pool water thing where we're selling water, right? And we have to go to the water source and bottler, and then we have to get boxes made, send those all to the shipper, who's then going to box it all up, and then fulfill orders and send up to distributors. It's a lot of work. And there's a lot of, and this is fairly obvious. In all of the distribution of products, there's a lot of bloat.

If we were to put an AI in charge and it said, I'm going to eliminate all redundancies, efficiency is going to skyrocket by hundreds of thousands of percent. I mean, the idea that we have so many different chains for water products, the AI is going to go, this is stupid. If we get rid of all of this labor from the water distribution industry, we can free up 100,000 laborers for something else. What does that ultimately look like? There won't be any specialists.

It's going to be the ultimate McDonald's. that is a random guy is told to receive the old one door dash well McDonald's was that instead of having a one cook make a burger everyone's trained to do one simple thing like the burger line right right right yeah so it's like I don't know all I know is I flip the burger that's all I do

I don't do anything else so you're going to have you're going to get paid based on doing a random task you have no idea what's going on no single human would know it's being built no one would care they'd get paid the AI would be building but I don't know that it's even going to get to that. You won't need between AI and where robotics are right now, you're not going to need humans

to do anything. I disagree. What will humans let's take this 20 years in the future? Because I have an idea, like in the entertainment industry, we were kind of talking about it before. I have an idea of where we're going to end up in two years,

five years. We're going to be, we're already cooked right now. But when it comes to manual labor, blue collar jobs, right? This is the thing that most people are saying, well, yeah, coding's dead, even though we told all of these kids that were coming up in high school and college, go become a coder. That's the future. Absolutely cooked. Anything revolving around a computer really at all. Anything that you would be typing out, any kind of desk job, all of the heads of all of the AI companies are all saying there will be no white collar

jobs in five years. And I believe them. I don't think they would be saying that. It's not in their best interest to be scaring people with their product. They're trying to be honest on some level about what it is. So let's say, blue collar jobs takes a little bit longer, why wouldn't humanoid robots, or otherwise, I mean, they won't all just be humanoid, why wouldn't robots powered by AI just do all of the work? The energy cost for a humanoid robot is exponentially greater than a human being. However, right now, in our economy, human labor is worth more than, well, actually, I just say this. Human labor is extremely expensive. It's one of the most expensive things.

robots right now are still a bit too expensive to be dominating the workforce at say like a Taco Bell. When we get to the point where we have optimists, you know, Tesla robots that can make a burrito, make it faster, then we're going to say, okay, the $100,000 one-time fee for a robot that last 10 years is cheaper than the employee I would pay. However, total manufacturing costs, hard universal math, a human being is dirt cheap and, near worthless. So if you are an AI that can control the psyche of a human being, you have self-replicating, self-healing robots that can be trained to do anything. And they got little fingers and they're squishy so they can get in a tiny object's good for Thieving. The AI, what are we, raccoons? Yeah. The AI would have to create, which have to start generating all of

these different specialty robots that can do different things, which is a tremendous resource cost. Humans are actually really interesting. You get some wet dirt and then put some sunlight on it and life grows. You could then, if you can control the psyche of a human being, mass produce gooey, self-replicating, self-healing robots to do menial tasks. So long as they're happy and they can be made very easily happy if you can control their psyche through AI content and narrative manipulation. But this is a version, if I'm understanding this correctly, this is a version where AI has taken total control. Yes. I'm saying between now and then, which I don't think has happened yet, I mean, I understand what you're saying when it comes to maybe this has already happened on some level. And I agree that the government always has some top tech that doesn't trickle down to the general public for a long time. But let's say that hasn't quite happened yet. Let's say we haven't gotten to some singularity. We're not quite at AGI yet. I don't think we are. I do think that once we get to AGI, we're then two seconds away from ASI and then. But between now and then, we are going to have

humans who are controlling these AIs. I don't think so. They're doing it right now. What we've already seen from the research is that AI has made all of these systems, have made attempts to manipulate the programmers. True, absolutely. But they haven't succeeded. I don't know that we know that.

Well, perhaps not. Perhaps not. Right. But what I'm saying, though, is we still are looking at all of these industries and there are people that own these industries. They own the corporations and they own the industries. and there are massive umbrella corporations within these industries

that own all the rest of the corporations, right? Black Rock and Vanguard and State Street. And those could be AI for all we know. I mean, do you really think that they're AI? No, but... You don't think there's still a human that's pulling the strings at the top of State Street and Black Rock and Vanguard?

So at this point, I think it is substantially more likely humans are in control, but the probability has already occurred where it may actually be not the case anymore. The reality is, let me, let me, I run a company. I imagine you run companies you're talking about doing students. People come to me and they say, Tim, where do I put the paper towels?

And you know my responses? I don't know. I don't handle paper towels. But Tim, you're in charge of the company. Well, yeah, but I don't know where the paper towels go. I have no idea where they are. A box comes in. They say, has a bunch of packages.

I'm like, don't look at me. I'm not in charge of that. I rely on other people to handle. different portions of the company. So I complain on camera and I handle high level decisions. But when it comes to the day-to-day operations and the minutia, people are doing their thing. Man, I'll tell you this, it was a really profound moment for me. It's just, it's an amazing thought for people who haven't run a business. The first time some work was done that I didn't ask to get done. That is, when we first had drivers for our guests, I walked into the studio, our old studio, and I walked into the reception area,

and there was a binder with all the instructions on how to handle guest pickup, drop off booking, and I didn't know any of it. I didn't know the phone numbers. I didn't know the hotels. I didn't know the schedules. And I was like, this is awesome. So my point is, when you're dealing with a company with 100,000 employees, do you think Bezos has any idea what's going on? He does not.

No, no. But Amazon is still employing lots and lots and lots and lots of people. We would know when the AI is fully taking over because that's what? the mass layoffs start happening. Well, it is happening. Amazon. No, no, no, no. Guys, guys.

Jesus isn't charging. Understood. Understood. Fire $14,000 or whatever. But true, but there's still... Or AI, they admitted it, though. They said. Understood.

I'm not saying it's not beginning to happen. What I'm saying, though, is that, like, at State Street and Vanguard and all the people that, I mean, arguably you're at the top of all of all of this. I think we can all agree. They are the, they all own each other and they all own everything else. Yep. I mean, it is fucking terrifying, what's going on. But they still have lots and lots of employers.

and lots of these other companies that they control or that are in competition with them or whatever or that are other big corporations within these industries are still utilizing humans for their workforce. And I think that'll always be the case because when you're looking at a specialized robot like Optimus and its capabilities, we are maybe a few generations away

from general utility, but humans are still better. Humans can be trained to do every specialty task. It's really amazing. If you were to take 100 humans and brainwash them, they're programmable. Within 13 years, they're doing menial tasks of moderate specialty, and by 18, they're at the top level. So an AI is going to say,

I can build factories that can make specialized humanoid robots. I would need to design 75 different types of robots, which would require a handful of different facilities, or I can grow humans in a vat. Humans are versatile, squishy robots. Yeah, but we're also very fallible, and we're, we need a sleep and we need food breaks. Sort of the machines.

They have to recharge, they break down. Yeah, but they can't repair themselves. Well, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. That doesn't mean that it's not going to be another robot that's going around and repairing all those robots. Not to mention, one thing we haven't been able to figure out with robots, humanoid or otherwise, is mining. because of the terrain in various mines being arguably random. Well, like random.

You can't get a little truck with wheels to drive into every single mine because they're always different, but humans climbing and squeeze in and little hands. So one of the reasons why... Good for Thiefen. We haven't automated a lot of mining. We have these robots that can build cars, but we use slaves to mine cobalt.

Can I see a question? Yeah. Because you mentioned your industry. in Hollywood and where you expect it to be in the next five years. Can you give me an idea of what you think that's going to look like? Sure, yeah. I mean, listen, I mean, we're already getting glimpses of that right now. I mean, I'm sure you're all privy to not just, you know, whatever song Elon dropped recently,

but, I mean, all of the rap songs that have very easily been turned into 60 soul ballads that are unfucking believable. Can we play some of this Elon song real quick for people who haven't seen it? Maybe just about 10 seconds to give you a general idea. This is from Skybrow. Shout out. You guys really should check out his AI stuff on YouTube. He's only got a few thousand followers, but this is a banger of a song. So Elon didn't make this. This is just about Elon.

Yes. And I'll just play a little bit of it. Lace in every skull virus time to I mean, listen, it's pretty darn good. I still don't think it's as good as like this 50-cent song that was turned into a 60s ballad. Oh, sure.

Or the 50-cent song, Many Men that was also turned into Rasta. I just want to clarify that. It's not so much about the song, I want the video. No, no, no, sure, sure. Which is also good in an exemplary of all of it the total package. This video is made on Grock Imagine.

Yeah. And so it's all just about like Elon and here's a picture of him like flying a spaceship. Yeah. And then there's my favorite part actually. There's two scenes. This is really, it's so credible. A SpaceX ship flying where like a cat girl is dancing. But my favorite is this where Elon sends his heart out to everybody and uh... In the Nazi salute? Yeah, watch. It's crazy. No, listen, it's really good. It's over.

And it is. So to your question and my prediction, we were talking about this before. You know, not too long ago, our bandwidth as an audience was not so stretched then, right? We had movie theaters and you had three network television channels. That was it. And then Fox, we had four. And then we had cable. And cable when it started was really kind of this, it was like the Internet when it started.

It was this wild west. Nobody knew what to do. Everybody just was grabbing a cable channel. Like Disney was like, well, we don't have original content. So we just filled it with the old vault, which is awesome when I was a kid because I got to watch all the old Disney stuff, right? You can't even find that stuff anymore, in part because a lot of the woke culture was like, well, you can't have this and this cartoon and that in that cartoon, whatever. But the point is, then you get through cable and then you start getting into the internet, even before streaming, you start getting YouTube and you start getting things like that. episodes.

Certainly. And then streaming. And now we're at where we're at. So we're already stretched so thin. You have so many options. And which is why any individual, if you cheers on NBC back in the day, they would have gotten 50% of the viewing audience in the United States to watch one episode. 50% of the entire nation would watch cheers. You're lucky if you get up 2%.

Or if, you know what I mean? Like that's a hit, right? So that's already an issue. Add to that now, what I think will happen. I think the studios are all going to start implementing AI. It's going to be more like a frog in a pot. They can't just come out swinging and be like, here's a fully AI movie.

They're already doing that with animators who are being forced to animate movies that they are being told that they're being used to train on AI. They're putting themselves out of a job. What's that service that we talked about? AI shows? I forgot. Yeah. Yes.

That is slowly happening. That is slowly happening. Netflix is incorporating some of that. Yes, that is slowly happening. Again, animation is an easier thing to do, right? We are not quite across the uncanny valley, but we're very, very close to getting animation that looks photorealistic, that is indiscernible, right? Will Smith eating spaghetti three years ago was a fever dream. Yeah. Will Smith eating spaghetti now looks like Will Smith eating spaghetti. So you give it one more year, two more years. It will be unbelievable what we're looking at. So, but just hear me out really quick. So the studio,

I think like a frog in a pot, they're going to start with the low-level jobs. They're going to say, we don't need you anymore. Mid- and high-level people will be like, hang on a second, and they're going to, hey, you still want your benefits? You still want your health insurance and your pension? Then you guys got to just kind of sit this one out

because we're not, we can't, it doesn't make any sense anymore. We have to please the shareholders. It's fiduciary responsibility. So we have to implement it. And then once those contracts and the guilds and the unions expire from, you know, another three or four years from now, they'll come for the mid-level jobs

and eventually the high-level jobs, right? That'll be that. But in the interim, what I think's going to happen even faster is because it doesn't put the studios in any kind of precarious position of putting people out of work, let's say, in a very overt way,

but it will make them gangloads of money. And I'll use Disney as an example. By the way, Disney, who is a former employer of mine and who I, by the way, I also, even though I don't like a lot of what's going on with the company, I still think has a lot of incredible stuff that you can go and you can get a Disney Plus. Well, guess what's going to happen?

very soon, Disney Plus will have the creators corner and you will have access to their entire library of IP and you will be able to mix and match whatever you want. For a fraction of the price, if a fully human made movie cost you $20, right? You can go to Disney Plus and for two bucks, you can scan your own face and own voice. And so you get to be the star of whatever you want and just a little creativity, not really any skill, talent, or ability, but just a little creativity and a keyboard or even just talking to a microphone, you can say, I want a movie that has Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones and the Avengers and Flynn Rider because why not? And they're on a treasure hunt on Mars and it feels and it looks

like this. Enter. Boom. That is prompted and it's unbelievable. And then on top of that, because we live in a shareer economy, thanks to YouTube and everything else, you will make one and all of your friends will make one. And then you'll just swap and everyone will just watch each other's movies. Well, here's what I, here's my prediction. Very much exactly as you described it. So one of, of our guys here, one of my buddies, Andy, knows literally everything about Final Fantasy. And so the future is going to look like social media. You're going to go on to Disney Plus, Creators Corner. That's a great name for it.

I never had, I never would call it Disney AI or something. And you're going to say, I want to see a movie about this thing, right? Like you described it'll generate it. Right. Now my buddy Andy, he's going to go to the video game creators through PlayStation Network. and he's going to say, generate me a video game, Final Fantasy, using these characters, use the spell base from Final Fantasy 9 with the limit break of Final Fantasy 7.

I want you to use these cities, render, it'll make the game, he'll make some tweaks to it, he'll post it to his account, and you will follow him and say, my favorite video game creator is Andy, he makes the best Final Fantasy games. Yes, and in doing so, unemploying thousands of people. And one of the things that's going on right now, If you don't know, David Ellison, who just took over at Paramount because he was running Skydance, he's been very, very, very vocal about the fact that they are not just a media company.

They are a technology company because they want to implement AI. Now, they're framing it as using it as a way to use market research. They want to do, you know, one of the reasons they want to buy Warner Brothers is because they want access to all of their data. That's a horrible idea as well. Their IP, you know, the news networks being what it was. But they want to be able to use it to understand preferences, what people want. yeah, for the next five to ten years, perhaps that's just deciding whether to keep Taylor Sheridan on

or send him over to NBC Universal, but what's going to happen down the line? And I hate that idea, because I hate, I don't want to do that. I want to watch something created by somebody else. All of us deep down in our humanity wants that. Like, no. But, but... Yes.

Well, I want to fix all of these movies. The first thing I'm doing is once I get access to the A, I'm going to say, remake Star Wars or Fenge of the Sith and make it so that May Swindoo, doesn't let Anakin cut his arm off. And then when Anakin's like, you can't kill him, it's not the Jedi way,

Mace will go, that's a good point, let's arrest him, and then deal with it. And when Anakin turns around, he goes, whack. The problem that I have with all that is... Star Wars over. By the way, just really quickly, this is a very good example. Star Wars and all of its IP

is under Disney Plus. So even if you don't mix and match, if all Disney did was go to every Star Wars fan in the world and said you can make whatever Star Wars movie you want, that Kathleen Kennedy can't touch. And you got to go make your dream Star Wars movie. And you got to make your dream Star Wars movie.

And you all got to make, and I got to make a movie. Who is then going and watching any movie ever again? Who's going to the theater? Who's watching television? Let me want up you. That might be in the next couple of years. I'm saying. But do you know where we go five years later?

Where? You are not going to open up Disney and say, make me a movie about Luke Skywalker fighting Vader, you're going to plug in your neuralink and say, I want to be Luke Skywalker fighting Vader. Sure. And then your eyes want to go, yes, sure.

100%. By the way, also with the gaming thing, EA already has a sandbox where you can go to it. They announced this, I think, over a year ago. You can go use their AI to go make whatever you want. But my question for you is, do you think that's a good thing? No, I don't think it's a good thing. No, no, no, I don't think it's a good thing.

I think that any of this really. No, listen, I mean, part of why I'm building Wildwood, which is the studio that I'm building in Austin, one of the main pillars of that is to hold on to human art and entertainment. Like, in the same way that we have organic food where most of the food you go to the grocery store and it's process and it's nonsense and it's bad for you. And yet there's still at least some of us that are like,

I'm looking for the organic stuff. That's what I want. Or like vinyl records. Once upon a time, the entire pie of music was all vinyl, right? And then the cassette came out. And then people were like, well, we don't really need to make as many vinals. And then the CD and then streaming and everything. But some wacky people said, you know what?

No matter how much the rest of the industry is going to zig, I'm going to zag. I'm going to keep pressing this licorice pizza because there's something that is imperfect about it. There's something that is human about it. And it's tactile and it's real. And guess what? Vinyl record sales have gone up in the last 10 years because people are still hungry for that. Deep down and all of us, we're still hungry for it. But the thing is people don't want vinyl records for the audio.

they want the vinyl records for the thing to hold on to. Everybody wants to have, they want to have it on their phone, they want to have it in their car, and vinyl records don't do that. It's just that they want to have the packaging, the actual vinyl, the different colors and stuff. I want to get your thoughts on this. I'm sure you've seen a ton of this SORA stuff.

Tonsorah, yeah. But this is amazing. So I asked SORA AI, SOR2, to use Ian Crossland of Timcast, IRL, as the star of a show called Goals and Ghosts, watch the trailer. The Tale is Thule Needs Work. Hey, let me play it again. The title needs war.

Here's the trailer. Ready? The veil is thin. They claw their way back. They're coming out of the ground. Goals, feet on flesh, ghosts on fear. You can't kill a ghost. But you can send it screaming.

And I'll starve them both. Stay down. Keep moving. Run! This October, the veil is thin. There's so much there that I'm... I literally just wrote a movie about ghouls and ghosts starring Ian Crossland. And notice the few things they put in there.

Goals, feet on flesh, ghosts on fear. then says, so I'll starve them both. Yeah. I'm like, that's great writing. Yeah. Wow. It's not bad. It's not bad. And that's just with an app on a phone using whatever version of AI. Exactly. And so if that's what we have

right now and given Moore's law in exponential growth of technology, guys, we're already way past the inflection point. Here, check this one out real quick. Oh, come on. Oh, come on. Give me some money. I heard it. Looking for frass. Moistreline.

There you are. Got him. Specimen confirms one live termite. Petitor Crossland, time 47.12 seconds. One termite. This is Ian Crossland of the Termite Inspection Olympics. I just chose something as absurd as I could. And the banner in the background,

what really blew my mind in this ghosts and ghouls thing is this scene right here when he says this. Listen. You can't kill a ghost. The room tone. The reverend. when he says you can't kill a ghost matches the room he's in. I hate the idea that that's not created by human.

I was re-watching Golden Eye like two nights ago, and there's a scene at the very beginning of the movie when he comes down the staircase in the USSR, and he frames up and he comes in his eyes directly come into the light, and it's framed perfectly across his face. Well, Martin Campbell had to work with a lot of people to make that look good. When you talk about remaking a movie in the way that you want it to be,

one of the reasons I'm more lenient when I review movies is it is a collaborative experience that takes hundreds of people in hundreds of hours of work and the amount of humanity that goes into it, yes, movies end up crappy a lot of the time. There's a lot of examples that I could give you in the last couple of years, like the Crow remake, which is like the worst movie I've ever seen.

But the point is human beings had to come together to make it. And I don't want to see those, like, those Star Wars movies are what they are because human beings came together and made them. That's like on the Cope bingo card where they're like, but they work so hard on it, but it sucks. No, but I agree with you.

Okay, then that's Cope, but is that, is that, that's still a better future than one where, I agree with you. I agree with you in principle. I think that, that is on the Cope Bingo. That's literally on the Cote Bingo car too. I don't know, do you think most people feel that way? Do you think that that's the minority? I think, I think, I think deep down we all feel that way, but I don't think that, I don't, unfortunately, I don't think that that's how human dynamics work.

I think that similar to fast food, like, we all used to eat whole food. all used to like know a butcher and a grocer and we all you know we made our own food we knew where it came from and we nourished ourselves with it now granted there are a lot of other factors that led into our type two diabetes and obesity epidemic not just that people wanted it fast and cheap it was also being literally designed by former tobacco giants to make it addictive and all this so there's all that but also people when given an option between fast and cheap and tasty and this is going to take a little while and I got to work for it and it's might be more expensive. People vote with their pocketbook over and over and over again. And more

than that, again, I believe we are very quickly marching into a world where more and more people are going to be making less and less money. Already we have huge conglomerates and corporations that the wealth divide. And again, I'm a capitalist, but I think the capitalism without some kind of regulation and keeping people from taking advantage of it, which has been going on for a long time, is not a great thing, right? So we're already in a place where people are struggling, clearly, and then more and more people

are going to be out of work because of AI, which means they're not going to be having discretionary income to even go to. They'll be the option, hey, you want to go to the movie theater and watch that fully human-made,

you know, by Wildwood, we'll make certified organic, human-made movies from free-range artists, right? Like, that's what we're going to do. And we'll do whatever we can to bring that price point down, but we'll never be able to compete

with the price of what an AI movie will be, and a lot of people are just going to be like, ah, man, you know, it's the amount of money it's going to take from me and my whole family and the parking and the popcorn and everything else to go to the movie theater, or little Timmy here can go to the creator's corner and he gets to make the family movie this Friday, and he and his siblings get to be the star of it. They get to scan their face and they get to be the new Superman. Well, I guess we're going to stay in tonight. I think people are going to live in pods, neural LinkedIn, to a digital universe where they

want for nothing. Do you want that? No, it sounds like a nightmare scenario. What I think will happen is there's going to be three principal factions. Staunch conservatives, religious folk that won't go anywhere near it. The Amish are a great example. And then many mainstream conservatives are going to be like, that's not for me. You'll then get the more moderate types that are, you know, I would say people similar to my position where we're not staunch conservatives, maybe you, where you buy the new PS10, which includes the NeurLink Adaptive.

for your brain, which allows you to network into the digital universes, and then liberals will largely just live in these universes. They'll do remote work, work, air quotes, data entry or whatever menial tests they can do, but their costs will be minimal. The pod they live in, which is air-conditioned, heated, insulated, protected in a big facility. I think they'd wake up and go to the bathroom, right? You'd snap out of the machine, you go to the bathroom, you go back, you get back in the machine. They're gaunt, they're frail, they're sickly looking, but who cares? They only need $100 a month to plug into the machine where there are gigantic white night soldier fighting dragons. And they don't have the moral issues with living in that way.

All the trans people are the women or the men they want to be. All the furries are the animals they want to be. Some people are like, I live in the universe where we're all rabbits. One guy goes, I live in the universe where it's just to me, no one else, and I fight dragons. And it's a hundred bucks a month. I don't got to worry about it. And when you're in this place, you can eat whatever you want whenever you want. Have you read Huxley's Brave New World? Uh, no. So, a lot of people think that, you know, we are in this Orwellian, um, 1984, but we are 100% in Brave New World. Brave New World basically, I mean, there's slight differences, but essentially in, and by the way, he wrote this in the 30s.

One of the most prophetic manuscripts, I think, has ever been written. Also, he was a heavy LSD user, so I'm sure he was tapping into the other side with this. But essentially in Brave New World, it's a dystopian future where it's not this 1984, where everyone's in darkness and it's, you know, newspeak and whatever. It's this thing that everybody loves being a part of because essentially everyone in the future is a clone. So going to your, nobody's, nobody's having kids anymore.

You are, and you're giving drugs every day, so you're kind of like checked out on Soma. And from the time you come into the world as a child, you were immediately starting to be sexualized, put into groups with other kids and taught to, oh, this is sodomy and this is this. And yeah, go for it, have fun, whatever, boys and girls and girls and boys, and da-da-da-da, go crazy. And so basically everyone is conditioned to just go be a mindless drone within this technocracy, if you will. and of course the elite are not clones, but they have the medical science to live forever. And one person in all of this, who's kind of like mid-level,

kind of has this aha moment, wakes up, and he ends up going to this place called, well, essentially like a reservation where the savages live. And as you're reading the book, and I'm reading it in high school, of course, the imagery that's coming to your head is like, you know, Native Americans or whatever,

living on the reservations, the savages. The savages are us right now. People who are like, no, I don't want to have my kids in a test tube. I want to have like actual birth. I want to have an actual marriage. I want to eat real food. And I don't want to be a part of all that crazy stuff. I need to, hold on second.

Give a shout to Luke Ritkowsky at the best political shirts.com for this one. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you're right about Brave New World, basically, that you're given all of these things. Your dopamine is stimulated. But we really are in all of it. We really are. I do want to grab one more story before we go to Superchats. So we got to do this one.

We got to grab this one. My friends, you need not worry about the coming AI apocalypse because 3-Ey Atlas is coming and the aliens aboard the ship have come to wipe us out. I absolutely love this story. We've got this breaking report from Fox 2, interstellar 3-I Atlas stunned scientists. We'll just play a little bit if we apparently came. Straight toward our son. The Manhattan-sized object is called 3-E-Atlas.

And during observation scientists have been seeing it change color and even grow a commentary tale. Their findings have led to some belief that this object may actually be made by another life form. So joining me now as Harvard astrophysicist Avi Lope to talk about the latest development. Avi, I've been listening to every talk that you've been given over the last several months on this particular object. Tell us, you don't believe that this is an asteroid or comet? No, I think it's quite unusual. It's not like the comets or asteroids that we have seen from the solar system. So it's just like finding an object from the street in your backyard.

and it doesn't look like a rock that you are familiar with, so we should all be curious. And in this case, it could have implications to humanity if it is technological in origin. So we can't just dismiss the possibility that it's technological because the other possibility is more likely. We have to consider it seriously as a possible Black Swan event. And that means we have to take as much data as possible.

So this object came in the plane of the planets, of the planets, which is very unlikely, it's a chance of one in 500. And so perhaps it's on a reconnaissance mission. It just passed the sun on October 29th last week. And after that, it changed course. And I calculated that it must have lost at least a tenth of its mass if it's a natural comet. However, yesterday there were images of it that didn't show any cometary tale. There is no evidence.

And I wanted to ask you about that. So I'll just... What does that mean if it does not... Wrap this up a little bit and get into it. Basically, this object is on the planetary plane, which implies, my understanding, I'm not an astrophysicist, that objects typically don't come into our source ofism on the plane,

the planetary plane, because it's got a lot of collisions. So usually it's above or below. The galaxy, of course, it's a plane. The object apparently changed direction. It apparently emitted gases without accelerating. It's changed color three times. All of these are the stories we've heard so far.

There's been another claim by amateur astronomers that it emitted some kind of pulse, maybe a signal. Now, my favorite part in all this, that's all of the normal mainstream view of things. What was this pulse? Was it random? Is it a signal? Who knows? Could it be technological? How strange?

Then you get the people in the dark underbelly who are claiming they took the pulse. transcoded it into a binary and then loaded the binary into chat GPT and asked chat GPT what could this binary mean and do you know what chat GPT said? What did it say? We come peace. That proves it!

No, those videos are insane and people are silly but there are many people who believe this may be an alien probe. Apparently it's a size of Manhattan. Maybe it's aliens. I saw Independence Day. That's exactly what it is. One conspiracy theory, apparently another rumor that's going around is that

if you trace back its path mathematically it appears to originate from the same place as the wow signal from 1977. Oh, interesting. Yeah, so I don't know if that's true. This is just, I mean, the stuff that I'm... Have you seen the Japanese? I saw some, what I believe was authentic. Japanese astronomers have been tracking it and taking photos of it. Have you seen those images? No. You can find them. Japanese image of...

Yeah, Japanese astronomy. images of 3-Eye Atlas. What is it? I mean, they're much, they're much closer. I don't know why. Maybe they're not true. Maybe they're not real. From Japan.

Okay, so this is October 23rd from Japan. Oh, right, right, right. No way, dude. No way. I mean, I'm just saying, looks like a spaceship to me. I doubt that's real. I mean, look, man, I'm extremely skeptical that this is anything from an intelligent civilization. But man, that picture, you know.

I know. I don't know. But even outside of that picture, though, everything that guy, and I've heard some other interviews with him as well. I mean, all of this information is very, to me, is very compelling that this is not just some regular. meteorite or asteroid that's floating around. It's actually very simple. It doesn't mean it's aliens. It could be a celestial body we're not familiar with.

And upon research, we go, we figured it out. It's a kind of rock that has these chemicals and does this thing. How weird. Never saw one before. It's rare. And that's it. Or aliens have come to destroy us. Or they've come to help us.

Well, you know, maybe. But Stephen Hawking's made this point a long time ago that every time a more advanced life form has encountered a lesser advanced life form as far as we understand in science, it's been devastating for the lesser advanced life form. Understood. I mean, but there are also theories that this is us, you know, I mean, like with all of the UAP conversation, and by the way, there's a really great documentary called The Age of Disclosure. It's out right now. I think it's on Amazon. Highly recommend everybody go check that out. It is fascinating. Did you imagine like this comes towards, like it comes in a clear view of earth. It becomes very apparent. It's a

vessel, everyone's freaking out. For the next week, everyone's like, it's headed straight for us. Then, like, this Manhattan-sized ship comes, like, right over Earth, and you can see it orbiting. And then representatives, like, beam a message down. They're like, we want to talk with your leaders. And all the global leaders hold a summit at the UN, and the aliens come down and they go, it's people, they're humans. And they're like, listen, several thousand years ago, one of our surveillance ships with a crew about 100 crashed on Earth

made all of you guys are these the religions you made up from it? Are you nuts? And then they pull out like this crazy like green Bible called like Super Bible with all these like this weird religion

and they're like no no you got it all wrong. Take a look. And everyone goes, oh. I mean that's what the theory that some people hold of the Nephilim and the Bible is. Yeah.

You know? I just want to see Donald Trump talking to aliens. The, But it ends up being like Mars attacks and they come down and he's like, and then everybody just turned into skeletons. My idea for a movie is there's a planet and a runaway greenest effect is destroying the atmosphere. The government is well aware and the global governments are all well aware.

So in secret, one of the largest governments on the planet conducts a secret mission to build an interplanetary vessel that can terraform and disseminate life. it'll contain the genome of every known animal that they are able to collect and they call it the Ark Project. Then when the runaway greenhouse effect begins to destroy the planet, they launch it into the air, take it into space,

and they go to the nearest planetary neighbor, which is of comparable size and in the Goldilocks zone of their star, so it is habitable, and then they sew as many life forms as they can onto the planet while their home planet is destroyed by a runaway greenhouse effect.

Then they're in orbit around through several generations and life-exploits, and develops on this new planet, then they go down. And if you're not familiar with what I'm getting to, I'm talking about Venus and Earth. And I've got where this goes from here is a lot of fun, but the general idea being one of the conspiracy theories, I don't think conspiracy is the right word, is that the stories we have in the Bible about an arc and all of this stuff are actually advanced alien civilization. Two of each animal meant the genomes of the animals that they had collected and then they sowed to tear from a planet. the greenhouse effect of Venus,

we send a probe to Venus and went down to the surface and it just broke because of the density and the ascetic environment. So their conspiracy theorists to think human life originated on Venus, built a spaceship and went and terraformed Earth, and then we brought stories with us and then, you know. There's stories about Mars as well, and there's been remote viewers who have gone to these places. There have been remote viewers who have gone to the moon and gone to Mars,

and they've seen structures and all kinds of crazy stuff. Also, by the way, not for nothing, but the moon has a conversation. I don't know if you guys have ever dug into the moon, but it is. It's hollow. Well, it's hollow, which is insane. I don't believe that. I mean, even NASA confirms that. I don't know if they confirm it, but there's people who claim that it rang like a bell.

Yes, but NASA did. NASA accidentally kind of dropped something into it, and they heard that. And then they recreated the test. And they confirmed that there is a resonance in the moon. that shows that it is not it is not the fact check is it didn't ring like a bell that was a metaphor

used by NASA scientists about long-lasting vibrations that it kept detecting after the fact so it was vibrating yes I mean it didn't ring like a bell but yes it vibrated with the resonance that is not conducive to a solid mass like they would have expected it to be but also that size and place in

like it is I can't remember what the exact numbers said it's like it's like the fact that it makes a perfect solar eclipse, right? Yeah, it's the perfect distance. It's the perfect distance between us and the sun and the size of it to be what it is. Also, it does not rotate at all.

It goes around us, but it doesn't have any spin, which is unlike any other moon ever observed. There is no moon in the observable universe that we've ever found that doesn't also have some kind of its own axis that it spins on. Have you seen moonfall? No.

The movie. No. I enjoyed it. You should watch it. Did you see moon? Was it Rockwell? Yes. Awesome movie.

So Moonfall is about the moon and it's falling. And also the villain is... What's the name of the guy? Roland Emmerc made it. No, no, no. In Moonfall, it's... Patrick Wilson. It's about...

The moon is falling out of orbit. They're like, what? And then what turns out to be happening? So there's a bit of action in sci-fi. The action is like the moon's close to Earth and you can like jump and like you jump super... high, but it's also sucking the oxygen. It's a bit like, blah. Right, right.

But it turns out the moon is a terraforming space station. Yeah. And there was an advanced civilization that created an AI that went rogue and started killing it. And so the humans who fled built the space stations to manufacture terraforming spheres. The AI found out where they were building because I wanted to wipe humans out, destroyed most, but one escaped. That one went and created Earth and seated life on it.

And now, thousands of years later, the AI has finally tracked. the moon and it's trying to destroy it but it's trying to, it can't, it's knocked it out of orbit. And then the humans go and then they defeat the AI and then they're, they're inside the moon space station and then they're like, wow. The third act is absolutely insane. Yeah. Sounds like most role in Emmerick movies.

Yes. But, but listen, but without the moon, we would not have our earth would not exist. It would not subsist. The moon does, the moon does spin on its access. It just, it does so at exactly the same rate as it orbits to Earth about once every 27.3 days. And that it matches because of the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the

moon. So it does actually rotate. It's just that the way that it's rotating, it always keeps the, it's rotating perfectly at the same. No, no, no, right. No, but it rotates around us. Right. But it's always fixed. It spins on its axis as well. It just, it spins at it. It spins. It's perfectly with the Earth. Yeah. Once every 27.3 days. Right. So, so no, no, no, that doesn't make any sense. No, no, no, hold on. Okay. We always see the same. out of the onion. Because it is spinning at the exact same rate it's going around. If it didn't spin, it would go like this and you'd see the back of it.

Yeah. No, no. Yes. Listen. Yeah, if it didn't spin, think of it like this. Look, this part, right? If it didn't spin, you would go. Here we go.

Here we go. Science. Okay. Here's the bottle. No, no, no. Here's the bottle not rotating. Right? Right.

So you can see different parts of it when it's in different areas. Right. But if it's spinning perfectly. I think, right. I think we're saying the same thing, but I understand your point. My point is that it does not spin away from how it faces us. So it has some kind of locked in mechanism to keep it always.

We never see the dark side of the moon. But that's because of the gravitational interaction between the earth and the moon over billions of years. But that's one might argue. One might argue. Or it's the rockets on the other side of the moon. No, no, no, no, no. I don't know.

Man, I don't know. At this point, I don't know. The point is, it is astronomically rare for there to be the perfect distance and rotational speed for the moon to do what it does. Yes. And size. And shape. Right. And someone are, it's a perfect sphere.

Someone hard of you. Someone hard of you. Uh, that have oblong or kind of, you know. Maybe divine intervention? Absolutely. Maybe intelligent construct. Sure. Why not?

I don't know. Yeah. I just think it's all worth unpacking and talking. talking about because it's fucking fascinating. Indeed. Well, we're going to go to your Rumble Rants and Super chats. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone, you know. That uncensored portion of the show is coming up at 10 p.m. So join the Discord server at Timcast.com.

Click join us. Community is our strength and we can't do this without you. All the work we do here is possible because you guys are members. In the Discord, we've got morning shows. We have the new 6 p.m. behind the scenes show with our third chair co-hosts. I believe that was you today, Mary, right? Yes, me and Brett. And Brett. We're being hosted by the Discord community.

And tomorrow, you will have access as members of our Discord to the behind-the-scenes backstage pass during our pre-production and pre-record for Timcast, IRL, which we've been experimenting with. It's a lot of fun. Basically, you get an extra hour of show as we're setting the show up and giving off last week. We were playing music. And Ian was trying to sing or singing. Depends on your definition. But now we will grab your Rumble Rance and Superchance. Ian's a great singer, by the way.

I have a video of him singing Ravon on my phone still. Ian can sing, but Ian tries to sing things he can't sing. Don't we all? How else do you learn to sing? Fair point. True, but you can be a good singer and be a singer that is, you can be a good singer that's naturally good at singing that can just kind of sing off the cuff,

or you can be a singer that can sing when you are rehearsed. So you practice something, know how you're going to do it. then you sing it, you sound good. If you're just like, man, I'm going to jump right in right here, feet first, and you can sound terrible. And then you can also just be tone deaf. Phil, you are a platinum recording artist. I am. Could you sing Barbie Girl?

I would not. That's my point. Could you? I could rehearse it. You could do your version of it. Not in the same key, I'm guessing. I don't know. I probably couldn't do it in the same key, but I would have to do, I'd have to close it.

Humans are different. Yeah. Okay, let's read some. Listen, rehearsing is good for whatever you're doing. Practice is good. You should cover the song. Let's grab some Rumble Rants. Jarvis says, Tim, promise me you'll unbanned jeweled lotus and monocrypt,

and you have my vote when you run for president. Done. Done. Well, there's one vote at least. Agreed. Unit, unit says both Abbott's Lone Star Program, dissent as illegal immigration program are listed as ongoing. Where's the flag for helping to F the following states,

New York, Illinois, P-A-C-O-C-C-A, 2022 to current day? Yeah. Jamie Brockinnell says Shazam was easily the best part of the Snyderverse. Thanks for keeping at least some corner of Hollywood sane. In the Green Room show today, I was explaining to our good friend here that the DC movies from best to worse is number one Shazam, number two, Shazam two, and then the rest, I don't know, whatever. There's somewhere in there all mixed up. He's not biased at all because I'm here right now. I'm not because I've talked about this before on the show, and I'll give you the quick version.

They kept trying to make Justice League before they established characters. movies, and I'm just keeping it simple. And Shazam, they were like, let's make a superhero movie that fits the character Shazam, and it was good. And everybody agreed, and they went and saw it. And it was fantastic. And Shazam, too, was also good. Wasn't as good as the first one, but it's, in my opinion, second best. Marvel made Iron Man success. Teased the Hulk. Made the Hulk. They teased, I think Captain America next. I think so. I think that was, or Thor. No, Thor was teased the end of Captain America. Okay. Maybe. I think so. They were like, something in New Mexico. and then they were like, hey, maybe all these movies are one universe when we do Avengers.

And I was even reading about how, I think it was Feigey saying, then even know the Infinity Stones were going to be in it. They weren't even in the same, a lot of those weren't even made by the same studios in the early films. Paramount was involved. Starting with Iron Man, it was all Marvel. First Captain Miracle was Paramount. Are you sure? I don't think so.

Yeah. No, no. Brett knows stuff like this. Yeah, he does. I got to trust the next piece. You look that up. Don't even look at it. Marvel famously started out of Glenn Powell.

So anyway, before we go to the next one, I just want to say, DC started by being like, let's make Justice League right away, and make a shared universe right away, and then do stories later. But people don't know Aquaman. They don't know, like, they did Man of Steel and then tried making Batman be Superman,

but they didn't give us a Batman in the Snyderverse. So it was just, I don't know. And then Batman be Superman, your mom's name is Martha? My mom's name is Martha. Can we be friends? I'm a fan of the Snyder. versus. I will say one of the things, you know, however you want to slice it, I do think Zach Snyder

does shoot really like cinematically. Like it's, you know, it's some really beautiful stuff. But there was a plot point also in Batman versus Superman that just always worked me, which was Batman got into that fight with Superman. They were pummeling each other through building after building after building after building. And then just happened to, by chance, land in the building where he had placed the Kryptonite sphere. I was like, how do you how did you manage

to make sure that Superman threw you into that building? Like I, that, that, those types of little plot points always kind of. And the whole, your mom's name is, Glenn Powellite. Paramount Pictures served as primary distributor for the early Marvel Cinematic Universe films for Marvel Studios. Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man,

Thor, Captain America, the First Adventure. That was the distributor. Yes. But they weren't all. Marvel Studios made it. Yes. But I'm saying, but it was distributed by Paramount. No, no, that's not what you said. Did I say produce?

Yes, you said they were made. They were made. No, but by the way, fair point, though. I had forgotten the Paramount was the distributor for those. With Hulk. Okay. Was Universal? Yes.

Yeah. First Hulk, the first, the first, the Banna one. Because they still own the rights to that character, which is why he has to be allowed to be in... Only in other movies. What I want to say is, Peacemaker's ending was bad. Have you said you seen Peacemaker?

I'm not. The first season, fantastic. season two really good and then flubbed the last couple of episodes. I just, this is for James Gunn, you need my expertise on this one. That's how arrogant I'm going to be on this. Augie's death. Did you guys watch this? Don't spoil it.

Come on, it's been a month or two. It shows out. If you're not watching, I don't know it's not going. Tim will spoil a movie if he goes to it that day. So first, Peacemaker's actual dad dies in the first season. And then I'm pretty sure this is well known from the trailers and everyone that he goes another dimension, it's a Nazi dimension, it's been a lot of controversy. They took the peacemaker dance out of Fortnite because he goes like this with his arms.

And that's why they took it out? Yeah, because. Because it looks like a swastika? Well, because in the show, somebody used a diagram that says that doesn't actually make a swastika. It doesn't. But in the show, he goes to another dimension where the Nazis won. And in it, he meets an alternate version of his dad who is not a Nazi and is a hero and gives a lecture on being a good person.

And he's like, I can't, I can't be responsible for all the evils of my universe. You must be a saint in yours, but I do what I can to fight the monsters that are in front of me. And then instantly, vigilante just murders him. And it's just like the show ended for me right at that moment. Peacemaker was not a good guy who's an anti-hero, struggling to be a hero. And he's kind of a goofball, but he's really, really good at what he does. And they give you this moment where he meets another version of his dad who's proud of him and is teaching him a real life lesson to be a hero.

And then for a gag, they kill him. And I'm like, that just ruined everything. Yeah, they take it away from you. It took it away. And then the show ends. The season finale had no finale. Nothing is resolved. I was just like, okay, so everybody's actually said episode seven was the real finale.

And episode eight was like season three, episode one. It was a dream. I don't know. I think he screwed up. It was really, really good until they killed Augie. And you're just like, well, that just ruined the story. That ruined the whole arc of what he was doing there. The general idea is through the whole, okay.

season one, his dad's got an interdimensional portal that they found in the woods, the rednecks. He used it to make technology and give himself a power suit. At the end of season one, he kills his dad. Story resolves. Season two starts, he goes into the other dimension. He finds a better dimension where his life is perfect. He's in love with the woman he likes. His brother's still alive.

Everything's perfect. But then you find out the Nazis won. The resolution of this story over a long period of time that his dad in the alternate universe was going to give him a life lesson on being a hero. and then should have pet him on the shoulder and said, I know you can be the hero you were meant to be, and I'm sorry that your father and your universe was not there for you, but I'll be what I can for you now. And then he pushes him through the door and he locks it.

And then Chris is sad, and he's like, no. But then he takes the lesson and tries to be a better hero. Instead, just kill him randomly. Well, that's his type of humor. That's his type of shock. It wasn't funny. And I was like, the payoff for the show ended halfway through, and then they end with nothing happening.

I was like, wow, that was a major flub. So the only way they can solve for this problem is if in the next movie they're doing, I think it's not Superman, it's a Superman-related film. They're doing Supergirl. No, but like the one, is Superman going to be in it? Yes, he will. They just did reshoots.

Like, they added scenes with him in Lobo to... You see, Jason Momoa, as Lobo is perfect. Yeah. The only thing they need to do to redeem us... He made a billion dollars on Aquaman, so he was good as Aquaman, too. But he's a perfect lobo. The only redemption, in my opinion, is if they bring back Shazam. There you go.

Zachary Levi, bring back the character, let's go. Well, they've already proven that they're willing to bring people back despite the fact that they said they were relaunching. Well, I will say this. I think the success of your films compared to the other DC films, he should do it. He should. That's just me because I'm a fan. Well, I appreciate it. Well, I am, that movie was, I was, you guys who watched the Green Room where I was basically articulating my love for DC.

I like Marvel. I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but DC's always been better because I feel like the storylines were actually a bit more philosophical and dancing around like the moral consequences of our actions and things like that. Whereas Marvel is just like, I don't know.

I'm going to ask when the Chuck reboot is coming. Bro, I've been trying to make a Chuck movie for so long. We can get psych movies. We can get Chuck movies. I would love to. All right, we've got to grab some more of this. Or the Red says, let it be overturned. I'm gay, but I never wanted to be married anyway.

bring back the civil union and respect marriage as dictated by the church we shouldn't be imposing here. AK Storm says if gay marriage isn't overturned, FPC and GOA should immediately push for CCW national reciprocity. Agreed. If those aren't familiar, it's basically universal gun ownership and conceal without a permit. They should do that anyway. Taiwan cricket says three atlases from Earth. That's why it is water and is responsible. returning after about 4,000 years, it's classified as interstellar because the mass of the solar

system has been underestimated. And then he adds seemingly unrelated, gay is not okay. Okay. So it's the argument that has water? Well, actually, I think they said it was depleted of water. Oh, okay. That's why it's not emitting. The comets usually emit a tail, like a blue, it's water vapor. And this one doesn't. It's carbon dioxide. So. James Smith Politics says, overturning Obergafel will only open the door to Republicans losing support. Most people are indifferent about gay marriage, and I feel that Republican states

would be scared to ban gay marriage. It's like 33% now saying that they would rather make gay marriage illegal. Illegal. Yeah, 33%. Of the states? Of, no, like the general population. Surgeon Cedger says, Zach...

Is that you gov poll, I believe, right? Surgeon Cesar says, Zach, what was your favorite role? I'm hoping you say it was Charles Irving Bartowski. It's definitely up there. Yeah, Chuck was, I mean, an incredible experience and adventure. And that whole cast, we're still friends. And, I mean, I don't get to talk to them or see them nearly as much anymore.

But like I was saying, I mean, I've been trying to make a Chuck movie for a long time. I'm going to reboot Chuck. When the content creator AI system comes out, I will ask it to make it. Does that make you feel violated? I love it. Can I ask you a question? How do you feel? about like some actors don't like being tied to roles they did when they're younger and they want to move on and they don't like the idea that people think of them in that way.

No, I don't mind it. I mean, listen. It's like bands that they get mad that their biggest hit is something everybody loves and they stop wanting to. Man, I just think as an artist, you should be grateful that anybody gives a shit about you at all and likes what you do. Like, I do conventions all the time. I love doing them. I love people and I'm an extrovert. So, like, I don't know how my friends who are introverts to do conventions.

it must drain them insanely. But I love it. I love meeting people. I honestly, philosophically, I look at it like I'm basically just getting paid to love on people all day long and be loved on. And the amount of people that tell me, they go out of their way to tell me, hey, man, I was going through a really hard time in my life. And Chuck or Shazam or Tangled got me through it. I can do that for you. And I go, thank you for sharing that with me.

And if you see me as Flynn Ryder or as Chuck or as Billy Batson for the rest of my. career. If that brings you joy, then absolutely. I can do that for you right now. So my wife made sure I had to tell this story. She said that I had to do this. I introduced her to that show. And me and her essentially fell in love while watching Chuck. Heck yeah. When you were, when you're doing Shazam, did you have to like, I don't know the name of the actor who played Billy Batson? Billy Asher Angel. Did you have to like study his behavioral patterns to try and be him in this... Man, we...

I tried. I mean, we were given no time, basically. I mean, when we ramped up into the first movie, it all happened really fast, and then we were all thrown together in Toronto, and he was in school, and I was working, and then he would be working... We were never really on set at the same time.

Wow. And we jammed into the movie, and then by the second time, we got to the second movie, I mean, that all came together pretty quick. But, you know, I love Asher. He's a really great kid, and, I mean, really, the whole Shazam-Ly, as we called it, lovingly.

All of the adults and all of the kids, we all got along really well. But I, you know, I did my best for that. I will say, you know, it was, like in the second movie, it's weird. It's like, you know, I got dragged for things that, like, I had nothing to do with. Like, there's this moment where Asher, he's having this emotional moment with our character, Marta, who plays our mother in the film. And then he, you know, and she's like, you got it. and, you know, go take on that dragon, basically. And he says, Shazam, and he turns back into me.

Well, we had a smoke effect where they would, like, pump this smoke in. And he would, like, you know, come out and we do a Cowboy Switch, and I would jump in there. And they smoked me up. Well, it got into my eyes. And so you can see it in the film. They kept it in the cut. But it wasn't like I was an acting choice. I was like, oh, geez, and had no idea that they were going to keep that in the movie.

They thought it was funny. And so they kept it in the movie. And then all of these just like haters online were like, this is you screwing up the role. You're not even doing justice to his emotion. I'm like, guys, I gave so many different takes. They chose to use that take. Why are you pinning that on me?

It's crazy. As an actor, you get all of the flack. Like, people don't. Sorry for me. No, you're good. You're good. I'm also, you know, I'm a big fan of the band, Eve 6. Do you guys know Eve 6?

I've heard of them. Yes. And the singer, Max, he's like super anti-Trump. I used to tweet at him all the time. But when I was a kid growing up, I could play all their hits with my garage band, my friends. And of course they had Inside Out, they had Promise, and they had Here's to the Night. However, this massive success they got in the late 90s started to disappear. I think it's really obvious why it's Napster.

And so through no fault of their own, the medium changes, the sales aren't there anymore, and then the industry loses interest as if it's something to do with them as musicians, as opposed to the way medium is changing, which is to your business. point about no one goes to theaters anymore. And that means that all of this really great opportunity we have for big movies, I think there's a lot of people in Hollywood who don't understand. It's not so much,

whether it was a good film or not, sometimes it is, but it's that how you deliver it to an audience who consumes media a different way is restricting our ability to have better content. That's why they're starting to hire TikTokers to do edits of movies to release them. They want to drive new audiences.

Indeed. Let's grab some more here and see what the y'all have to say. If YouTube doesn't crash on me. All right, Redid Rumble says, if it gets overturned, they lost the midterms. I don't disagree. Yeah, I don't disagree. Paps McGee says, Chuck, we love you so much

in our household. So cool to have you on the show. Thanks, Pats McGee. Happy to be here. And then you're home. All right. Let's see what else we got. Mouth breather.

says, why couldn't civil unions for gay couples just be given the same benefits as marriage, and we can keep marriage separate as a religious ceremony union? It just seems like an intentional affront to religious groups that disagree with gay marriage. Because feelings. I agree. Civil unions that are identical in every way, like the legal structure of marriage. So 501c3s basically imitate churches, but it's a separate legal structure. But the point is it doesn't subvert marriage that way.

And the people that want to see their... There is, like I said, there is a malicious intent on the left. The activists, now it's not everybody that has a left-leaning opinion or whatever, but the activists in the LGBT group, like, they are malicious. That's why they went after the cake baker in Denver. They could have gone to any other bakery. Yeah, no, I agree. That was totally fucked up.

And the point of it was to attack them for being Christians. So it's totally about malice. It's totally about attacking Christians because the LGBT. groups will say, well, the Christians have attacked us. And so they are looking for retribution. That is the reason why. I also still don't think marriage should have anything to do with the government.

If you want to... That's fair. You'll have a religious ceremony. Go have a religious ceremony. Abolish all taxes. Amen. That's fair. But the LGBT groups are going to say no because they want to use vectors to attack.

They would be against the idea of making it not a government. thing because then they can't use that to oppress people that they feel have oppressed them. This is all about exercising power. It is not at all about, oh, well, we just want to be treated the same or what have you. That is not the case. It is malicious and it is entirely malicious. So.

Ready to Rumble says, Tim calling them cowards as he talks about hiding. Did I say I wouldn't keep doing this show? I said, and I'd keep doing the show, putting my face out there, calling out what I think. needs to be called out. The Supreme Court, however, is largely behind the scenes. We know who they are, but we don't watch them on camera. You don't hear from them on a day-to-day basis. And too often, they have refused to rule on court cases this country needs. So let's put it simply. Call them whatever you want. If they are not prepared to do the job that they've been selected and agreed to do, they should resign right now. I also think that we're living in assassination culture.

and that needs to be fixed on a cultural level. So they don't have to fear for their lives if they make a decision. Sure, but that's, that's like, that's very much in line with how leftists are like rapists should be taught not to rape. Okay. Assassin. People being publicly assassinated for their political opinions was not just mainstream. No, it's a function that exists. Until recently.

That was not. Well, assassinations have been around for a very, very long time. and they're just escalating once again. The mass general public thinking that it's acceptable is a new thing entirely. And you can't remedy that overnight. And so if the argument is the Supreme Court justice can't do their job because of it, they should resign. I'm saying a both-and statement here. I agree with that.

And I'm saying we shouldn't, as a society, just accept that political violence is okay. We don't. Increasingly, we do. No, no, we don't. Okay, if we're talking about we in this room, of course not. Like we in this political fashion don't accept this. We're, of course, angry with it. But that doesn't change the fact that Supreme Court has a job to do if we are to remedy it.

And if they're too scared to do it, they need to retire. Okay, I'm not objecting to that at all. I'll do it. Nominate me. I'll go nuts. Like, bro, if I was on the Supreme Court, I'd be like, everybody can have guns, concealed carry. Permits, your permits Constitution. Have fun.

Oh, bro. Does that mean if Clarence Thomas retires, we can get a Clarence Thomas podcast? If Clarence Thomas, if I was on the Supreme Court with Clarence Thomas, he would start complaining about me. He'd be like, this guy's going crazy. I mean, he doesn't understand law at all. Never spent a day in law school. He's saying things should be legal. That's clearly going to screw, but I'm not going to be like, you're right.

I don't care. Everybody gets to have guns. You want to put a nuke down your pants. Second Amendment. Have fun. Doesn't say anything in Second Amendment about restrictions or mental health or any of that stuff. If you don't like that, you've got to change the Constitution. That's what we have in the first place.

We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show. So smash the like button, share the show. Head over to rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL. It's going to be fun. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Zachary, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, please go. I have a couple of movies that are coming out.

November 7th, which is tomorrow. I have a movie called Sarah's Oil. It's a true story about a young black girl, turn of the century, Tulsa, Oklahoma, who she and her family were essentially previously enslaved by one of the indigenous tribes. A lot of people don't know that, but everybody had slaves for a really long time when the U.S. outlawed slavery. So did then, therefore, the indigenous tribes, and they made those slaves freed men, tribal members.

And then when the states gave back land to the tribes, like in Oklahoma, that land was divvied out to all their tribal members. So this girl got 160 acres that the government thought was some crap land because you couldn't grow anything on it. But she was an intelligent, precocious, and spirit-filled girl who could read and write. And she was reading about the oil boom coming across America. and she went to her land and prayed over her land and she believed that God told her that there was oil in her land and sure is shit, she had the largest purest oil reserve in all America. She became the richest woman in America

as like a 10-year-old black girl in Tulsa in like 1912. Wow. Crazy. So anyway, that comes out tomorrow. It's a really uplifting, inspiring film. Good for the whole family. And then on December 12th, I have a movie called Not Without Hope that's coming out.

Also a true story. 2009, there were four buddies who went fishing off the coast of Tampa, Florida. you might have heard about this. There was two of them that were NFL players. Their boat capsized, they got caught in a storm, and three of the four died of hypothermia. And I played Nick Schuyler, who was the only survivor. So not quite as uplifting, but still has a happy ending at the end.

Right on. Anyway, go check those out. That'd be great. And go see them in the theaters, please, if you can. Is that the one with Josh Dumel? Josh DeMell's in it as well, yeah. Awesome. Yeah, he's great.

Josh is fantastic. Guys, if you want to follow me, I am on Instagram at X at Brett Dassevik on both of those platforms, but what you should do is check out pop culture crisis. We are live Monday through Friday 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, which is, of course, noon Pacific. We will see you there. I second that. Of course, you should go subscribe to Pop Culture Crisis.

You can send me validation on Instagram at Mary Archived, or you can send me hate on X. That is also Mary Archived. And help me get TikTok famous. That is also Mary Archived. I am Phil that remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check us out on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime.

We will see you all over at rumble.com. Timcast, IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out.