Timcast IRL - THEY KILLED THEM | Timcast IRL #1457 w/Jay Dyer & Jake Botch

Episode Date: February 26, 2026

Tim, Phil, & Elaad are joined by Jay Dyer & Jake Botch to discuss four dead after the Cuban National Guard open fire on an American boat, Tim Pool debating Jay Dyer on company towns & communism, and the Chicago Bears leaving the city of Chicago.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Jakey Botch  @Itsjakebotch   (instagram) Jay Dyer @Jay_D007 (X)

Ever feel like car shopping is designed to make you second guess yourself? Is this a good price? Am I making the right choice? With Car Gurus, you don't have to wonder. You get deal ratings, price history, and dealer reviews without the surprises. So you can shop with confidence. Buy your next car gurus at Cargooros.ca. Go to Cargooros.ca.

To make sure your big deal is the best deal. That's C-A-R-G-U-R-U-S dot CA. Cargooros.ca. It never happens at a good time. The pipe bursts at midnight. The heater quits on the coldest night. Suddenly, you're overwhelmed. That's when HomeServe is here.

For $4.99 a month, you're never alone. Just call their 24-7 hotline, and the local pro is on the way. Trusted by millions. HomeServe delivers peace of mind when you need it most. For plans starting at just $4.99 a month, go to homeserve.com. That's homeserv.com. Not available everywhere. Most plans range between $499 to $11.99 a month your first year.

Terms apply on covered repairs. Four Americans shot dead. A U.S. flagged speedboat near, was entering Cuban waters when the National Guard killed them all. Now, the Cuban guards saying that these Americans opened fire on them. I don't believe it. The latest reporting is since Venezuela's oil has been cut off and U.S. has taken back control of their oil assets. Cuba's been cut off. No tourists, no fuel.

Their country is grinding to a halt. they've become desperate. So there's a lot of questions we have over this breaking story right now about a U.S. speedboat getting shot up by Cuba and what that could mean for the United States. People need to understand, while Cuba is decently far away from Florida, it's actually not that far away from Florida. And there are a lot of people, a lot of Americans who are in Florida, and they do like going and partying in Cuba. It's not that uncommon. Perhaps this could be Cuba is at its wit's end and is overreacting or angry or retaliating. We'll talk about that.

Plus, more information on the cartel violence. Mexico's considering suing Elon Musk because he said that the president works for the cartels. He said she has cartel bosses and how dare you say something that most people think is true. And then, of course, my friends, the results from Trump's State of the Union. The polls are smashingly good for the president. It's two to one. And the funny thing is, CNN can't. just say viewers liked speech.

I kid you not. Despite the fact the CNN poll says 70% of people liked what Trump said, they headline the article, Trump's speech leaves some viewers questioning, blah, blah, blah. Some. Yes, because the minority exists. Absolutely incredible. So we're going to talk about the aftermath of that. And then, guys, we got to talk about the bears.

The bears, we got to talk about them. They're leaving Chicago. And this may be the most catastrophic thing I've ever heard. I have talked to you about statues being torn down. I have talked to you about the changing of the name of the Redskins. And that meant nothing to me. A little bit. I was kind of pissed off about it.

But the Chicago Bears, I am from Chicago. And so this, this is like a nuclear bomb dropped on my childhood. And I'm declaring war. I will not stand for the failures of the Democratic Party if Chicago is to lose the bears. And apparently they're going to, no matter what. Pritzker said that we're basically resigned to the Chicago Bears being the Indiana Bears or the Hammond Bears. Is it a joke? Do you spit in our faces?

I'm pissed. We're going to talk about that and more. Before we did, we got a great sponsor for you, my friends. It is Field of Greens. You see, I get all riled up hearing about the bears leaving, and I'm ready to just destroy everything. So, you know what I got to calm down and drink this delicious. Strawberry lemonade, Field of Greens.

It actually is really, really good. It's like they grind up all these great veggies, and they make it taste really good. You put it in your drink. My friends, most people don't look forward. to their annual physical because they're nervous what the doctor might find. Me, however, I got great blood pressure. That's why what you do before the appointment matters.

So before your next checkup, make the one health change, your doctors should notice or your money back. Make it field of greens. Doctors today look beyond your calendar age. They look at biological age, how healthy our cells and vital organs are. Field of greens was designed with that in mind. Each fruit and vegetable is doctors selected to support your cells, heart, lungs, kidneys, and healthy weight.

In fact, a university study found that participants who only added field of green saw measurable improvements in key health markers. Just one change changed everything. That's why Field of Greens promises your doctor will notice your improved health or your money back. Go into your next physical confident. One scoop, once a day, done. Make Field of Greens your one smart change this year.

Check out the university study and get 20% off Field of Greens promo code Tim. That's Field of Greens promo code Tim. You know, I just want to say, too, I see a lot of people. They got those weird little spritzer bottles of flavor stuff. They squirt in their water. That's nasty. That's like weird artificial sweetener garbage. This is a bunch of grinded up veggies with delicious flavor.

If you want to flavor your water, make it healthy. Check it out. Feel the greens, promo code, Tim. Don't forget, my friends, we also got Cast Brew Coffee. Look at this. You don't want to miss this one. Oh, we put the bottle back. These glass bottles of the Cast Brew Vault Black are incredible.

I am so impressed with the team organizing this. This is a cold brew concentrate. Lightly sweetened, just a little bit, about seven grams per serving. You put a little bit into a cup, you add some water to it. Bang, you got a nice, delicious cup of cold brew coffee from Casper. Check it out at casparoo.com. My friends, smash that like button. Share the show with everyone, you know.

Literally, if everybody took the URL, posted it everyone on the internet right now, we'd have the biggest show in the world, and that would be great. So if you really do like what we do, please share the show. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we got Jake Botch. What's going on? Who are you, man? What do you do? Union guy.

I work for the city and, you know, I just have my opinions on life. That's pretty much it. All right. I got with you. That's good. It's good to have you, man. It should be fun and fun. Absolutely.

I wish they could see what you got going on here. We got skateboards. We got coffee. I didn't expect it to be. We got Jews. Yeah. Oh, a lot of Jews here. A lot of Jews here.

I'm Jewish. You understand. I know. We got two Jews. That's what I'm saying. Two of them. We kind of outnumber you now. Two of them might be too many, but okay.

It's the Mossad. Right on. Thanks for hanging out, brother. we got Jay's back. Jay Dyer, Jay's Analysis, host the Alex Jones show the last six years, writer for the Sam Hyde Show YouTuber, check out my YouTube channel, Jay Dyer.

I've got four books, three on Hollywood. Check them out at my website, jaysanalsas.com. We thought it was unfair that he got mugged by Trump, so we were like you got to come back. I mean, I've clearly at the same status of Trump, so it's kind of unfair that he would maug me like that, but it's beautiful, glad to be back with you. Right on. Well, the Jews here.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Alia, who I'm the White House correspondent. it here at Timcast. Looking forward to the show. Phil, what's going on? Hello, everybody. My name is Philibonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band all that remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Carter. What's up, everyone? Carter Banks here. Welcome back, Jay. And welcome, Jake. Let's get into it.

Here's the story from the BBC. Yo, this is absolutely insane. Four shot dead on U.S. registered speedboat by border guards, Cuba says. They say in a statement, Cuba's interior ministry said the speedboat's passengers opened fire on a Coast Guard vessel that approached them, which I don't believe. That makes no sense. Six additional passengers were wounded in the incident, which took place near an island on Cuba's northern coast. Marco Rubio said the nationalities of those on board is unclear. The U.S. will make, okay, so correction, we don't know if they're Americans. U.S. will make determinations based on the facts.

Right now, we're still gathering facts. He said the boat was not carrying U.S. government personnel. Cuba's government said it did not know the identities of those on board the vessel, nor what it was doing in the area and that investigation has been launched to clarify the event. In a statement posted X, the ministry said the Florida registered vessel with the registration number FL7726SH was detected near Keo Falconez in the country's central Villa Clara Province on Wednesday morning. When a Cuban boat carrying five members of the ministry's border guard approached the vessel

for identification, the crew of the violating speedboat opened fire and wounded the Cuban commander. As a consequence of the confrontation, as at the time of this report, four aggressors on the foreign vessel were killed and six injured. Those who were injured were evacuated. Now, the important context here is also this. CNN reporting last week, no food, no fuel, no tourists under U.S. pressure. Life in Cuba grinds to a halt. Since we seized back, that's an important thing to understand,

since we seized back our oil assets from Venezuela that were stolen from us, even though we had a treaty in 2009, okay, this is an important kind. I'm going to say it again. We had a bunch of oil investments in Venezuela. We had a treaty. We were doing peaceful trade. And the commie government came in and stole all our stuff and we didn't do anything about it. That pisses me off. Since we took it back, Cuba's not getting the free energy from Venezuela they were before. Now they're in trouble. So when you hear a story like this, you have to wonder what really happened. That being said, I will stand corrected. I thought it was Americans. We don't know. I would say there's a decent probability. Surprise, surprise. These could be drug runners operating in a U.S. boat. And when the Cubans approach them, they think,

Oh crap, what do we do? Maybe. We're not entirely sure. But the big concern, I think, here is the animosity between Cuba and the United States since the Venezuela operation is bubbling up. It's getting pretty intense. So that's why my immediate assumption was a U.S. speedboat was driving around and the Cuban National Guard just killed them. But we don't know for sure. This guys, to be honest, if they came back and said, actually, it was a bunch of Venezuelan narco drug guys on a speedboat selling drugs,

I'd be like, well, you know, that's been happening too. But I'm curious if you guys think this means, I'll just crank the knob all the way to 11 and rip it off. US is going to war with Cuba. I think that Marco Rubio is going to invade him personally. He's going to be on there on the first boat. I mean, he's got every other job in the federal government essentially lately. So I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be leading the charge into Cuba.

Everyone just resigns and Rubio just does all of it. Yeah, he's the only guy. They're gearing up to make him king. That would be so based, imagine with an IRL from Havana next year. The king of Cuba or the king of the United States? King of Cuba. You know what I like about Cuba is that's frozen in time.

You know, I feel like. If you ever want to go to the 1950s, you go to Cuba. Is this guy still alive? Do they know for sure if he's alive? Which guy? What's his name? The guy who runs the joint. Oh, no.

Castro. The first Castro died a while ago. So it's his brother now? Yes, Raoul, right? Raoul, yeah. Raoul. That's for sure. They know for sure.

That's what's going on? Pretty sure it's still Raul Castro. Yeah, the younger brother of Fidel. He's old, man. Oh, no, no, no. Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Is he still doing it? He is a president.

No, no, he left a while ago. Who's the current president of Cuba? See, I don't pay attention to Cuban politics. It's Miguel Diaz Canel. Oh, wow. Miguel. Yeah, yeah, I didn't know that. Mike.

Mike Diaz. Now, we had asked. Assets in Venezuela? I didn't know that. Yeah, so... I'm like an average American that doesn't have all this information. This is fantastic.

This is perfect. Let me learn you some... Yeah. We have a military base on Cuba. Or a jail, rather. In Cuba. But he's talking about Venezuela. What about Venezuela?

I'm definitely not liberal, but what all these people were fighting for that we just went in there and took their shit and just, you know. So we had assets there. Like it was originally ours? Yeah. Indeed.

So here's the story. Venezuela's like the most oil dense... Actually, in the world, right? Major over there. It might be, I think it's got more than Saudi Arabia. Don't they own Citgo? No, they don't own it. I thought Citgo was Venezuelan.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's not. I don't know. But here's the story. U.S. oil companies, so the U.S. had a treaty with Venezuela for a long time. Venezuela was one of the most prosperous. It was the most prosperous nation in South America. And our oil companies went there under our normal trade agreement.

and said, we're going to invest billions of dollars, building oil refineries, bringing in oil tankers. And then the country voted for socialism. And again, I'm not being cute or insulting. Literally, they voted for the socialist candidate, Chavez, who then, I think it was 2009, announced the nationalization of all oil assets that were built, paid for, and owned by U.S. interests. The U.S. government said, I guess they just stole $20 billion worth of our oil infrastructure and

did nothing about it. Then Venezuela started pumping that oil, burning down their economy with weird commie practices like mandating jobs that don't need to exist, and then using that oil to give to our enemies, largely to Cuba, but also they've been trading with China, Russia, Iran, etc. And that's just not public knowledge. It absolutely is. It's public knowledge if you want to look for it. Yeah. Guy like me who's working a union job, I ain't looking for that. So I just see Instagram, I mean, oh, oh, the blue hairs, they're really pissed about this Venezuelan thing. You know, like, you don't, you don't get that knowledge unless you kind of, and that sucks. And then what happens is when you talk to a conservative, they're like, yes, of course, I knew this.

When you talk to a liberal, they're like Trump's an evil dictator who's stealing stuff. Media doesn't inform people. No, you know, media stop. Like, there's no backstory. Even with, like, if you watch long form shows like this, you might get it, right? But if you're just watching, if you're an average person that gets, you know, maybe an hour of news. a week when you're making breakfast or throwing you know drink back. Now it's TikTok swipes.

Yeah, you know. That's true. 30 seconds of an hour show. You know, and so you're, to your point, it is, you know, most people don't realize the history with most of the things that are going on internationally. And believe me, most of the stuff the U.S. is doing when it comes to foreign policy and stuff, it's not been created in the past six months. I mean, the whole focus, the whole change of focus from Europe to South America,

which I mean, I'm not even sure if you know that's going on. I have no idea what that means. So the U.S. used to really be close with Europe. There's been significant changes in Europe and not only the policies that Europe has, but also the makeup of Europe because of all the immigration from, like, the Middle East and from North Africa. And so the U.S. is looking at Europe and they're saying, well, they kind of don't really share our values. We're going to refocus our interests. We're going to refocus on to South America.

And we're going to really kind of enforce the Monroe Doctrine. I mean, most people don't even know what the Monroe Doctrine is. You know? Looking at a guy who don't know what the Monroe Doctrine is. James Monroe said that, you know, we don't want Europe meddling in the affairs of our hemisphere. So basically the Western Hemisphere, North and South America, the U.S. is like saying, hey, Europe, keep your business in Europe and in Asia and stuff, and we'll keep our business here. We don't want you influencing countries here.

And so that had kind of gone away for a long time. But now the U.S. has decided that South American countries actually have more in common with the United States than Europe will likely have in, say, 25, 30 years. So they- I did kind of hear about that with the hemisphere thing. Here's a crazy history of the communist stuff down there that a lot of people don't know. When Che and Fidel were working together, they were actually guarding the oil fields for standard oil. They had a huge battle between them.

They ended up falling out. And Fidel basically ran Che away because Che seemed to be a committed communist. But there's a good book by Sorvando Gonzalez on this. He argues that the Council on Foreign Religious, because they always favored a synthesis of communism with capitalism that they actually wanted Fidel to take Cuba, even though there was interest with certain elements of the organized crime that took over, or the she did me that opposed Batista when they took over. So basically the organized crime, the CIA, they wanted resorts in Cuba, and that's what Godfather 2 is about if you watch Godfather 2. Oh, really? They overthrow Batista and Fidel comes to power.

but the question is well if we have a base there like why did why did that ever happen and gazellas has a thesis that the council in foreign relations had a bunch of communists amongst their members that actually wanted cuba to be communists to have like an excuse to promote like the the dialectic down in south america so standard oil is american yeah that's rockefeller right oh really yeah so they guarded the rockefeller oil even as communist revolutionaries right wow yeah a lot of information on this temple Yeah, you know, today's political debates are largely, I would describe it as the people who actually know what's going on and the people who have no idea what's going on. Yeah. So the Democrats are composed largely of an ignorant voter bloc that believes what they're being told by the Democrat politicians and Democrat politicians that are intentionally lying.

The Trump voter block is a mixture of different political ideologies that often disagree in quite a bit, but know what's going on in the world. So you'll get, you know, we call them disaffected liberals, people who used to be Democrats who are now like y'all have gone crazy. My favorite part of last night with Donald Trump's state of the union is when he pointed to the Democrats and said, these people are crazy because they're trying to give children sex changes. You'd think, you'd think going to somebody and being like, don't you think we can draw the line at giving a child a sex change? And the response for most of the Democrat voters is that's not happening. because they listen to their politicians who are lying. One of my favorite things, actually, I fact-checked this this morning. I'll pull it up for you guys when we get into the CNN, Trump's state of the union address.

But Trump says, like, they want to kidnap your kids. He said, they want to take your kids from your parents and then transition their genders without the parents' consent. There's a big piece of news right now where, like, 16 states are filing a suit saying, we can't allow that to happen. And all of these fact checks get written where they're like, no. No, Washington did not pass a law saying they can kidnap your kids to give them sex change. Right? The law basically just says if a child is a runaway, they can provide shelter and they have to inform the parents of the runaway's whereabouts unless they're seeking gender affirming care.

So they put one headline saying, no, it's not happening. And then literally three paragraphs down and say, yeah, absolutely it is happening. And so I just got to say, bro, I don't care if you're a communist where you're literally like, we should seize all of the means of production. We call this the dirtbag left. They just go, yeah, but the weird thing the Democrats are doing with child sex changes, like, and the woke stuff, none of that. If you're like economically far left, socialist, communist or whatever, but you're not violent and all you do is have cordial debates that we're friends. Totally friends. If you're going around saying you want to give kids sex changes or whatever, then I'm going to be like, you're just a lying psychopath.

Evil. Yeah, it's just, it's lunacy. absolutely insane. But I know a lot wants to invade Cuba, so. I was going to say, let's get conspiratorial for a second and have some reckless speculation. I think one could argue that this may have been an operation to try to do something in Cuba. I don't see people trying to smuggle drugs from the United States into Cuba. It wouldn't be very lucrative for the drug dealers.

Let me just that. You're saying, to clarify, a U.S. intel, or some kind of... Yeah, some sort of U.S. operation. Maybe take out Miguel. Maybe do something similar to what they did in Venezuela. While we have a lot of our military assets in Iran, and everybody's distracted right now. Everybody's bitching and moaning about Iran, Iran this, Iran, that. No, no, no.

Marco Rubio is pulling the distraction. Yeah, but come on. The decoy. Oh, you're saying, go for the uphill. You're saying, go for the real. Okay, hold on. Just to clarify, you're saying that with Venezuela, we do this pulse blast that knocks out their power and causes their skulls to vibrate.

Decomboulator. Is that what it was? I think so, allegedly. Discombobulator. And then they go in the middle of the night, drop down in Maduro's compound and kidnap him. And then phase two is we get a single speed butt with 10 people on it and charge the shores of Cuba. Well, I'm sure they were trying to be conspicuous and maybe got found out. And now Orange trying to claim responsibility because there are four dead.

Famously, the Maduro raid had zero dead. So they were very impressed. And maybe the president was feeling emboldened. This is just a regular speculation. They go in the middle of the night. they'd land on Miguel's rooftop and take him. What do we get from them though? Venezuela, you get oil.

Well, Cuba, we have... In 1950 Chevy? Like, what do you get from Cuba? Let me tell you about Cuba. I'm familiar with the Cuban missile crisis, Bay of Pigs? I am, yeah, yeah. But what are? The deep concern the U.S. has is 90 miles off the coast of Florida. We've got an adversary. It's not so much just Russia, but the Bricks nations, Venezuela.

There's an adversarial nation. It used to be largely Cuba was favorable towards us. We actually have a military base, Guantanamo Bay, on the Cuban island. Then they became communist and opposed us. And so you had Russians wanting to put missiles 90 miles off the coast. Yeah, so we very much want, again, like Monroe Doctrine, stay out of our hemisphere. Well, I think also geopolitically, Cuba is particularly important because if you look at the map in the Gulf of Mexico, the main exit is having to go north or south of Cuba.

Cuba is a sort of Taiwan equivalent, if you will, of a way of blocking trade and shipments from large parts of the United States. So part of the reason why China wants to take back Taiwan is to get those critical shipping lanes. If you look to go through the Gulf of Mexico, you have to pass Cuba. And it's sort of, you know, an island just directly a threat to the United States. And then I think the leftovers from the Cuban missile crisis. And then also so many refugees, Cuban refugees that left Cuba came to America, continue to influence our politics right now. Marco Rubio is famously a descendant of Cuban immigrants. So, yeah, that plays into a lot of this.

He's been famously a hawkish senator from Florida prior to this, where there is a large Cuban population. That largely influences this thing. I have a question real quick, before we go to the next segment, Alon. You know how like when we're talking about the Middle East, some people say, just turn it to glass. You know how they say that? Yeah.

Like the implication is if you drop a series of nuclear bombs, it will melt and then fuse all of the sand. What would the equivalent for Cuba be? Turn it to... I don't know. I think a nuclear bomb would probably do the same thing. But there's not sand. Turn their beaches to glass?

I mean... Turn them back into the ocean. See, because like turning into glass is like you might not get it. You go, oh, now I get it. But if we said we're going to turn to a smoldering crater, you'd be like, eh. That's not funny. Is the only reason given the monorodon?

doctrine, though, the only reason that the U.S. never took Cuba from the communist, because like we have Bon Tonimo Bay there, is it just because of the ramifications of what it would do in other... It's because the neocons are weak. They talk a big game. They talk... I don't mean this seriously. Right.

The neocons have consistently talked a big game and failed every step of the way. Or was it allowed to be there? This is the neocon's vengeance right now. Marco Rubio. They took down Venezuela. Don't tease them. Right now is a bad time to tease the neocon with what's going on in Iran right now. For regular humans.

What is a neocon? It's a neoconservative as a reference to like Bush- conservative, okay. Bush era politics. No, but here's what neocon really is. If you are willing to go to war for anything, then you are a neocon. In effect, in politics, when you support any conflict anywhere for any reason, you are a neocon.

Let me give you the... That's how it works in actual politics. Neocon is a tribal reference to a group of people, but there are ideologies that people would then associate with what we would call neoliberal and neoconservative. It's actually quite simple. Hillary Clinton is neoliberal. What does that mean? She's on the liberal side.

liberal side of American politics, but she wants to, well, no, now. Like, I feel like if you support that, like my family, my other side of the family is liberal, but not blue-haired liberal. They're like Bill Clinton liberal, like Bill Clinton Democrat. You know what I mean? Like could have a conversation. Hillary Clinton is in favor. She actually recently came out against illegal immigration.

But yeah, even the point is. But is this just to get votes, though? Is she leaning towards the psychotic way to get votes? So neoliberal and neo-conservative refers to the uniparty, establishment force in the United States, they're very much in favor of invading foreign countries to maintain the liberal economic order, things like that. So we call Hillary Clinton a crotchety a crotchety old neo liberal lady. And neo, it's like it's a stupid way to describe it because Neo, of course, references like a new generation. And so they were calling Bush neo-conservative

because they're conservatives, but they want to go and invade. And so it defined this tribal group. But then based off of their worldview, we now have this general idea. of what these words mean. So you vote for, you know, the Mitt Romneys, the McCain's. You get invasion of Iran. What, hey, surprise, surprise, Trump might get us at anyway. Neo-conservative is out of the UK, Bernard Lewis, who is the father of Leo, father of Samuel Huntington, who wrote books that influenced the Bush administration. So the Bush, Cheney, those are like sort of the arch neocons. But it's actually out of the UK from Bernard Lewis.

And then they are also influenced by Leo Strauss. who was influenced by Hitler, but they also have an influence. What's that? The guy that made jeans? Strauss. No. Levi Strauss.

It's a joke. It was a Hungary joke. Jeans were made actually, I think, originally for communist purposes. No, no, no. The suits were actually. The jeans was like American, it was like mining.

Well, they wanted to have a standard for, like, in a company town, like everybody had the same outfit. So I'm not saying it didn't make profits. I'm just saying like a company town. could say it's Levi Strauss invented blue jeans and it was uh in the United States denim work pants but it was made by San Francisco company town made everything what are you kidding me you mean in the U.S it was like company towns like a company town is not really a capitalist institution like they make

money but like you have to buy everything from the company town well I disagree with that I mean if there's a barren wasteland and a company's like we need to import a bunch of people and there's no industry here, then they have to create means by which people can choose to buy food. But it's not classical libertarian free market if everybody has to shop at the company town. It might be the... But again, the point is, if no town exists and they build it, they're sure, it's like a commissary. There's no other options, right? So I wouldn't call it communist.

It's called monopolistic. Okay, but I mean, if you're a libertarian, monopolistic capitalism isn't classical libertarianism. Also... again, so like if, if, if, if, if I personally have a private piece of land and I hire a bunch of people and they're like, hey, there's no restaurants anywhere. What do we eat? I go, all right, I guess I'll have the crew coming up, but you got to pay for the food. Is that a communism? It's, I mean, again, monopoly capitalism isn't really. Hold on. This is not, this is, this is not an issue of there's no competition. Like, it's an issue. It is. There is no. I mean, it's an issue of there's no

competition not forcing people to do anything. So is the alternative? I just go, you know what, guys, I'm going to open a restaurant where only I get to eat. You're actually not. You're actually not not allowed to eat because I don't want to be a communist. Right, but this is the same argument as to why people would own like an entire water supply, right? So if you privatize water, then no one has a right to the right to. But I'm not talking about that. I'm saying there's a company town could own the water. Indeed. What right? Do you have to take it? That's communist. It's not communist. Wait, well, let me ask you. I, I, hold a municipalities. Wait, what? It's not. I own a swath of land. Right. And I invite you to come work on it. Right. I have to now relinquish

my right to the water body and my property? No, I'm saying if you're going to create a society or civilization and you have, if you own the entirety of the water supply. We're talking about company towns. We're talking about company towns. Well, that's the beginning of a civilization, right? It's no different. Right.

So the point you bring up is that if I own, let's say, 100 acres and I have a grain mill on it. And then I can't produce that much. So a handful of people are like, howdy good, sir? We could increase the output of the grain if you give us, if you, you you let us come. And I say, all right, you know what? I'm going to actually, I'll pay you guys a share of the grain that you mill. Thank you for voluntarily coming and offering this service. They then say, there's nowhere to eat for miles. And I go, well, unfortunately, if I were to create something by which you could purchase food, that would be communism. So no. It's not communism. So then if I,

if I as the landowner and the company owner, then say, I will open a restaurant on the property from which you can purchase goods, that's the beginning of communism. So, but you're describing situation of a small microcosm where there's no competition. Like a company town. Right. Well, there's no competition. Doesn't capitalism require competition? And who's stopping people from opening a restaurant across the street? Well, you would if you have a common. No, no, no, no, no, no. If I own property and you said monopoly capitalism, that would, you would be then stopping the competition in a monopoly capitalist situation. No, no, no, no. We're talking about a company town, right? Privately on property. So do they have to relinquish their water rights? If the city, if it grows, if it grows,

to a certain size where you begin to have competition. That's literally communism. Seizing the assets from the private landowners. Literally going to a guy who own land and says, there's too many people here now, so your water is ours. That's confidence. Sounds like communism to me, Jay.

No, no, no. If you grow to where you have a society that requires competition. Then the people can seize your assets. Agreed. We're communists. If there's competent. First of all, by the way, Marx was a libertarian. So, It be gets really...

I don't care about Marx. Well, you're accusing me of communism. No, no, no, I'm not accusing you. I'm arguing that the argument is that if your argument is private land ownership is void upon access population. That's literally a function of communism. That's what the Venezuelans did. What you're describing is literally just communism itself.

A company town is essentially the same as a communist setup. It is it is not. It is identical. It's completely not. So the people own the land? In a company town? In a company town, the people have, if we're talking about the structures of communism by which there is a private committee, and there's two ways we can look at it, your argument seems to fuse together both the authoritarian dictatorship components and the economic. That's monopoly capitalism.

That's where you're arguing for. If the argument is, people can voluntarily choose to come and work for a company, but there is no competition because there's no market reason for. it. It's not communism. It's just a monopoly. But there's no oppression and it doesn't matter because you can always choose to leave. You can't always choose to leave if you're out in the middle of nowhere. Why did you go there in the West? And then like again, bro, I got to tell you, if the argument is I have no choice in my circumstances, therefore I should get public rights, it's literally. That's not what I said. This guy's a communist. So then leave, right? Why can't you leave? Well, you can say that, but in a company town, especially like in situations when the

1800s company towns are being set up, you don't. didn't have the ability to just leave. Why not? Well, they're holding you at gunpoint? I mean, well, if you're under a contract, you might have to be there. Why did you sign the contract? Well, again. Is it communism to voluntarily enter into an agreement with a company?

Yeah, but you can call it voluntary. Even there's a situation where something can be voluntary that you're actually locked into, right? I mean, I can. You chose to enter into a contract. Amazon owns an entire area and it's the only place to work then to say, well, you can move. You sure can. Yeah. But it's still a form of wage.

slavery, right? You don't think they're such thing as well. I don't. I think that's commie talk. Well, I think this is quite literally the arguments of Chavez and the arguments of Bernie Sanders. And my point that I often bring up to these leftists is what's stopping you from just being a vagrant on federal land? There's no difference. You want from my system

without input. And that is the component of the left that I disagree with. No, your argument is a leftist argument, actually. That people should have to work for. Classical liberalism is a leftist position. You argue classical liberalism. That's a classic leftist position. What I'm arguing for merit-based capitalism is leftist. Yes. Classical liberalism, out of the enlightenment. That is incorrect. No. Out of the enlightenment, classical liberalism is leftist. The origin of the left is the left aisle in the French Revolution referring to those who wanted a socialist, anti-monarchist,

and the right wanted a top-down monarchist system. Okay. So your argument... Not in the French Revolution. No. It was the French Revolution. It was the left and the right. The French Revolution wanted a constitutional monarchy on the right and they wanted private property on the right. The leftist wanted communism. Indeed. So when we say left and right in an economic sense, it refers to left meaning communal, right, meaning closer to a law of the affair. That's classical liberalism, which is against the traditional position of church and state. Tim, this is the argument that Carl makes about liberalism now. What's the argument? Carl. That, Starghan of a Cod. This is, um, I'm only saying that there's, they're similar.

Um, that, that liberalism is actually a, a creation of the left and that the ultimate form. I'm not, I am not advocating for, in this circumstance, classical liberalism. I'm advocating for private rights. Yeah, yeah, but the point that I'm, the only point that I make is that, his perspective is similar to Carl's perspective. Sure, but that's immaterial to the argument being made. It's not because what you're, you're, you're, you know, You're saying that you're a socialist or a Marxist, but what I'm arguing would be the same as any medieval village philosophy. And they weren't Marxists or socialist back in the Middle Ages. Like, if you went to a French village in the 100s.

Okay, again, the core of your argument is there's a private landowner. 20 years later, there's now 300 people working in this land. We now transfer the private rights from the landowner to a communal function. Again, it's complex where you have something like the total ownership of something like a water, supply, right? So when you have people that need that, that's different than a situation where Nestle is trying to buy an entire country's like private water supply. So again, the issue was company towns. I have 100 acres. I own the body of water on that land. I invite a bunch of people to work. They say, I'll work here. I need a place to stay. I say, I'll bid your house. They say,

where do I get food? I'll build a store. And they say, we need water. I say, I'll set up a water pump for you. That's communism. Well, let's go to the rights then because you're arguing that you have this right as a company owner. And I would agree, but on what basis do you have those rights? Because classical liberalism lost this whole argument. I don't know why you're bringing up classical liberalism. It's not a component. That's your position.

No, it isn't your... It is. You're not aware of that, but it is your position. No, you're throwing a blanket to encompass one point and combine it with a bunch of other points not made. Because your arguments come out of that ethos, whether you know it or not, they're classical liberal arguments. And you can have varying ideologies mix and match.

Let's make an argument on what I actually just said. So what's the basis for the rights? The basis for the right to own private property. Well, now we're... So I argue that the rights of man are derived from the will or the duties God bestows upon man. The requirements that we have from God, which is be fruitful and multiply, requires a handful of things, for which we recognize in the United States that we allow the people to do. Fully recognizing that other groups have different ideas of what rights are.

So I would argue rights are we need to be able to communicate, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to be secure in our possessions. These are principal rights that we struggle to survive without. As the basis of this is look at communism in general in the Soviet Union, and when you don't have property rights, congratulations, look what happens. When you have mass monopolization and oligopoly, you get something similar. So in a simple sense, certainly it is my moral worldview and faith-based structures that define what I think someone has an inherent claim to.

Progressives think you have an inherent claim to someone else's later. which would just, I would describe as slavery. So when it comes to the idea of private land ownership, the argument is fully understanding population expansion can come to a point where some people will never own land. But the idea is, I need to be secure in my possessions to know and prepare for harsh winters, for instability, so that I can survive, so that I can be fruitful, and that I can multiply. So you build a Genesis and God, what God, what principles of Genesis tell you that? What are you talking about? I'm not a Christian. Then how are you going to base this argument for rights in God?

What do you mean? What God? My God. My moral worldview. So it's not a universal principle. It's just subjective? Well, I think to a lot of people, they have a moral worldview and a philosophical understanding of some things and not others. And I base mine largely on, first, I would argue that perhaps there are greater moral philosophies than the Christian moral structures. We just don't know them yet. I would say historically based upon what we have seen throughout the world and what we think we know,

the Christian moral worldview has been dramatically superior to other moral structures. That being said, I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in the faith structures they have. However, I have recognized that the moral structures of a Christian society tend to make life more successful for individuals, which is ultimately beneficial to the standard function of life, which is organizing complex, organizing free energy, into complex systems. So just utilitarianism, because it works well. That was utilitarian. You're wrong.

That's utilitarianism. You argue that it works well. Jay, if you don't have an argument for what I said, stop trying to blanket it with something else as a straw man. The argument was utilitarianism? I'm, you know, that's literally not. I did. We can talk about...

Why is it not utilitarian? Well, we can talk about deontological ethos. We can talk about... It has nothing to do with this. No, indeed. My point is... Enlightenment. Instead of arguing what I said, you're going,

you're arguing thing. Well, I gave you a specific outline. Well, I'm giving you the problem with utilitarianism. I'm sorry that you're not aware of the problems with that. I'm sorry that you can't actually address what I told you. I'm addressing it now, which is that utilitarian arguments are pragmatic and it's not a justification. Great. I'm not a utilitarian. But you made a utilitarian argument.

A component of some, perhaps. So I don't believe in utilitarianism because that would sacrifice individuals. Again, do you know what deontological moral ethos is? Yeah, it's con. Okay, great. So when you say something like you're utilitarian, and then I bring up. We do not take immoral actions against an individual for the betterment of the, of it. I know.

So why are you bringing up Kant? You are making an argument. The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few, which I did not say. You can have different types utilitarianism. Sure. Instead of arguing the point I made. It's a pragmatic point. You argued a pragmatic point.

Argue the point I made. Stop trying to blanket into other things. How does pragmatism justify the rights? That's what you argued. Okay, I made an argument about private land ownership as a benefit to human survival. Right, pragmatic. Okay, so address what I said. How does appealing to pragmatism?

I made a point you make yours addressing what I said. Yeah, that's not a justification. It's a bad argument. Explain why. Because appealing to things that work or pragmatism isn't a justification. Explain why I'm wrong about the requirement of private land ownership for survival. You grounded the right in utilitarianism and pragmatism. I'm saying that's not a good justification.

It's a bad argument. So explain why. Because anything that works could be all over the place. That could be subjective. Indeed, that was my point in which I said there are probably moral structures that work better

we have not discovered yet. Then it's not a justification. So you don't know. So if it's a future thing that you haven't figured out yet, then you don't know right now that it would be a justification. I understand certain principles of gravity

and the speed at which things fall, but we don't know for sure how the structures work. We operate based on probability. Right. But then that would not work to justify the rights as grounded in an unknown. Then go jump off a building and see how it works for you. You told me I have to, so I have to. Go jump off a building and see how it works because you don't know gravity. It's a future thing you haven't figured out yet.

We operate on probabilities based on what we think we know because we actually don't know. But that doesn't ground a right, that's the point. In future probabilities? I asked you for the grounding for the right to private property. So far, human history has proven private land ownership is beneficial to human existence. that's a circular argument. I'm asking how you know that it benefits and what does it mean to benefit, and you're saying because it was good.

It makes more of it. That's a circular argument. Why? Well, why it may be making more of it's bad? It's certainly not. Okay, but why not? That's the point. That's why it's a circle.

Well, let's go back to the origin of what we think we know. Again, because everything is rooted in what we think we know, right? Some people think the earth is flat. They're probably wrong, but honestly, I've not done the experiments myself to a great degree, I've just been in a plane. So if we go back to, again, the roots of

science, we can take a look at a few things. Free energy tends to coalesce into complex systems, starting with the baser elements, or we can say quarks, I'm sorry, quarks into particles, into atoms, into elements, into compounds. At some point, for some reason, you get gravity, likely because if you're familiar with our current understanding of gravity, mass creates attraction, etc. And this results in certain masses coming together. Eventually, you'll get something like a gas giant. You'll get something that compresses, then ignites fusion, and you get a sun.

We get all this stuff. Then you get an earth. Earth is the result of certain things slamming together, creating a bunch of complex elements through process of fusion, et cetera. And then at some point on Earth, for some reason, again, we don't really know for sure. These molecules and compounds start forming self-replicating proteins. means. Again, in modern science, the one thing we recognize is that there is greater entropy and limited entropy, negative entropy, can only exist in a slightly greater entropic system. But we do see

free energy organizing into complex systems throughout the Earth and in the universe. That's what we monitor. Eventually, these complex systems ultimately become multisular organisms, single cells, then multicellular organisms, by which they then create complex organism systems. They create ecosystems. Now you've got a squirrel planting a nut growing a tree. The tree then drops the food for the squirrel. And now you've got two distinct life forms that form a complex system within its own free energy. And then we get to the craziest port with humanity in the creation of abstract complex systems. That is, humans give names to things that don't exist anywhere in reality, except in the energy transference between the mind and the vibrations between their mouths.

So what we then see is the function of life is negative entropy within a larger entropic system. if we as life, which are driven to reproduce and are, and we typically associate all of those things with being good and enjoyable, like having kids, having Christmas morning, then we track, based on what we have seen throughout the earth, what is the most beneficial to that? There are a few answers for this. Islam could be one of them. They've certainly been massively successful, have lots of kids. We can take a look at Africa and say certainly that is beneficial. However, I would make the argument that the European cultures that develop science, space travel, cures for diseases and then effectively colonize the whole planet as well as the Asian cultures

have proven greatly that these moral worldviews lend themselves greater to the atropic system within the entropy. And then we would say, well, it's maybe a toss-up, but I do think that the American Judeo-Christian or just Christian moral values, which include things like private property, have lent itself to the formation of complex systems, that is life expansion and all the things that we cherish in the world, and thus, those are the things we aim for. Certainly, these things are very subjective and some people believe other things. Some people might think it's better to watch the whole world burn because humans are a virus that's spread like a plague.

I don't believe that, but I do recognize I can't convince other people, nor do I know everything. So in the end, I ultimately conclude, if we want people to have families and have kids, private land ownership is probably the best thing we can do. That's a good story, but it doesn't get to grounding or justification. for why the right is actually something that is grounded in God. So storytelling is one thing. Yeah, right. It's grounded in God because God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. But you don't accept that revelation, so it's just a deal to. I do. What do you mean?

Well, you said you're not a Christian. Indeed. Just because you're not a Christian, you can't believe some things Christians believe? Well, but I mean, you could do that, but it's not a consistent position is all I'm saying. It's a consistent position to believe that humans should be fruitful and multiply. I didn't argue that I believe Jesus died in the cross. but to pick and choose elements of the worldview as a grounding for rights and private property is something that everyone will do. But that's another fallacy. The fact that people do it.

I don't have to confine myself to one of someone else's books. These are fallacies. The fact that people do things doesn't have anything to do with whether that's correct or whether that's right. I agree? Then you're admitting it's a fallacy. No, you're arguing that if I believe one thing from Christianity, I have to believe everything. No, again, it was an argument about grounding the idea of private property.

So maybe you're not familiar with what grounding is. That just means giving an epistemic justification for why that's the case. Good reasons. And so what's yours? Well, I believe the Christian worldview, and I would defend that. And now explain it. But it's coherent. It's consistent.

Right, how? Well, if you don't have that worldview, you are immediately caught in a bunch of contradictions. Like what? Like picking and choosing. Like what? Like picking and choosing. Well, I believe this thing, and then I won't believe this thing. That wouldn't be consistent.

What things are contradictory? What are you talking about? Well, to say that we do it because it works is a contradiction. Why? Because it's a fallacy. Works to do what? Explain your idea. I explained the fallacy right there. That's a fallacy.

Explaining it? I don't have to. It is. You've contradicted yourself. How? Because that was a contradiction. It's paradoxical. Well, you said one thing was and one thing wasn't, so you're wrong. I'm not going to elaborate.

I mean, I have been elaborating. So if you're characterizing my position as not elaborating, I've been very explicit. So what makes the Christian moral worldview on private land ownership? Well, we're made in God's image. So we have the Ten Commandments. It has a position where you can't steal. So that's a basis for private property right there. But I can't just pick and choose.

You can't explain it. What do you mean by explaining? Is your answer just God said? No, the answer is that your worldview is inconsistent. and it contradicts. That's a transcendental argument. That's the argument. What is inconsistent about my worldview? You gave no justification for why rights are a thing. You just said because it works. That's not a justification. It's a fallacy. That I explain a function of existence. That's not a good argument. That's not a good argument. That's not a good argument. That's not a good argument.

That's a bad argument. So you're just saying things. Well, you're just saying things to me. I'm explaining to you how it would work in a college class if you took an epistemology class. You would be getting the same critiques. Is your argument God wills it? No. The argument is that the worldview as a whole is coherent and gives a justification and a grounding for the ethics and for these things. And why explain the coherence of it?

Well, if the world is made by God, if we have ethics being made in the image of God based on the Ten Commandments, these kinds of things, then it makes sense why things are wrong and right. Are there other religions? Of course. Do they think you are wrong? that's a fallacy it doesn't matter so why are there people that don't believe two to both two is four yeah sure sure my point is it does that have anything to do with any does that have anything to do with let's try this before we actually go to the next segment if your argument is i am right and other

world views are just wrong and don't matter that's not what i are i argue they're contradictory okay i argue yours is contradictory and you're that's not an argument it is i gave you argue it's the argument you gave to me i showed your contradiction because you said what's the contradiction You said that it's true because it works. I didn't say it was true. You said that that's why you believe it. I said based on what we think we know right now and there may be better structures we discover in the future, this seems to be the best course of action for promoting human existence.

So it works. Let's say it works argument. I think that's an oversimplification of we act upon probabilities to do the best we can. But again, none of those things work to ground why private property should be something that everybody should accept. I think my argument is it helps people survive better than any system we have. So it works. That's a pragmatic argument and that doesn't work to justify or ground the position. Certainly does. No. Why should we use a fire hose to put out fires?

You keep thinking that working means that it's a justification. That's not what grounding is even asking for. It's a different type of question. I understand, but you're not actually making any point at all other than God wills it. That was not what the argument. The argument was that the whole, worldview. Your argument is I have a Christian worldview that is... It's a transcendental argument for the whole worldview. And I have that same exact thing. No, you didn't argue that at all. I do. You argued utilitarianism and pragmatism. I argued that the structure of life is organizing free energy in a complex systems. But that doesn't tell me what I ought to do. That just says what is. It indeed tells you what you ought to do. Why? How is it universal? You are to be fruitful and multiply. Is that universal?

Indeed. How? That life procreates and creates more life. Well, that's a universal but you said that it's subjective to you. Well, no, I recognize that other people believe other things. That's not what universal means. It just means is it binding everywhere at all time? You said it was subjective to me and I said... You said that. I said, no, I recognize other people believe other things. That's not what universal means.

And other people could perceive that as subjective. Universal means it applies at all times, at all places to all people. Uh-huh. They ought to do this. They should ought to do this. Okay. What is the basis for the ought in your position? the basis for why people should have children.

And have private property or whatever. God wills it. But you don't believe in God in any specific way. So how does that have any meaning? I literally do believe in God. You said it's not the Christian God. It's just parts of Genesis. Correct. I don't believe in a Christian God. So what's the principle of this God?

Principle of God is largely a Christian God. So you do, but don't. I don't get it. Do you have the ability to understand that there are different faith structures? Yeah. By all means, you're allowed to say my religion is wrong. But it has to be coherent. To argue that I don't have a religion. Certainly, my religion is consistent.

Okay. What is the basis for when you know when to pick from what text and which ones to reject? I'd ask the same question of you. Well, that's a too quok way. That's a fallacy. To ask you to define. To ask me the question I'd just ask you as a fallacy in debate, yeah. Can you do it or no?

Yeah. I don't pick and choose, so I don't have that problem. I accept the totality of the Christian paradigm. So for me, it's not a problem to pick and choose. Or the dogs. So are there things in the Bible that you do not adhere to? No. Explain to me like, there's modernization, correct?

Of what? Of the Christian, I don't know, I guess moral structures, what you're supposed to do, what you're not supposed to do? Like, talk to me about Leviticus. What about it? It's a typology. Do you follow it? Are there things to be followed? Yeah, there's principles in Leviticus, sure. Jesus references those, yeah.

Do you, is it okay to not follow some of them? Is it okay to follow some of them? Well, Jesus being the one that gave Leviticus as the law would have the ability to decide how it's interpreted. So, yes. Are there things in the Bible that you are supposed to do that you don't? There are temporary ceremonial commands that are fulfilled. So you're talking about like sacrifice animals, sure. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't? If the principle is that Jesus gave the law and he says how it's,

exercise and fulfilled, that's not inconsistent. What I don't understand is there are Christians that don't eat meat on Fridays. That's just a fasting position that Catholics do. Yeah, is that right or wrong? Well, what does that have to do with Leviticus? I'm now moving forward and asking you about a specific thing, I don't understand that there are Catholics. They don't eat meat on Fridays. So again, I think you don't view Catholics as coherent.

Right. That is, well, and the argument there. You view your religious structure as the coherent structure and other structures are incoherent. Okay, I disagree, and we are allowed to disagree that we have two different moral religious worldviews, and that is the inherent disagreement. So in my moral worldview, I believe there is a basis in private ownership, because if you are to fulfill God's will of having children, having families, you need a way to control your resources so that you can do that without being taken from you. I actually think we agree on that point. I do, yeah. Yeah.

So I don't know why you were arguing when we had completely agreed on that other than to say I'm not a Christian. Because it's not just a question of having the right position, but what are the good reasons for? That's arguing for the argument. No, it's not. That's what a pistol is. Let's go talk to talk about Trump's State of the Union and CNN. And it was fun debating, though. I appreciate it.

Did you know what started that all? What? Cuba. A Levi Strauss-Strauss comment. A Levi-Shrast comment. Company towns, communism, and I'm sure it'll be an entertainment. clip for so many people. But let's talk about Trump State of the Union because there was one really great point from it and check out this headline from CNN. Boy, oh boy, Trump's state of the union

left some viewers unconvinced that'll lower the cost of living CNN poll fines. Wow, I saw that headline and I was like, geez, it must have been a pretty awful state of the union address, guys. As it turns out, instead of headlining the article with Trump's state of the union viewed positively by masses, which is actually what they concluded. They tried to still make it negative. Some viewers are unconvinced. How many are some viewers? 38%.

Indeed, my friends, the polls show 63% of people polled by CNN viewed Trump's State of the Union positively. Yet, of course, and this is for you, Jake, when you're talking about how regular people don't know this stuff, when you read a headline that says, some people are unconvinced by Trump, according to our poll. The immediate assumption most people make is, wow, Trump must not have done a good job. When in actuality, the poll is Trump won two to one. This is the world that we live in.

I thought it was a tremendous state of the union address. And I think it's more than that. We actually have this, check this out from CNN themselves. The polling universe here is about 13 points more Republican than the. overall population usually is. So just keep all that in mind as we go to the results of our instant poll, get this reaction from those that watch the speech tonight. 38% said they had a very positive reaction to the speech, 25% somewhat positive, 36% negative. So roughly two thirds in the positive territory, one third negative among speech watchers. The poll... Indeed, my friends.

So what are going to do, you guys? I mean, look, it's worth noting that CNN's you know did the poll and CNN viewers came back two to one saying that it was positive I think I imagine if you get a broader a more broad

even more positive yes I don't know I think the argument CNN's making is that their viewers are heavily Republican audience since when I don't buy that I think he said of the people who watched to 13 some odd percent leans Republicans so the people viewing would be skewed Yeah it doesn't make sense that

The pollsters wait for these things. The pollster would intentionally say, we want 10 Democrats, 10 independents, and 10 Republicans. They wouldn't just be like, literally anybody, tell me what you thought. That's not doing a poll. I guess if the argument is we Democrats don't care about the state of the union address and tuned out, that would be a great point for them to make.

Totally. Look, I do think it was, he did put on a good performance. Trump, always the showman, did a really good job. I think creating a lot of images for, Republicans in the midterm with the constant like applaud and then the Democrats not applauding and the contrast between the two, especially when they're bringing up things for like obviously bringing in the Olympians too. But when they referenced Ena, the woman who got stabbed to death on public transit in Charlotte and then the Democrats didn't stand up. I think that made

for a potent image. So stuff like that. But otherwise, I mean, the state of the union, I don't think most people tune in. I think after the first 10 minutes, 50% of the people who are watching generally tune out. I think you really know what the president's going to say. Nonetheless, it was a good speech. I was unimpressed. I think Republicans are obviously going to cheer this on because it's the president. And if it was Joe Biden or whatnot, they would say. Why is that? This photo, you see that photo? Yes. What do you think about that photo? I see gold medals, baby. That's all I see. And that's, you don't see anything else?

A guy with a mask on a moron. A guy with a mask on who's all pissed off. Yeah. And this is why, you know, after this speech, you know, Donald Trump says at the speech, he goes, stand up if you agree that the duty of, what do you say, of government is to protect the American citizens, not illegal immigrants, and the Democrats didn't stand up. No. That's wild. Yeah. I mean, but is it a spiteful thing?

Is it, screw you, Trump, I don't want to stand with you? Or do you really not believe that? I think they don't believe it. And I think there's an easy way to put it, like, let's say you live in a house, you got, you got two roommates. Okay. And you guys are buddies since grade. school. You all love going bowling together. You all completely agree on everything. And then one day,

a guy comes in your house and he's like, I got nowhere to sleep. I'm sleeping on your couch. And you guys go, well, I don't know. I guess it's okay. Now of a sudden, this guy votes too. So when you guys are like, what's for dinner, you guys are like pizza night and he goes, no, I want to do chicken. And you guys go, sorry, bro, it's pizza night. And so then a week later, his buddy comes in. And you guys are like, well, I guess it's fine. Three or two. Now, now there's two guys on the couch. And one day you go, all right, pizza night. And one of your friends goes, I actually don't mind chicken. And now pizza night's gone. And then third guy shows up. And the two guys say, I vote, we let him stay. And one of your

buddies goes, I think it's fine. Now it's three versus three. And one guy's leaning towards them. Now everything you built, everything you paid for is being voted away. And that's what this is. So when you take a look like Zoran, Mom Doni, when you take a look at you, at Chicago, Chicago's losing the bears, okay? And I'll tell you why it's losing the bears, because Chicago is a city of people who never cared for what the bears were or are. And I'm, and I left because of the corruption. But let me put it like this. If 100% of the people are like, the bears, the bears are going to get all the funding in the world. Everyone's going to do it. So when they say, when a new stadium, everyone screams and cheers and says, we're getting a new

stadium for the bears. Over 30 or 40 years, you bring in a bunch of migrants from other countries who don't watch football. And then what happens? Now it's six. You say, we want to vote to give a billion dollars to the Bears for a stadium and 40% says no. And only 30% show up in the pro bear side to even vote. And now all of a sudden the Bears are going to Indiana. You can tell them pissed off about it. The Indiana Bears. The Indiana Bears.

You really think they're going to leave? Yeah. It's a fact. It's confirmed. It's confirmed. That's crazy. Chicago's pride in joy. Chicago's.

They got guaranteed rate field with the White Sox. Mike Ditka and the bears. I know. And they're going to just lose that. Indeed. It's over. Because of immigrants. Are you so much?

Well, I wouldn't say only immigrants. They have a big part of it, though. It is, but it's cultural degradation. Like, again, this photo, you got these guys wearing USA sweaters and gold medals who just beat miserable this guy. And, you know, I don't know who this guy is. Maybe his dog died, right? But it really does exemplify the liberals, the left.

Wearing masks, pissed off, hating America. they won't stand up when Trump is like, are you for the American citizens? And the reality is this. There are two countries. There are two nations. A nation is its people. A country is its borders. And there are two nations within the borders of the United States, a multicultural democracy and a constitutional republic. The constitutional republic are the traditional Americans. You might be liberal. You might be conservative. You might be libertarian. The Democrats represent a multicultural democracy largely of leftist ideologues, Marxists, and immigrants. they don't care about American history. They don't care about the founding fathers.

They don't care about the Fourth of July. You don't want to know what else? Chicago don't have the Fourth of July anymore. What? It's been gone for years. Really? Yep. What do you mean?

Chicago ain't got no Fourth of July. They don't deserve the Bears, man. If they don't have Fourth of July... They don't do fireworks? What do they do? Just do gunshots? Nope. Yeah.

Still in some parts of the city, people will be letting off fireworks. We'll see it all over the place because people do this. And Navy Pier does a lot. a private fireworks ceremony every weekend, but they ended the 4th of July celebration for the city because it is being run by communists who hate America. You guys turned into Detroit over there. So this whole time you've been talking about sports, I thought you're talking about big gay

dudes that are hairy. Bears? Well, Chicago has, Chicago's going to keep their bears. They're all on North Halstead near Wrigley Field. You're too well-versed in the gay lingo. That's a red flag. That's a huge red flag. I don't know sports. Do you know about the handkerchiefs?

I don't know. That's what you want to say. That's what I figured. He really does. I don't know. So, you know, and again, we'll say this to, we'll go to the bears thing in a second because I'm going to go nuts. But the leftists, they say like, oh, it's all about love, you know, like, you know, two guys, they want to get married. It's no big deal.

And that was the trick people like me fell for in 2008, 2010, where it's like, yeah, man, I don't care. And then the reality was, and I did kind of know this, because my family owned. a coffee shop on North Halston on Halsand in Waverland. And what do you find? It's just always been about sex. It's fetishism. It's always fetishism. There was almost never a circumstance

where I saw like a guy just hug another guy and say, I love you. It was a bar themed with people being raped in prison. And on the window, it's a guy grabbing the bars. They are very, yeah, it's not just like they're just like, they're very gender and sexual. So we'll explain this.

The handkerchiefs in the pocket. On the left side, it means you take. On the right side, it means you give. Different colored handkerchiefs symbolize different fetishes. And so you walk down the street with the handkerchief. That's why they used to say having your left ear pierced was gay. No, no, no, right ear pierced. It was the right ear piece.

Don't make me gay now. The right ear? Yeah, that's what I thought. If you had only had your right. Dude, I thought it was the non-should hearing that made you gay. That's extremely gay too. And they had it backwards. Well, that's the one you have.

Because when I was a kid, I only had my left ear. left because I was straight. Then I got earrings and they got another. And maybe it's the other way I'm like if it's in the left it means you give and the right means you take or something. I don't know. Either way it's gay. There all these codes like I was walking with I had a handkerchief and now I'm thinking like that's right off of the city was seeing my handkerchief coming out of my pocket and I'm like now that I thought that made you a gang member but now it just makes you gay. A gang gang gang gang. A gay gang. A gang. When a gangs don't do that

and they don't wear handkerchiefs. What? Crips and bloods of course. But they don't idolize it. If in Chicago, you put a handkerchief in your pocket, you're asking for some dude to come up on you. Gang, get up in there. And the gangs know that. Rough, too. So, there's a bunch of different gang colors.

And if you walk around anywhere in gang colors, you're getting stopped. So, like, my friends, I had a friend who made a mistake of wearing a black shirt with gold basketball shorts. Not good. And a car pulls up and they said, y'all, homie, what you is? What's set you banging? And he was, yeah, and he was just like, uh, nothing, bro, what? and they were like, yo, I said what you is. And he's like, skateboarder, and they started laughing,

and they drove off. Like, even if I'm white? Even if you're a white dude, yeah. Yeah, of course. This isn't just the black thing? No, he could be bad. Do you? What the Latin kings are black?

They might as well be. Bro. Latin. Latin king? Can you be a Latin? What a white dude? Yes, of course. Can you?

Of course. Latin guys. Do the white still have gangs, too? I guess the white power games. We have the sharks in the jets. You kidding me. They got the biggest game in the world. West Side Story and we dance.

When you? I read, yeah. No, when you guys used to be Italians, you guys used to act up. We're going for it, guys. The most important story ever. We had this from the Chicago Tribune. Governor J.B. Pritzker suggests no matter how Indiana v. Illinois fight goes, the new Bears home won't be in Chicago. And I knew this because Chicago bought, I'm sorry, the Chicago Bears bought land in Arlington Heights, Illinois. And they're looking at a swath of land in Hammond, Indiana, which, to be fair, is basically, it's still Chicago. like it's still the metro but you cross the border. It doesn't matter because Arlington Heights is not Chicago and Hammond is not Chicago.

So Pritzker said, let me read this. He was like, I think now there's a common understanding for most of the General Assembly. They're not going to be able to build in the city of Chicago. For at least a year and a half, there's been a significant effort by the Bears as well as Chicago lawmakers and others to try and figure if the Bears could build what they need to build in the city of Chicago. They looked and they, I think, gave the old college try, so to speak. to try and find a place where, within the city of Chicago, and they couldn't. So that's why, so that's why I think we're down to the question of whether they're going to build in Arlington Heights or they're going to build something in the state of Indiana.

He said, it's very hard to find in a dense city, a dense city like the city of Chicago, he said. This is, I remember when the Redskins lost their name. They lost their mascot and they lost their logo. And we, and we mocked it. But you know, I didn't feel for it. I did, but I did immediately buy Redskins Ziploc bags. I went on Amazon and I said, they're worth of fortune now.

Yeah, now $2,000 Ziploc bags and they're currently locked away in a vault. I'm not joking. They are protected. And I still see people wearing the Redskins, but it's the commanders. And they have a war pig for their mascot. I like the Washington football team. I thought that was American. I think it's better than the commanders.

I'll trade you three and Jim Mimas for one Redskins. I miss Aunt Jemima too You know the Aunt Jemima thing really pissed me off as well You know why? When I saw that box With Aunt Jemima on it It gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside

From when I was a kid We always had a box of Aunt Jemima We didn't We sometimes had Mrs. Butterworths But I would make the pancakes I'd mix it with the milk or whatever And my view of Aunt Jemima Was not that she was

It was not racial and slavery They tell us We're supposed to feel like She was our slave Making our breakfast I was like, I kind of just viewed it as a nice old lady. My old lady aunt. Mom was the slave making the breakfast.

Exactly. My white mother. Guys, they have torn down our statues. No, it's so sad about the bears, bro. You guys have sucked for so long. And you finally get this kid, you finally get this kid, this team, this tight end. And you finally got a good team. They're like, yeah, let's get out of you.

It's just like, yeah, it's fine. Let's blow this popsicle stand. We had the 80s. And this is when I'm growing. up with S&L and Ditka and Dub Bears. And so the Patriots in the 80s. Look at that. And so let me tell you guys.

Let me, because I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to just, I'm going nuclear. I remember when they tore down the statue of Jefferson. I remember when they tore down the statue of Columbus. I remember when they tore down the statue of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave. I was going to say, wasn't he black? He got his freedom. He fought slavery.

And they tore it down because every argument the radical left makes is not actually the argument. They hate this country. They want to destroy our history and burn it to the ground. And what I see with Illinois and Chicago is admittedly, okay, I'm going to be logical for you guys. Not the most egregious thing you can do. Like literally tearing down Jefferson is. But in my heart, taking Chicago out of the bears is like igniting, it's like ripping the souls out of a generation and smashing it with the hammer. It's like taking New York out of the Yankees. It makes no sense. And this is what the Democrats do. They invite people into our cities who are not from here under the guise of multiculturalism. And then one day we find ourselves up for a vote. Do we want to cut a tax break for the Chicago Bears and grant them money so they can have a stadium and be our team? And what happens? The city and the state say, nah.

And they're finally good, too. I could understand if they suck. If they suck, screw it. Get them out of you. But they're good, man. Even if they suck. What do the Cubs? Truly want?

Like you just said, you know, they hate America and everything. Okay, so if you have it your way, if you have everything your way and everything you want, what is America? I don't think it's that the Democrats, I wouldn't necessarily say the Democrats. Liberals. The argument is there is a faction, a political faction in this country that hates this country, views it as evil and wants to destroy it. Much of this is guided by manipulations and propaganda from overt communists and socialists who, literally want to destroy our economic system and create a communist system. They use these arguments like racism as a vehicle to trick people into voting against their interests. So Democrats as politicians,

they're just, you know, like the Democratic Party I would describe as basically just like if you took 200 Candace Owens and told them to go campaign, they're going to just spread around like nasty little NPC and go into each campaign district and just say whatever needs to be said. to get the votes. Conservatives unfortunately keep fighting, like Thomas Massey is fighting with the Republicans and the Epstein stuff and they're always going at each other. The Democrats, to a certain degree,

sometimes do this with circular firing squads, but they largely march in lockstep. But is there any precedent for communism working? So then what the, why do you want something? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Hey, that's a good point. Why? Because America is irredeemably bad because of our history is what roughly they would say.

They would say that we were founded by white supremacist's slave owners and there's no way to reform a broken system like this. Our police department is irredeemably racist, therefore we need to completely abolish. There is no reforming. Same with our DHS and ICE and Border Patrol and stuff like that. That's what they would argue. So it's complete abolishment.

And then what would replace it, probably some People's Republic of Retards and some socialist think that they can scramble together. That is the ideology, though. It truly is that we are irredeemably white supremacist and founded. You can't come back. Not only that, the Bill of Rights is not, you know,

humanistic or maybe you'd want to call them Christian principles, but like beyond that, that they are fundamentally white supremacists. But look, they don't actually believe that. They're just, that's what the left argues. If you actually talk to any prominent organizer on the left, I don't mean prominence and they're

famous, they will outright tell you they don't think it's white supremacy, but it's a vehicle by which stupid people react. Yeah, and that's because postmodernism is taken over the left and it's all about power. So you know ever since the 60s and with like foucault and stuff like they the fall of the soviet union was a big deal right so it used to be that vulgar Marxism was going to be which is like economic Marxism the classes money class the property owners versus the bourgeoisie the the working people I'm sorry we're versus the working people and then when the Soviet Union proved that it didn't you know that it didn't work and capitalism kind of made it clear that even the workers could have a good

life. Then you had people like Herbert Marcuse saying, oh, hey, look, this is all false consciousness. You believe that you're free. You believe that you have a good life. But you don't really. And so what they did is they said, well, we have to find a new place to find the revolutionary energy. And that's when they went into the race communism. So basically it turned it into racial stuff. I mean, but what I've learned about race from slavery and everything was that, first of all, blacks were not the only slaves. First slave owner was black. Well, exactly. And they sold themselves. In our country, to be fair, they were disproportionately black. They were.

But only when you had a massive amount of property did you have true slaves. I heard that it was a lot like regular people that they kind of were part of the family. Like, you know, you had a slave. For real. You had a slave that. There was a word for that, but we don't say that. Oh, yeah, yeah.

So hold on, hold on. There's a lot that liberals don't know about slavery. They think, like when you ask a, a liberal to describe slavery, what are they going to tell you? Black men in the field being beaten with a whip. It's like, okay, how about a man in a suit in a store making shoes? That was also slavery. Even in my liberal college classes when we did American history, they met us watch this

video of an interview from probably 60s or 70s with one of the last living slaves who was still around. And he said, well, you know, I remember it. It wasn't that bad. and I'm like Wait, what? Oh, God. Well, the thing is, the North was as racist as racist could be.

I mean, come on, we had the Civil Rights era 100 years later. They wanted wage workers. Right. And the South, it was around 3% of people who owned slaves. So the Civil War, yeah, 3%. Because it was, it was wealthy. It was like big companies, you know what I mean? Like, how many people own Amazon, an Amazon warehouse?

or like a distribution warehouse. It's like not that many relatively. So how many people need a hundred workers working for cheap? Yeah. The other thing is they never really ask themselves these questions of like, how did slaves buy their own freedom? Because the origin of slavery was that there was an indentured servant to a black man who could not pay off the debt no matter how much, like a lifeum of work would not

pay off the money owed. So a court ruled he would remain indentured for life, which created de facto slavery. And then of course, certainly. people were bought and sold, all of that was miserably bad, but it was much more complex than you'll get from the average left. So then the question is, question I asked a long time ago, hey, how did people buy their own slavery? It doesn't make sense to a slave. Oh, well, they were allowed to make money. Okay, so how did it work? Slaves answered to the slave owner, and the slave owner just defined the parameters by which the slave could do things. That is, there were many slaves

where the slave owner would be like, I need you to, like, be a shoemaker, right? We're going to make 10 pairs of shoes. And then the slave would be like, well, what if I do 12? And he goes, if you do 12, I'll give you some money. After the work you are supposed to do, if you're going to do more, we'll pay you. That happened in some circumstances. Some incentives. They saved up.

And then eventually one day said, all of that money you gave me, I saved. I want to be a free man. And they'd say, okay. And to be fair, often, they go buy more slaves. But it was possible. I think slavery was wrong. It's stupid. all that stuff obviously, but very few people actually own slaves, and slavery was not all

just people being beaten. Not that any of it was good. I will say this also isn't unique to the United States. Many other countries have slaves, and some countries around the world still have literal slavery. A lot of Middle Eastern countries and North African countries are heavily involved in slavery. And then there's the de facto slavery and things like happening in the country of like Qatar, where it's like literally slave labor where these people have their passports and whatnot taken away from them. So to go back to your original question, though, is what was the left or liberals' goal in the United States?

And for the left, I do think it genuinely is to weaken the United States from inside because they believe that many of our enemies are righteous. So I do think leftists and communists in our country do believe that, you know, the CCP is righteous, that they do think China is good. And they look to them as a model of something that is good and just in the world. And then they look at us as evil and such. And a lot of their rhetoric actually comes from the CCP. And these are people born in America.

Yep. You remember, mouth-loathing Americans. You remember when... Sort of suicidal empathy. You know the BLM fist, right? Yeah, of course. That's the communist red salute. Oh, yeah, yeah.

It's like, imagine if people are walking out with swastikas, identical. And now we change it to, like, you know, Green Lives Matters, but it's a swastika logo. Yeah. Yeah. So the guy who killed Aaron Danielson had the... It's the communist fist. And you'll see people walking down the street and they'll raise their fist and the fingers face out. That's the communist fist.

Black Panther, did they stand for communism? Yes. They were communist. They were communist. And that's the communist fist. So the reason why you make a fist and you point the fingers forward is it's the ethos is the same as the fascists. The fascists had the fascis, which is a bundle of sticks bound together with a blade. It's a weapon.

I swear that was another word for that. It's the same word. Oh, F-A-G-S? Yes. fascis and faggot are the exact same word. They're just different languages. Literally bundles of sticks wrapped together

they put a blade on it. And the argument was, we did this with the Simpsons joke where Martin was it Martin, he was like, alone we are like the weak twig, but together we form the mighty faggot. It puts the sticks together. And so that's literally what fascists meant. The communists argued the exact same thing.

The fingers, a finger alone is weak. The fingers together make a fist. So that's why you're supposed to show your fist facing forward to show all the fingers together. Keep strong together. Indeed. So what you end up with is... Such a great line. I get goosebumps on these things.

Economic instability in Europe. And then you get authoritarian traditionalists, fascists and Nazis. They're distinct from each other, but similar. And the communists, which are internationalists, uh, progressives that want to erase. The difference, you know, people like, you're a fast. You're a communist. They're both authoritarian governmental structures where an authority tells you what you can or cannot do. You have no freedom. What's the distinct differences? So when it comes to the Nazis and the fascists, functionally economically, I'd argue we're split in hairs.

They're both authoritarian, but the communists want to erase your history and they believe everyone's a blank slate who should be wearing a great jump suit. The fascist, the Nazis are, my nation and my people are the best and we should preserve our history. history and traditions. What makes my grandmother call Trump a fascist? That makes me so angry. Trump's Arrangement syndrome. I just ignorance. Like if you watch, no offense to your grandma. Well, she's Jewish, so you're a lot to offend us. And you are too? Yeah. I noticed the cross on your hand. It was a little bit. Well, my mother's Christian. My father's side was not like practicing Jew, but Hungary or she's hungry. Like we had people that got killed, so I rep it. I, the saying we have is, I wish Trump was ten.

percent of the fascist they claimed he was. Maybe he would actually send in the police to stop all the rioting. It makes me so angry. I literally want to punch her on her head. Your grandmother! I love her with all my heart. I love her with all my heart. But she's like, what?

Trump's a fascist. I don't know. Part of me thinks your grandma would kick your ass. No, no, no. She'd take off the slipper and she'd be hit me. Her old Jew self couldn't handle me anymore. But yeah, it makes me so angry. But she really does have TDS, bro,

and it's sick. It's crazy. It's like... Nowadays, fascism is just a... it's a catch-all word for someone that's authoritarian, or they believe is authoritarian. They don't understand what, they don't understand any of the tenets of fascism. They don't understand that there's a difference between Nazis and fascists,

even though Nazis are fascists, not all fascists are Nazis. They don't, any of the nuances is all gone. It's just bad person that I don't like that one, you know, that is pro-conservatives, you know? Fascism is the melding of the private and the public sector into one. Like a company town.

One of the, one of the principal arguments was, it's the lucrative merger of corporation and state. And one of the reasons people can flate the Italian fascists with the German Nazis was that while you'll hear a lot of people say that the Nazis were socialist, it's the national socialist party. The left will argue they weren't actually socialists because it wasn't a command economy the way they want communists to be.

But the structure of the German economy under the, when the Nazis took over, was I would describe it the way our economy functioned from 2018 until like 2022, which is if you don't adhere to the cultural mandates, we will end your company. So that's why you end up with people bending the knee. Everybody's scared to speak up. They fired an executive from Netflix for explaining racial slurs. So you had this, the culture was, but aren't you against racism? During Nazi Germany was, you're not going to produce steel for the for the war effort? What are you doing? And you'd be canceled. So the difference with the communists, they would be like, here's your book. Here's what you're entitled to. And then it's like the state's doing it. The fascists were like,

why won't you do what we demand of you? And then you'd have all these social pressures, which I think is to a degree scarier in some ways. So the cancellation thing is more fascism. Communism is more kick your door in and kind of kill you if you don't do it. Like the, the fascist and Nazis is very, very similar in the general description, that fascists being the merger of corporation and state where the state would basically go to the corporation to be like, you're going to do what we want you to do. The Nazis basically did the same thing. The argument, however, was that it was cultural enforcement. You don't want to be. There's that famous picture where everyone's doing the Nazi salute and the one guy's like this. And it was like,

you don't want to be that guy. You are going to march with everybody in lockstep or else. You will not work in this place. So it was more de facto. And that's pretty worrying. The thing about the communists is that everyone was just scared and would do, right? So there's similarities. There's The principal differences I see was in both systems, the authoritarian state is going to make you do what they want you to do. You're only allowed to buy what they let you buy. There's limited degrees of freedom in certain areas. But the communist's argument is your history is bad and should be destroyed. And the fashion of the Nazis are like, our history is good and should be preserved.

Does North Korea entice you? It makes me, I am so interested in what goes over there and like have that. My great grandfather is from where is now North Korea. What do they have that they're making money? Like, what are they exporting that finances are still going into that country? How have they not just ran out of... They're subsidized by China. And they are starving.

Right, yeah. Their people are starving. Their economy is stagnant. They have that skyscraper in Pyongyang that never finished because they don't have the... What goes on there? Is there any jobs? Is there like, what? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think you'd be surprised that, you know, one of the challenges we have in North Korea is they Potemkin Village everything. The argument the North Koreans make is that it's not that they're tricking us. It's that when a guest comes over, you dress in your finest and you present your best meal. You don't have them show up the house a mess. However, that means that for the most part when we go now, we can't actually see how people are living. But largely farmers, living farm lives. And the challenge is there was one story I was told where a cow died.

And you're not allowed to take the meat. The meat has to be taken by the state and distributed evenly. So if you have an animal on your property and you're a farmer and it dies, you can't eat it. thing. And it'll just spoil. And so what happens is everyone joins the military. So there will be a young man from the area who will just come over and then he'll be like, uh-oh, it's tainted. I have no choice. And then the people come and take it and eat it. And then he reports that it was diseased meat and they couldn't take it. So they lie. So you'll breed a lot of corruption because people are starving and they don't like it. His life entire, like it makes me so baffled of like how. Part of it sounds awesome.

It really, he's a god. and he believes he's too. I don't think he... Are you saying he's not? How do you know he's not? He doesn't poop before, according to Seth Rogen. He went to school in Sweden. Here's what I'd say about North Korea. You got to admit, as bad as it is, some of it. Like, the cultural cohesion may be a little too extreme, but I'll take a little bit of that.

He likes Dennis Rodman. He loves Dennis Rodman. And it's the only place on the planet that's still like that, right? You know, they're... Were they like Dennis Rodman? Yes. Here's, I'll tell you this. You'll find a lot of these progressives in the United States. love North Korea. And the reason why is,

you ever see that map of North and South Korea? Yeah. Where the lights are all off? Oh, yes, yes. Where there's no electricity and yes. Nighttime north. South Korea is thriving, right?

I mean, they got K-pop. Yeah, they get, sure. That's taking part of the world. I'm going to pull up this image for you guys. Yeah, cool haircuts. Check this out. People go, how's communism doing? And then here's South Korea and here's North Korea.

But you know, what is that? I mean, how is that possible? But here's the thing. when communists look at this, they say, I wish. Because do you know what that argument is? Nature. Return to nature. Return to nature.

Exactly. The communist view is like, when we all look at this and say, wow, look how amazing China and South Korea is, the communists to go, wow, look how amazing North Korea is. You're not alienated. They have real nature. They have real wilds. There's not light pollution and noise pollution and smog. everywhere and they're closer to nature. Many of these communists, that's why you see the climate change stuff.

They're like, y'all should be living in the woods like monkeys. Now tell me this. How is South Korea not able to go take over North Korea? China. But why does China want that? As a lot of arguments, China wants a buffer against U.S. colonial force. Which is South Korea? So basically what happens with the Korean War is China was with the north and the U.S. with

the south and they went back and forth and then formed this line, the DMZ. China's attitude is like, we do not want the United States on our doorstep. Even close to us. Yeah, because they're going to be, I mean... It's like having Cuba, you know. Exactly. And for the United States, we don't want to stop the spread of communism. Which, you know, it really is interesting, and I know a lot agrees with this.

When I grew up hearing about the Vietnam War and all the stuff, it's painted in modern history as like this terrible unjusting that never should have happened. And while I do largely agree it was a mismanaged botched thing, we used a false flag to enter it, I then go back and think, but isn't it good to stop the spread of communism? If the United States was facing a threat, imagine what would have happened if the U.S. did not win the Cold War.

We'd be surrounded on all fronts by a unipolar communist Soviet force of people that are half-starved and they're trying to steal our stuff. Like a zombie-fied planet. That's terrifying. Didn't it would have gotten that far? Absolutely.

And, but fortunately, the U.S., well, to be honest, maybe not because communism, like, struggles, you know what I mean? He's going full circle. Tim is now sounding like a neocon because he's starting to defend the Korean War and even though it was a very just cause to fight against the expansion

of communism you know. Yeah, but my point is that I of course think it's... Which I do support too and I think I think I... My point is that Vietnam was wrong. It was a failure of an operation. Well, it was wrong or a failure. And we were fighting communism on that end too? The false flag,

the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us involved in Vietnam is evil. Like if the American people say we are not interested in this fight. You can't force them to do it. That is wrong. Sending by draft young men to go fight in a war, they didn't understand under false pretext is wrong. And it was a failed operation, flubbed miserably by terrible, like, military leaders. So I think we get to benefit from the hindsight. If shit hit the wall in Korea and North Korea just managed to completely take over, then all of that would also be true for Korea. So it's hard to like, you know, you're kind of, you're judging. With Korea, I don't believe we stayed.

a false flag to justify our occupation invasion? No, it was because the North re-invaded. But even then, some people would say it would be unjust to use a draft to defend a foreign nation when we weren't being attacked ourselves in Korea. But I think still the Korean War was justified. If we had completely lost in South Korea never had been a thing, I think people would be saying the same thing about South Korea. Well, you know, Fair Point hindsight is 2020.

I don't think, I think Vietnam certainly has its problems today, but things have cooled off quite a bit. I certainly think... What we're stopping communism with the Vietnam War? That was the goal was? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, not only... Well, I mean, to be, to be honest, communism still exists in some form, but what China is is some kind of like... I don't think it's fair to call China communism. It's, uh, there's... The third way. The third way? Yeah, it's like...

A blend. Like fashion. Right. Oh, they definitely think of themselves as common. The idea is the Chinese Communist Party said, we need to allow certain forms of economics, but we need to maintain absolute authority. So they'll let people file to open a business

and try it out, but if you get to a certain size, the Chinese Communist Party gets an office in your building to make sure you're operating under their purview. Well, there's no free speech laws, there's no property rights, there's no freedom of religion. In my eyes, that's still, no freedom of religion. And in my eyes, that describes, that's

communism. And they're actually abusing Muslims with genocide and Xinjiang in their West because they want to assimilate all of the Chinese. The issue that I think many people on the right in this country with China is the function of their ideology. Let me clarify that. The ideology they have, not the function of their governance. Meaning, if you had a United States that operated similarly under a Christian nationalist structure, many Americans on the right would completely agree with it. If the argument was run your business,

do what you want. When you get to a certain size, you're going to have, you know, an ideological minder, but it's to the betterment of the Christian ideals. Many people on the right would be like, yeah, I'm okay with it. Yeah, and that sounds exactly like China, but... Right, the point is, if you replace the ideology of China with Christianity, a lot of Christians be in favor of it. I think I would as a Christian. Honestly, I would.

That's not... What say you, sir? How do you mean that? So, like, let's say you had a country, and the government was Christian. they allowed people to live in work, you can open a business, but everything is going to be under Christian doctrine, administered by the state, a Christian state. And they did things like Muslims were heavily restricted and not allowed. Things like that. My point is, right, my point was China's doing a lot of things that, again, I'll be specific.

Like with Muslims being, what's the, what's the truth? They see them as proxy forces from the West, right? I'm not before this, but I'm saying like... China does? Yeah, so Islam, the... What's the weird sect? Tibetan. The Kagan...

The... The Tibet project, the... The Tibet project with the Dalai Lama, that's all CIA stuff. That's declassified, too, by the way. Wait, you don't actually believe that. You think that's just what the CCP calls them? Or do you think it's legitimately... No, I think those are all Western projects.

So anything that is threatening to the CCP is what? Therefore, a CIA-backed project? Because these are all just separatists who are, no, I'm saying, who don't want to be assimilated. Well, in the case of like the Falling Gong, they may not be directly run by the CIA, but they would be supported by the West as something again. USAID probably.

But the case of Free Tibet, that actually was a CIA project, and the Dalai Lama has worked with the CIA. Let me put it like this. So they've got these, they've got the Uighur Muslim camps, right? Yeah. And they say, well, no, these are just prisoners. And the West argues they're people being oppressed. The stories that we get are horrifying.

if you were my point is if the ideology of china was purely Christian and it was like a Christian nationalist country and it was and the perspective of the people was we have arrested Muslim criminals like again I'm clarifying from what the West is saying about what they're doing versus what they say they're doing my point is if in the United States we had a Christian nationalist government and many extremist Muslims were arrested and put into prisons people on there I would be like, yes, absolutely. Sure. Sure, there are other things in the government that I think are, some Christians would argue as antithetical to their values.

The one child policy for a while, at the very least. Yeah, I think so. You're just about religious dissidents. Is that you're saying? Just putting them because... No, no, I mean like Muslims, specifically like, I believe there are many Christians that would have no problem if the government said, look, this is a criminal who committed a crime. We are putting them in prison. They call them terrorists as well. Yeah, that's my point.

So we look at what they're doing as a Chinese Communist Party with these camps with Muslims, and we're like, that's horrifying and wrong. If it was our government, they would be justifying it in a way that people would be like, well, I trust my government. This is the same reason they have a state-controlled Catholic Church because they don't want the normal. Yeah, they have a state-run Catholic Church, so they don't want the normal Catholic Church because they believe that it would be a tool for espionage. And aren't they forced to actually believe certain, like, Confucius?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I want to follow up on something you said, Jay. It's not that I think, I'm trying to understand, you legitimately think that all Tibetans that believe in separatism are all the most. That's not what we say. All right. It's just because I believe. And he's right. No, I'm saying the Free Tibet movement all the way back in the 1970s,

LA Times first reported on this, that it was supported by CIA money. And then it was just recently declassified that the CIA was involved in the Free Tibet project. Sure. Just as a buffer against the CCP. And this is the U.S. power where USAID, largely what they were doing, was providing aid to NGOs, but it was for the goal of destabilizing. Sure.

I think we have common interests. I'm not pro-CCP. I think we have common interests with these groups. I don't think that inherently makes them CIA, though. And I feel like some people on the left would just use that blanket term. Anybody who has similar end goals as us. So again, we might want to see parts of Tibet break off because we don't believe that's a legitimate part, or we would like to see Taiwan remain independent.

Some people would imply that they are CIA just because they have similar interests. No, in the case that the Dalai Lama, this is declassified, but also this was a relationship going all the way back to the Nazis, right? He was actually, when it looked like the Nazis might win, there was those famous meetings with the Dalai Lama and the SS because they were trying to curry favor with him, establish a relationship because the Nazis also were concerned with that geotr strategic location. Like you're talking about earlier with Cuba, Cuba relationship to the United States, Taiwan with China. Well, Tibet as well, right? Because it's kind of like Ukraine. If you can break Ukraine off, that's a, which Hitler wanted to do that too. He wanted to Ukraine. That's a buffer against Russia. So a lot of it's just geo-strategy. I'm not pro-CCP. I'm just saying that I think that's just geopolitics. Before we go to the chat, let me ask you, would you be in favor of a U.S. government that its basis for like, it's, it's, laws was Christianity?

You would have to have the majority of the population accepting something like Orthodox Christianity before anything like that would even be sensible. I mean, the last time there was something like this was like 1800s Russia where you had a symphony relationship of the Byzantine two-headed eagle is the model. So you have church and state. They worked in symphony. But you don't try to. I just more so mean like, is it a desirable outcome that the people of the United States

all agree an Orthodox Christian? Ultimately, but I mean, if that happened, I'd be like 200 years away. Sure, sure, sure. I'm just curious on if the end result was you had government that would go in, they'd say prayer, they would have discussions with religious leaders on does it make sense to implement a certain law? There would be close relationship. There would be two spheres, but there'd be a close relationship. But just it is desirable.

I ask this in all sincerity. I would argue that, yeah. I think most people would argue that their religion is the way in which their country should be. Sure. I think so, too. Yeah. I would argue that as... Tim Kast or Tim Kolt?

No cult. My argument is the function of Christianity is superior to everything else we have seen throughout history and that the United States would benefit from actually having Christianity in its government, as it did historically until we started to pull it out. Liberals don't know history. And, you know, so one thing that I've talked about quite a bit, you know, I grew Catholic. and ultimately just left the church and then became like an angsty teenage atheist, but then kind of realized that was wrong. And I remember reading about Blackstone's formulation, which is, it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.

And I thought, man, what a beautiful thing, right? And then Benjamin Franklin said it's actually better than 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer. And I said, yeah, but why? I mean, like, if you got a rapist running around and you're like, we're like, we're, going to have 10 rapists running around just so that one is don't aren't there sacrifices so i decided to read into it and and like why did blackstone say this uh the bible it's rooted in the story of saddam gomorra if there's but one righteous man i will not destroy this the city and the the legal framework by which the u.s operates for its innocent until proven guilty is quite literally

from the bible that's true and uh i believe it is it is logically and mathematically correct and this is my argument about my worldview on private rights is that we can actually mathematically map out why Christianity is correct. And that is the founding fathers argued if you take the religion out of it, you can go very simple and say, this is what God wills of us. It is better that, you know, if there's but one righteous man, we do not condemn, right? However, how does that translate to a functioning society? The founding father said, if you tell a man, regardless of is innocence, we will punish you just in case. You have created an incentive for a man to be derelict. You will tell the person, why bother being righteous and moral if we're going to harm you no matter what

you do? In fact, the incentive then is if I'm going to be in prison unjustly, I might as well try and get what I can while I'm at it. So they ultimately logically came together and said, then in fact, it quite does make sense that we should tell the people, even if a guilty person escapes we are going to make sure the innocent the burden will be on the government and I believe that is the righteous thing and the just thing it also

completely adheres to the Bible and the perspective on you know it was Saddam Gomorra but it also makes complete sense when we watch how humans are and when you take a look at what the left is doing releasing criminals intentionally it is I believe

an archa tyranny they want to create violence and instability but it also, I believe, is an attempt. I believe largely what the left is doing is trying to destroy Christianity. It is what these communists have argued for quite a bit. And I think a lot of what they do, and maybe not as directly, but it's a way to say, see, your ethos doesn't work. We let these guilty people escape and crime has been miserable and everyone's upset.

Maybe we shouldn't adhere to this. And you'll end up with an Atovon, Atovon Bismarck, where he said, it is better that 10 innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape. And what do you get with that? You get oppression, authoritarianism, command economies that ultimately collapse and everyone's pissed off. In the French Revolution, they let the prisoners out to engage and to be the front, the tip of the spear for the revolution. That was when the revolutionaries were like anti-fut, right? That's what's going on now.

Exactly. We are going to go to your chats and rumble rants to smash the like button, share the show with every person you've ever met. Go through your phone book. I bet if you open your phone book right now, there's like 30 phone numbers. you can't even remember who they are. Just text them like, hey, here's the link to Tim Kastairal. I'm kidding me, that's a bad idea. But who knows?

Don't text you. You guys remember number neighbors? Yes. People would text a phone number, one number up or down from their phone number. So if like the last four of your number was like 9331, they would text 9331, they would text 933. And they'd be like, I'm your number neighbor, who are you? In the phone book. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sounds like some boomer shit right here. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Oh, look this guy's pretty nice. Anyway, anyway, we're going to have that uncensored portion of the show over at rumble.com slash timcast. IRL where we have a special treat for you that certainly can only be played on the uncensored show and you will laugh. But you've got to go to rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL at 10 p.m. to watch it in the meantime.

We're going to see what y'all have to say. All right. Jacob Pauley says, from what I understand until the investigation is over, is that they were potentially drug traffickers trying to smuggle drugs in Caribbean. That is still unverified, but that's from the Cuban embassy. Agreed, and maybe that is the case. The Cubans are so poor. I don't know how it would be so lucrative to smuggle drugs into Cuba, but...

St. Miles says it's Gulf of America, Elad. Oops. It actually is. It is. That's a genuine mistake. It's funny that Trump just declared it. Right? That's what it is, right? Trump was like, that's it from now on, and then they're like, okay.

Yeah, and everybody in the... You do that voice really good. Oh, I don't know. You do it really good his voice. I could probably do it better if I try, you know. We're just goofing off. All right, what do we got this? Alex says, hello, Tim and crew, continuing with the tradition. I'm in the hospital with my beautiful wife, and we are welcoming our third and fourth children. There you go.

Helen and Quinn into the world, stay salty, patriots. Awesome to hear. All right. It's like Tim Kestfans are the only one having twins. Omega Rosetsu says classical liberalism is not left. Also, Tim, economics are not attached to the X, Y, axis. There is a third axis that is ignored. X equals morality, Y equals authority, Z equals equality.

econ, I think we're both going to agree he's wrong. That's fine. There's a bunch of, so left and right is the challenge with a lot of these ideologies is how you define them in different contexts. For a while in the two, in like the early, in the 2000s,

many people defined left as lacking authority and right as more authority, but that doesn't necessarily, because that goes more to like the French Revolution vision of it. But it didn't make sense because then people started to define capitalistic economics as right wing and socialist as left wing, which created two distinct and then a third left-right acts submerged of culture, where the right is traditionalist and the

left is progressive. So you actually have a bunch of different left-right paradigms that's why we have to try and figure out with that time and then three different right-wing branches. Because like, you know, I always point this out. Dave Smith and Nick Fuentes have wildly different political ideologies, but they are both called right wing by the media. And I'm like, that is not a good descriptor of what these views are. Whereas the left, you pretty much can nail it. Someone's a liberal. They're going to believe the same thing as everybody else. And we actually, the data bores this out. There was a graph that we showed on the show a while ago where they had a social access and an economic access. So it was the further down you were, the way

the more socialist economics and the further left you were, the more, oh, no, I'm sorry, the further left you are was socialist economies and the further down was progressive culturalism. And you found that Trump voter base was spread out evenly across the top, meaning you had the dirt bag left. They're more socialist, but they voted for Trump. On the bottom, everything was in a tight pocket of leftist ideology for culture and economics. So when you call the leftist a leftist, you can pretty much agree they're going to be for trans and the kids. They're going to be communist. They're going to be pro war with Ukraine, whatever that stuff is.

All right. What do we got here? Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. A lot of people weren't fans of the debate. Zez says uncertainty principle says nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Certainty equals forbidden.

Forbidden, nothing equals forbidden. Therefore, nothing equals certain. Give it up, y'all. Well, is that certain? Indeed, it's not. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Is that absolute? Kisham says,

UPS's trash got updated in a cast brew cold brew as delivered, but the notes say it was damaged and discarded this morning. Oh, that is highly obvious. In real. We also have big news. New shipments of pool water are on the way. We are introducing pool water cans. Nice.

Can people actually get this? We sold out. It's a phenomenal idea. I was like, I wonder if he actually sells this. And that's what it tastes. Where's the endorsement? It tastes exactly like chlorine water. No, it doesn't.

No, it tastes like 100% Audison water. Yeah, it's a T-Gin Virginia water. It's effectively the, it's an aquifer in Virginia. It's basically the same water that we get, we drink out here. And it's pure, filtered, delicious

with all the good stuff in it. And we made it as a gag because I was beefing with liquid death over the plastic contents of their cans for which liquid death has plastic in their cans. I don't like liquid death. It's plastic in their cans. And so they say death the plastic,

but I'm like, hey, yo, there's plastic in your cans. And the argument was, yeah, well, there's more plastic in a bottle because the cap has plastic in it. I'm like, yeah, that's fine. Just say that. And then we got this whole beef. So then I was like, why don't we launch our own water company? And then Andy goes, pool water. And we all laughed. And we were like, that's great. That's a great idea. And so we did it. And we've got pool water is going to be available soon at casper.com. We're going to do cans as well. And there's actually one simple reason we do it. We actually

buy a bunch of water bottles for guests. And so we were like, Like, why the hell we can, we'll just do our own, you know? Like, the left made fun of Trump for having Trump water. This is what the left never understood is so annoying. They'd be like Donald Trump's Trump stakes failed and Trump magazine failed and Trump water failed. And then you go to it, you go to a resort and what do they have? Trump steaks, Trump water, and Trump magazine.

And I'm like, these people don't get it. Trump branded products are internally manufactured products for his facilities. Like McDonald's makes their own mayonnaise. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Trump, so Trump has resorts. He doesn't need you to buy them. Instead, like, so here's the thing. Trump probably went, how much does it cost us to get a steak to serve at one of our, you know, to a customer?

And they're like, ah, it's going to cost you $10. And okay. And they're like, well, we order it from Steak Co. What if we make the steak? What if we make it ourselves? Seven bucks. So we can save $3 a steak. If we do it ourselves, do it ourselves.

Yeah. And so that's why he has Trump water. That's why he's got Trump magazine and all that stuff. I was, when Trump was running, I worked for Fusion, this leftist rag, and they were talking about how Trump water was gone. And then I go to Trump Doral, which is literally down the street from Fusion's office, and there's bottles of Trump water. And right next to it is Trump magazine.

And I was like, I'm so confused. Why are they lying? It's the stupidest thing ever. It's what they do. Because they don't like Donald Trump. That's it. All right. Shador says, Tim, you got to have Tiki history on culture where to explain the

the proper differences of socialism, communism, capitalism, and fascism. Sure, but I would also say everybody argues even academics. I think I've read like four different academic papers on the definition of fascism, for which one of the most common is the lucrative merger of corporation and state. Then you'll get others that argue, well, you know, technically, you'll get some people saying the Nazis were socialist, as self-described. And then you'll get other academics being like, well, actually. And then you get people saying, the USSR, no, they weren't real communism. The CCP, they call themselves communist, are communists in every way, but occasionally have some free market aspects.

So, no, they're not really communist either. It is possible to have socialism that's not Marxist socialism. I mean, socialism kind of started in the French Revolution. Like Marxism and Marxist-Leninism is like what people think of as socialism, but it is possible to have socialism. Yeah. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Okay. Well, they are different.

I think socialism is ultimately trying to lead to communism. So, I mean, that's, well, that's the communist said. The ultimate goal of socialism is communism. But I would say that if you're trying to make a distinction between the two, a simple way is that socialism defines the economic system and communism is the political infrastructure of it. So I do agree it's splitting hairs. I understand Leninism wanted to use vanguardism and they had different ways that they hoped to achieve communism. but and then Maoism had a different, a little bit differently.

And then North Korea has their own strain of leftism, Marxism, and it's all the same, BS to me. Here's how I can explain communism very easily to people, right? Because they're always like, you know, how come we've never seen a real communist country? It's like, well, you have.

Because there is reality, and there is fiction. Fiction is the idea that you can strip possessions from everybody and then they'll all hold hands and sing songs under the sun. Reality is, you do this, and then someone has to enforce it because everyone's pissed off

and killing each other. If Timtown was a company town, would we be allowed to leave or would we? You would be allowed to leave? In fact, you'd be encouraged. It's the opposite. It's like, guys, I'm going to do whatever I can and make you get out.

You want everyone out or just me? Well, no, I want only the people who really want to be here to be here. Okay. And so it should actually be kind of annoying to be here, but you're going to fight really hard to make it work. And that's how you know it's real question is, are you going to let everybody in?

Of course not. Timtown. There are going to be borders. Okay. Yes. Yeah, no, no, no. It sounds like how I want America to be. But my plan is,

where it's, the borders aren't so much you can't come in. It's it when you come in, 20 bucks. Leavings free. That sounds pretty mafia to me. This is how New York does it. This is how San Francisco does it. When you try to enter New York to the tunnels, you got to pay, what is it, 15 bucks these days?

17. 17. And when you leave, it's free. And you know why they do? that? No, not anymore. It's free now? No, no. Only charge you one way. Maybe through Jersey. Maybe through Jersey.

But in New York, like from Brooklyn to Staten Island, they split the toll. Well, yeah, that's because that's still New York. If you're leaving... Yes, yes. Into Jersey. I mean, coming into New York, you only pay. The reason they do it is it creates net poverty outflow, meaning it's harder

for people to enter the city and easy for them to leave. Now, but what about Jersey, though? Jersey doesn't get any cut of that? They probably do. Support authority. so it's like it's split but again the idea like San Francisco San Francisco is going to do the same thing when you enter San Fran you gotta pay but when you leave it's free the hell out

because the city's basically like let's make it easy for the poor to leave and make it hard for them to get in yeah it's pretty smart unfortunately all right what do we got to you Tyrant says just got VIP tickets for me my wife and friends to see all that remains in Charleston

super stoked then Amen Amarth and Death Clock then creator Oh, death clock. Yeah, they're great. It's going to be good shows, man. That's Charlestown or Charles St. Charleston?

Charleston, South Carolina. At the music farm. Jason says the glass made from a nuclear explosion is called Trinotite. Is that what it's called Trinitite? Sweet. Do they have a lot of that in Japan? I was about to say, do we actually know this is a real thing? Yes.

Yeah, Google it. I think in the, when they nuclear tested in Nevada or whatever, that's what they produced. Randy says Levi Struss's original label said made by white men Classic I need a vintage pair of those jeans And now his great grandson is a representative from New York City who impeached the president the first time around

Was the lead lawyer impeaching the president? Dane Goldman Representative Dan Goldman Okay Raymond Raymond Regiment G Stanley Jones says arguments based on 200 years ago is deaf nonsensical I'm not sure You sure you want to say that about the Constitution?

Oh, I will in two seconds. I say it all the time. It doesn't matter. That what we think of that, when the left and the right both say, like the right says the left is trampling the Constitution, the left says the right's trampling the Constitution. What they're literally describing is a constitution, shout out to Wade's thoughts, what constitutes the people, and the right view their constituency, what constitutes their

the constitutional republicanists and the left views what constitutes the multicultural Democrats, both are completely meaningless to what the founding fathers intended. The founding fathers blasphemy was illegal. You could not go out and besmirch the good name of Jesus Christ. Today, the argument from both sides is that it's allowed. Burn the flag if you want. You couldn't do that back in the day. No, you couldn't.

Back in the day, if you burned the flag. Like, here's the thing. Back in the day, gun rights. The argument was the federal government could not take it. your guns away, but the states can do what the states can do. We've changed it now to, no, no, the states can't take your guns because the federal government protects that right for all. I'm actually fine with that distinction. You just appealed to Black's Law Dictionary, right? To what? Earlier. So that would mean, that's old, right? So we can't not care about what

was written 200 years ago. I thought that's what he was saying. You're saying his argument. I'm not sure the context of whether he's trying to agree or disagree. That was what? Yeah. Like, that's why I was, Graeme, I'm not entirely sure. Are you saying that, like, arguing against what they had laid down is nonsensical or arguing for what they laid down. I would argue that if we want to adhere to the Constitution, blasphemy is illegal. Christian blasphemy would be illegal.

Do you agree with that, though? I'm saying if, uh, no. But the founding fathers, the last blasphemy case was, well, like 1830 something. Like. Which was? Uh, a guy, uh, a guy. guy was espousing, I can't remember exactly the details. He was like, he was espousing something that, like,

Jesus was not the son of God or something like that. And then he argued that it was not insulting or demeaning to question as other religions did. Therefore, it was not true blasphemy. He got convicted. So that's, that's, that's, that's, bralstoning against America.

If in 1790, if you walked into the heart of New York and started holding up a sign saying, Jesus, well, that's a little vague, but literally saying like insults, insulting Jesus. They would arrest you under obscenity and blasphemy law. Now, where does that change throughout the process?

In the 1830s, I think it was, maybe like 1829, there was the final case where a guy, he was like a, what was he, was like a universal unitarian or some function, some weird religion. And he was challenging Christianity. So they arrested him. And then arguments were made that don't we have religious freedom and freedom of speech. He got convicted. The Supreme Court said no, but then ultimately, like, that was the last time anyone ever went for it. blasphemy law is state laws or you're saying that's what i'm going to say where like what is i think it was uh it was uh it was uh i believe it was state i actually think it was federal as well i think this with the supreme court was specifically uh let me let me let's the law change because the supreme court

rules on like where it's actually written or just white house v lemon the case no that's not it that was 1976 in the uk uh no no although that one's interesting too the commonwealth Neeland in 1838. This is the last case that you were talking about. Yeah, that was the last conviction under blasphemy. When was the last? No, no, it says 1928. Why are they changing it on me?

Beyond the actual law, I remember a decade ago, South Park refused to blaspheme Muhammad because they were scared of the pushback. Yeah, it was both. Man, I love that show. And what's fascinating to me is the Christian response to people blaspheming Jesus, which is to say almost none at all of the Christians who I'm around to see Jesus being blasphemed, they don't seem to care much, or

just very tolerant of people doing it, as opposed to Muslims. It was only a state. It wouldn't show him. Let me say this. Over blaspheming. Did you know that this is a Christian nation founded on the requirement to profess a faith in a Christian god? I know it was a Christian nation. And in order to run for office, you had to

swear a faith in a Christian god. And it started to change around the time of the revolution. Maryland was one of the only states. It was like, I think Maryland Connecticut where you didn't have to say Protestant, but many of the states required you to be a Protestant. Maryland, because of a high density of Catholics, said just Christian, and because of Thomas Jefferson, largely, Virginia said, just say God. But now, today, you'll hear these liberals

say, we have a separation of church and state. We never required a belief in God. And it's like, no, actually all of the colonial charter is required. That comes from Roger Williams, the Baptist, who was a strong proponent of the separation of religion and state. So it goes from, like you said, There even used to be like church taxes in some colonies. How do you feel about the separation in church and state? Me, honestly, I don't like it because it was wrong. I like my ideologies and everything like that. The problem with it is that the mistake made by the,

it's not necessarily even the founding fathers because separation of church and state's not the Constitution. It was largely born of like the First Amendment, the right to practice religion, your own religion. the problem is the assumption of 5 million people who are 99% Christian was our moral worldview is already absolute. We don't need to make the government start telling Christians and Protestants because we don't need to deal with that. What ends up happening then is the moral worldview erodes in such incorporating degeneracy and very bad things that are detrimental to our country. And we have us enshrined now that you cannot have your ideology in your law. which, to be honest, look, there's a lot of bad laws that we got rid of, but there's a lot of

really bad things we've adopted. And I do believe that even, like, if you go back to the 50s, largely we were still like a 90-some-odd percent Christian nation. People were still going to church. And the moral worldview was still culturally enforced. Since we've had an expansion of multiculturalism immigration and what we would describe as heritage Americans, I guess, like longstanding American families have stopped reproducing, you have an erosion of your moral worldview. So now you are getting rampant degeneracy across the country. I have no problem with Christianity and government so long as constitutional rights are protected. That would be you can't give a blowjob in the streets of San Francisco. That's not a joke. They're doing it.

Well, you can't give a blow job at all. In San Francisco, they have men in the streets engaging in sex acts with children all around them. And the police refused to do anything about it. and this has been going on everywhere and they won't enforce it because everyone's like, well, you know, they're free. When you say Christian nation, what do you mean specifically?

Me? Yeah. Like the moral framework of our laws and structures are under a Judeo-Christian framework. I agree on that. I think there's a lot more connotation comes along with Christian nation.

I am not suggesting mandated churches or that people will be forced to buy Bibles. I'm saying that Blackstone's formulation, the foundation of like the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments is understood and taught to our children. They understand their heritage. They're explained to, here's why we do it. The founding fathers didn't simply say, you know what, Christianity is absolute, therefore we don't got to think about it. No, they actually debated it and said, you know, I thought about it. And I don't think divine mandate describes in and of itself. Like, there is a logic to why it actually is true.

It's not just that we have to bow down to this idea. We can actually understand it and provide to the people, here's why it works. And they did. They wrote that, again, the point was a society that tells an innocent man, regardless of your virtue, you will be punished, incentivizes a man to do whatever they can, regardless of honor because they will be punished. But a society that says, even the guilty will get their chance tells a man of virtue, do your best, and we will protect you. It creates an incentive for people to try and be good, trustworthy, and honorable, which, of course, a high trust society is a successful society. So the founding fathers are literally basically like, hey, you know, I know it says it, but when you think about it, it's true. And so that's the basis by which I think if we were more informed of the roots of our ideology and laws and why they work, we would be much better off today.

And you could still have, like, we don't torture people. Like, we do away with these things. We have civil rights for people at different race. of interracial marriage and all of that stuff. These things are not restricted under a Christian worldview. Do you think we torture people in Guantanamo Bay? Well, I mean, waterboarding is torture. Only people that deserve it.

Guys, we got to go to the uncensored portion of the show where we got a special treat for you. So smash the like button. Share the show with everyone in your life you've ever met. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Jake, do you want to shout anything out? My Instagram, it's Jake Botch, ITS, Jake Botch. YouTube, Jake Botch, same content, kind of, and TikTok. Jake Botch, Jake Botch, everything.

Jay, what do you got going on? On my channel, we lecture through all the global elite texts. We do this all the time. We've done about 60 or 70 of them over the last 10 years. Jay Dyer on YouTube. We're doing the old boys, the history of the OSS, and the CIA from the Council of Foreign Relations authors themselves. And right now I have Esther Clywood 3.

This is my third book in my Hollywood trilogy, over 1,000 pages on film symbolism, sex cults, and symbols and film. Amazing. Nice. I actually want to... I want to read that. That's extremely interesting to me.

You got one. Good evening, everybody. I hope you guys enjoyed the show. I am Alad Eliahu, the White House correspondent here. Phil? I am Phil that Remains on Twix. The band is All That Remains.

You can check us out at All That Remains Online.com. We're going on tour this spring with Dead Eyes and with Born of Osiris. We start in Albany on April 29th, go through the end of May. You can check out All That Remains Music at Apple Music,

Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, and Deezer, don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. What's up, everyone, Carter Banks here. You can follow me everywhere at Carter Banks, follow our record label, Trash House Records on YouTube. Also, I want to give a shout out to Foxera, this band called Mike Orelicate. I used to listen to a lot. I dropped a song today, and I think it's really good. I pinned it to my Twitter thing, so you can check it out there.

Right on. We will see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out. Okay. Go! Yes! Alright, let's get it.