Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #291 - Video Shows Biden Admin Smuggling Migrants Into Tennessee w/Will Chamberlain

Episode Date: May 21, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join lawyer and co-publisher of Human Events Will Chamberlain to discuss why it appears the Biden administration is smuggling illegal migrants into the US, another ransomware attack on another huge company and their immediate compliance with the demands of the hackers, whether Bitcoin is a good investment, and the un-debunking of the Covid 'lab leak conspiracy theory' by the reputable journalistic outlet, PolitiFact. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Video has surfaced of the Biden administration smuggling migrant children into Tennessee and many other southeastern states. And I was a bit reticent to say smuggling, but I'm like, that's actually what he's doing. A lot of these news outlets are like secretly transporting illegal immigrant children into these states without their knowledge. And I'm like, that's extremely verbose for smuggling which means to convey secretly or illicitly which is what the biden administration is doing right now they screwed up the border so bad and they are so desperate they're literally just putting kids on planes and flying them out to random places well tennessee politicians are really really angry like yo what are you doing

this is crazy it is crazy it's is crazy. It's extremely crazy. We got some other stories, too. The lab leak stuff is now going mainstream. PolitiFact apparently now has semi rescinded a fact check claiming that the COVID lab leak hypothesis was debunked because now they're like, OK, well, it's not debunked. They're they're undebunking. Is that a word? Mm hmm. Undebunking.

PolitiFact is undebunked. They're bunking. They're rebunking. Yeah. They've debunked. They're undebunking. Is that a word? Undebunking. PolitiFact is undebunked. They're bunking it. They're rebunking. They're rebunking. They've rebunked. I think it's rebunk. All right. So the lab-like hypothesis has been rebunked by PolitiFact, and we definitely got to talk about it.

So joining us today is Will Chamberlain of Human Events. How's it going? I am Will Chamberlain, the co-publisher, and I don't know exactly what my editor title is. We still need to figure that out, but I run the opinion side. There you go. And I also am senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project,

the Article 3 Project, and something new, the Unsilenced Majority, which is a new cancel culture group. So a cancel culture group? Anti-cancel culture. I was like, you're trying to cancel culture group um we can't so so a cancel culture anti anti-cancel although although we do sort of are willing to cancel people who use cancel culture which is in my view perhaps the most justified use of cancer yeah it's like using a flamethrower and a guy with a flamethrower right there you go there you go that's allowed um in you know

and yeah and we hired we hired jack today which i'm really happy about events um you know the that was announced on on, and we're stoked. I mean, Jack, in my view, is not only a very good personal friend, but a very good journalist in his own right, and he doesn't get credit for it. I mean, he had scoops on the Mueller investigation that no one else had, and they were confirmed by the New York Times three weeks later. He's also a secret agent in a comic book. Yes.

There you go. He's a really cool guy. Yes. He's a really good guy. He wears a suit, so I just assumed he was stodgy, but then I met him

and I was like, I love you, dude. Maybe the problem, I gained some weight so I'm not wearing a suit properly, but I had nice custom suits. Oh, cool.

You got to drop some weight. I know. Yeah, that's what I got to do. What about fasting? We got Ian. Oh, yeah. Ian Crossland. What's up, guys?

You can always find me at iancrossland.net, but I'm happy to be here. Very good. I will also sing Jack's praises. He is an awesome friend. He's a cool source. He always has really neat scoops, and I'm excited that he's part of Human Events now.

Before we get started, you've got to go to timcast.com, click the blue Members Only button, and then sign up. You can choose Stripe or PayPal. That will give you access to the members only area where we have exclusive segments just for our members. My friends, we are going to have a very special, creepy, eerie Donald Trump future time travel bonus segment tonight. It delves into the weird and wild and conspiracies. It's going to blow your mind. Mark my words. You will have a laugh.

And some people probably will, unfortunately, end up believing this stuff. But there's a really crazy story that's been around for some time we're going to get into. So you've got to go to TimCast.com and sign up. Don't forget, like this video, subscribe to this channel. But more importantly, share the show right now. Share it with your friends. Take the URL, put it on Facebook or Twitter or whatever else you can, and help spread the word. So the word of mouth is the best way to support the show.

Let's jump into this first story, which honestly, I couldn't believe. From WRCBTV, NBC, late night flights carrying migrant children arrive in Chattanooga. Chattanooga's Wilson Air Center is receiving planes carrying migrant children who are being bused to multiple southeastern cities during overnight hours. Let me just simplify it for you. This is the Biden administration smuggling migrant children into the central US, into these southeastern states and cities. They say Channel 3 obtained video of one of those planes arriving Friday, May 14th, shortly before 1.30 a.m. A second video shared with channel 3 shows more children arriving late Saturday night.

According to the source who provided the video, a third plane carrying children arrived Friday afternoon. Flight records confirm that a fourth plane arrived early Wednesday morning, May 19th. This is amazing. Did anybody approve this? Does anybody know about this? I mean, I'm sure it was approved by someone in the Department of Homeland Security. You can bet that after the kids in cages debacle with, you know, like the five-fold increase in illegal immigration to start the term,

that somebody in the Biden administration was told that under no circumstances were there to be more photos of kids piled up in cages with space blankets. So now they got videos of kids being shuffled into planes and flown out to random cities. I mean, probably better optically, oddly enough. Right. Like if we're just trying to avoid the really, you know, image that will disturb Joe Biden voters, it would be the one of of them being near the border so out of sight out of mind right as long as they're this is i'm sorry man this is apocalyptically bad in my opinion this is a hundredfold worse than kids in cages they're just like okay we don't want the kids to be in the cages so put them on a plane fly them out to tennessee put them on a bus and ship off

to a group home everything about the biden policy it's like the maximum amount of immorality that you could do with immigration policy right like if they had done open borders that would be less immoral right and if they had gone full border closure that would be less immoral they have managed to find the uncanny valley of the worst possible policy which is again mean, so in tort law, there's something called, I don't know if I talked to you about this before, but attractive nuisance. No, what is that? So attractive nuisance, you know, normally if somebody trespasses on your land and gets hurt, you're not liable. They trespassed. But if you have something on your land, like a broken merry-go-round or something.

What about an apple tree? Or who knows? It could be anything, but something that attracts children. Yeah. Right? And it leads the children to trespass, and they get hurt. Even though they're trespassing, you are liable. That's BS.

Wow. What about the lights in your window? But I knew about this because I'm a skateboarder. So at the mini-ramp back in Philly, we had a no-skateboarding sign on it. So we're like, no trespassing, and then no skateboarding allowed. Right. So attractive nu Right. So, so attractive nuisance,

basically, uh, our border is an attractive nuisance, right? The promise of getting, you know, citizenship or the ability to work in the United States is what attracts people.

And the nuisance part is the fact that people are having to go through this unbelievably difficult journey in order to get it right there, you know, crossing, you know, fighting themselves in the hands of drug cartels and human traffickers going through very dangerous journeys, crossing the Rio Grande, all this sort of nonsense.

So we're, we're responsible, I guess. Yeah. Like the, the, the Biden administration, I think, you know, I mean the Trump administration had the, you know, a much more moral policy, which is actual deterrence, right? Like Australia had a similar dynamic. Remember, remember when Trump said he wanted moats full of alligators? Yeah. I'm kidding. He didn't really say that, but they claimed he did. That's good enough. I mean, it is moral to deter people from engaging in a dangerous journey.

Didn't talk about like lasers or something, too. Yeah, sure. I mean, you know, Australia had this problem when they had boat people coming from like Fiji and islands surrounding it. And they had all these drownings, right? Tons of drownings in the boats off of Australia. And they said they just had a huge policy. It's like if you get here on a boat, you're not going to be able to stay, period. And stop, change law. What if you have a merry-go-round

and a moat full of alligators? If the kids fall in the moat full of alligators, is it a nuisance or a deterrent? Like, am I in trouble? I don't think attractive nuisance would come into play. That would probably be still a crime. I would say so, yeah. Because you're, you know, there's, I don't remember exactly what the law is, but you're not, for example, you can't set up, like, trap guns in your house.

You can see the alligators, bro. Like, I understand that you can see them, but, like, the idea is you can't set up, like, intentionally fatal traps on your property. Because you will be liable if someone kills themselves. Interesting. So move to Florida where there's naturally occurring moats full of alligators. Look, I don't think the naturally occurring moats full of alligators, that's a good liability question. Do you have to remediate that?

I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Well, anyway, more to the point, this is crazy. I knew Biden, his policies were in the gutter and everything was falling apart. But this is a whole new level of bad. It's like in the middle of the night, taking these unaccompanied children and shuffling them off to who knows where. How insane. So not only did Joe Biden create a pull factor by getting rid of Donald Trump's remain in Mexico policies.

So now it's like, come on in, catch and release. Many of these people who had COVID were being released into Texas when American citizens couldn't even legally cross the border. Then Joe Biden reopens the homestead facility. Look, I get it. You got a bunch of kids. You created a problem. You need a place to put them. But let's be real.

Trump shut that facility down. They were complaining about it. Joe Biden's attractive, was it attractive nuisance? Attractive nuisance, yes. Polled these people. It created a poll factor, which we've heard about in the news all over and over again. So he reopens the child concentration camps. AOC's words, not mine.

And then he expands the McAllen facility. So now he's got a bunch of kids sleeping in the dirt. That's bad. And now because the videos are bad enough and there's still more kids coming, just shuffle them off. Who knows where? That's depravity. When you said poll factory, you mean like it's polling people in? Yes. So when people shut up with shirts saying, please let us in, Biden, Donald Trump was like, you can't come to our border. We'll shut it down. No. Excuse me. You stay in Mexico. They're like, you can't come to our border. We'll shut it down. No, no, excuse me. You stay in Mexico.

They're like, people got scared. If we try and go, we'll get arrested and then sent back. And people were worried that if they went from like, you know, Bolivia or something or Columbia, they'd come up, get sent back all the way to South America. And they're like, it's probably better staying just in Tijuana or something. With Joe Biden, he's like, come on, man, we've got to get rid of these policies. You know, Trump, he's a Nazi. And so then he gets rid of them all. And then people start rushing the border again. Now it's created a massive surge. It's happening, what, like two

months earlier. So Joe Biden tried claiming it's seasonal. It's just seasonal migration. And it's like, bro, this is two months earlier than seasonal migration. No, you've created a poll fact. Your policies are awful. Trump had it functioning. Not perfectly. It spiked huge under Trump. But they had policies, and they were pushing back. Biden makes it worse. This is, man, this is nuts.

It's not seasonal. It's global. The economy is trembling, and people are fleeing their South American homeland. A lot of people are. Not even just South America. I saw an article that said you had European economic african economic migrants crossing the southern border uh and that's what it is i mean i saw that like there was some article that tried to be like people refugees from countries hard hit by covid i'm like no no no no that's not a refugee no no no that's a migrant an economic and they're not fleeing they're not yeah they're migrating like

well i suppose the easiest thing you can do is put them on buses and planes and just random. Yeah, in a way, it makes sense. Like, they're clearing up the space. Although, but the problem then is they're doing it. They tried to seem like they want to do it covertly. Yeah, it's called smuggling. Yeah.

Which makes me think. Illicitly transporting people. I made mention earlier that it sounds like it's a conspiracy. Like, they would be charged with conspiracy because they're they're transporting known illegal immigrants across state borders i mean aiding and abetting criminals i mean you know there's almost certainly some sort of affirmative defense doing so under color of law with the authority you know order from the executive branch and there's some probably some statutory authority you know that we already have kids in like orphanages and group home group homes who need loving parents and are being tossed about the system.

The last thing we need is for Biden to screw everything up and then just shuffle people under the rug. That's sickening. It's just why we don't elect Democrats. It's why responsible people don't let Democrats run things. Well, that's why this is so immoral. Yeah, but come on, man. The Republican Party. I tweeted, we need a commission of medical experts and scientists to figure out how several invertebrates and terrestrial snails somehow managed to imitate English speech, join the Republican Party, and get elected to office. Invertebrates, yes.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, were we talking about January 6th commission and 30? 35. But come on. It's not even that. I mean, we're talking about January 6th commission and 3035. But come on. It's not even that. I mean, Mitch McConnell pretends to fight.

Look at what's going on because of the fecklessness of the Republican Party. Now, I get it. A speed bump is better than nothing. But that's what the Republican Party is at this point. They're a speed bump for Democrats. Oh, Democrats got to slow down a little bit. They're making too much money. I can't stand these people.

I want to lose faith in the system. I don't want to lose faith in the American government because that could be the beginning of the end or the end of the end of the system. But they're making so much money. They're smuggling kids in. Just talking to each other every day and not getting much done is enough for them. The Democrats are beholden to zealots. Republicans, too. Let's be real.

No way. Absolutely not. They kick out their zealots. Steve King, he gets booted from all of his committees, and then he loses his primary because nobody wanted to hear what he had to say. Yeah, you're right. Democrats. Ilhan Omar gets protected by Nancy Pelosi. So the Democrats, for what it's worth, they got spines in spades.

They will scream at the top of their lungs. They will bang on the doors of the Supreme Court. They will storm into the Senate buildings. And the media does nothing. Why? Because their friends have spines in media, got the jobs, took over the institutions, and protect them. Has it always been like this? It's just now there's social media, so we see it?

I mean, to a degree. You know, there was a time when there was actual, like, public cachet in being Republican, and I think the Iraq War really destroyed that, right? Like, I'd say that, you know, 2000 era, I mean, still Republicans weren't, like, the majority and dominant in the culture, but at least, like... Didn't they lose the Congress for like 40 years yeah they did but yeah i mean they it was it was really bad for a while but then i mean that's a very you know it's a very different country and that democratic coalition looks very different you know then then i just i just look at where we're at where we're at right now with democrats and ilhan omar can just shriek and they're like whatever you say and the republicans

just go okay and then marjorie taylor greens like two years ago posted some dumb stuff on facebook and they're like get rid of banner from everything yeah she didn't even say those things while she was a member of congress yeah something like and a bunch of republicans flipped you know went over on that one too i mean we had something like a dozen republicans decide they were going to vote you know against their their own member having committee seats the republican Republican Party is the jellyfish party. It's just, I mean, so many of these people need to be replaced and bullied more effectively.

Like, there's a lack of bullying. Politically bullied. Yes, politically bullied. Like, people need to show up and protest these 35 jellyfish. Yeah. Are they just the oligarch party? No, no, no. The Republicans, I think, are like, you ever see,

this is the way I described it earlier, you ever see the way this is the way i described it earlier you ever see the movie this is the end no i hear it's great though i've seen it so uh danny mcbride gets kicked out of the house and then later on they find him and he's a cannibal and then he has he has that actor i can't remember the actor's name james franco's in it yeah seth rogan's in it but that's all i know he has that that actor what's that actor's name he was in gi joe you what I'm talking about? No. Negative.

Chad something. I can't remember his name. But he's a gimp. So he's like on all fours and crawling around. And Danny McBride is the cannibal. The Republican Party is the gimp in the suit. And Danny McBride is the Democratic Party. It is shelled out.

Now, to be fair, there are like 10 Republicans that are fighters. Donald Trump was a fighter. Donald Trump grabbed the party and yanked it really hard. And that's what people liked. So I tweeted something like the Republican Party or Jellyfish. And then I got a response from someone who said, yeah, they said the Republican Party attracts the losers. And I said, that's right. If somebody wanted to lie, cheat, and steal to gain power, they wouldn't pick the Republican Party, they'd pick the Democratic Party. So that's

effectively what we're seeing. The people who are manipulative and deceitful and evil join the Democrats and then just burn things down and strip and extract and manipulate the ignorant. It's real easy to get a vote when you're a Democrat. You just go up to somebody and say hey, I'll give you his money. And they're like, deal. And the Republicans are like personal responsibility. You got to work hard in meritocracy. I'm like, that sounds like work. So people vote for not work.

So you end up with a Republican Party that's just like a speed bump. No one's fighting for anything. What are they fighting for other than Democrats don't do that? Democrats, don't you do that? What do you stand for? For a long time, this has been a long-term frustration. I mean, I remember trying to push for social media regulation because, like, we obviously needed it. The companies were controlled by the Democrats.

They were censoring conservatives. And they're like, well, no, but the free market. It's like, okay. And now, you know, two years later when we've lost power, everybody's like, oh, that was a good idea. Well, we should totally have done that. Can't count on them. Can't count on them. Can't count on them. I'm seeing some good signs with some of them.

We'll get into the seize the endowments thing that Cotton's doing later. Tom Cotton's doing that? Tom Cotton. Well, he's going to tax them. A step in the right direction. Taxation is theft. Seize it. Right.

Exactly. I like the seize language. We'll get into that later. I get worked up about freedom, like free trade, free, free market, free freedom,

because it's not, doesn't mean that there's no interference. If you know, the reason that we have a free society is because we interfere with it. We create order. We create police that say, you can't walk there at this time. Stay there.

Don't do this. Do this. Don't do this. So now we have freedom as a result. You're not going to get jumped and murdered when you're walking around. So you're essentially free. No.

It doesn't mean that it has no rules. So the free market is the same way. If you don't put place rules on the system, you get run away. By that logic, prison is freedom. That's not true. Well, a prisoner has a sort of freedom. Health care?

Guaranteed food? Right. They have food. A place to live? Of course. They're not going to get, technically, they're not going to get jumped and murdered because the guards are watching them. Well, they're not supposed to because the guards are watching.

It's not freedom. The rules don't make you free. You need to be responsible for yourself. No, it doesn't. Yeah. I think the United States... Bro, they ban guns. People allow the land people the law of the land though gives us an opportunity to create freedom for ourselves if there was no law it wouldn't we would not be in a

free society some some laws make sense and a lot of them don't yes i definitely agree with that let me tell you what we're seeing right now this migrant thing is bad but i'll tell you how bad it gets this is another huge story honestly i didn't know which story to lead with because we got a bunch of just psychotic stories. Tulsa residents won't be able to pay utility bills for three weeks after ransomware attack like Colonial Pipeline outage. And it's claimed insurance giant CNA paid $40 million extortion fee.

Tulsa officials said the city system was also targeted by ransomware. That hack means residents won't be able to pay utilities for three weeks. Maybe a good thing for those residents. I assume once the three weeks kicks back on, they're still going to owe all that money. Maybe even with late fees, I wouldn't be surprised. They say it comes after Colonial Pipeline admitted to paying a $4.4 million ransom. It's amazing leadership.

I'm glad that the FBI is trying to find that fat guy in the Wrigley shirt from January 6th. And we got our cities being attacked by hackers and shutting down our utilities. Bravo, good sirs. Keep it up. And we'll find out who that fat guy in the Trump hat is. That guy should go to jail, right? Was he the hacker? No,

he's just some fat guy who walked in the building. Dude, so who is the C, what are they called? C? CNA. And this is an insurance company that paid out $40 million? $40 million extortion fee. It's going to keep happening. Because as Lydia pointed out in that Instagram video, the Russian military commercial is like, it's all dark. And it's like, you know, speaking, I can't remember what they're saying in Russian.

But it's like a guy and he's like looking with his brow down and they jump out with parachutes and they land on the ground and they have bolt action rifles for some reason. I don't know. They're using bolt action. Sure. And then it switches to the American one. And it's like a Disney cartoon about two moms or something. And it's like, that's what America presents to the world. It's just navel gazing.

It's like in this sort of self-obsession they're they're so obsessed with the internal dynamics of their companies and institutions that they forget that they're there to like perform a function in our society and be competent at it uh and i mean you know we can talk about how wokeness is toxic in any number of ways but one of them is this just fundamental distraction from the core mission that these people like i don't want to hear about i don't care about your identity if you're working for the FBI. I want to hear that you're stopping ransomware attacks. Yes. So this is the problem. You talk about the rules and the rules are supposed to create freedom.

They don't. What happens is they create rules and then the zealots who gain control of the institutions enforce them against their enemies. Meanwhile, these hacks are happening. And where's our law enforcement? Where's our law enforcement? Where's our where's cyber command to be defending us to allow us to live in that beautiful freedom we're supposed to get with our taxpayer dollars going to these institutions? Instead, they get shut down. I get it. It's hard to defend against these things. But don't come to me complaining about the fat guy in a Trump hat and then and then creating a 9-11 style commission on January 6th when

you can't defend your own cities. Who hacked? Do they have any ideas where they were from or anything? I don't know. It makes me think that they just don't have the ability. It's probably the same group. We don't know for sure. We know that Dark Side, the hacker group, made like $90 million.

Why would you ever stop doing this? Of course. Why would you stop? There's absolutely course why would you stop there's absolutely no incentive not to do this again yeah friendly sovereign that's what you need you know what i would have done if i was calling a pipeline if i got that thing and it was like yo we're gonna lock down your pipeline unless you pass five million dollars you know i'd do i'd be like all right all right hacker do it play chicken chicken. Do it. Shut it down. Get 40, 50 million people

ready to hunt you down and take you out. You want to live in luxury? You want $5 million? I'm sure you want to buy yourself a nice little Lambo and an infinity pool. How about that?

How about instead I send 60 million people down on your ass because you shut down their pipeline? How about we get the federal government to send some black helicopters

to find out where you're at and shut you down? You want to live wealthy? This ain't the way to do it. Bring it on, buddy. Instead, they go, please just give us back our pipeline. We'll give you whatever you want. Because morally, I think that's justified. You'd be the hero in the movie, but if you were the CEO of the company and you let them

shut it down and your company lost $60 million in revenue as a result, you'd get fired as CEO the next day. Don't care. So what? I don't care. And you know what I would do?

When they announce we are terminating CEO Tim Pool immediately, I'd say, press conference, I do not negotiate with terrorists. If you want to nuke our cities and shut down our pipelines, we will come for you. We will find you and you will regret it. Instead. Oil companies are not like all you know black water incapable of i'm not saying they're gonna right i'm saying when you when you were shutting down the largest pipeline in the u.s was an attack on this country and instead of the u.s

government saying we are going to hunt you down and make you regret this choice we paid them we paid them and then they make 90 million dollars these guys are kicking back pina coladas in in in antalya somewhere on the beach with a bunch of other russian tourists and congratulations probably planning the next one yeah oh yeah the new name like if they they printed the funny money now they can they're just giving it away ransomware probably took a week to make you have to act swift and hard against people like that it is it is international financial terrorism you know and even beyond financial terrorism because you're cutting off people's access to heat yes and tim this is what you learned and what was it i forget that class that you took um what's it called where you're going

into like oppositional places hostile environment yeah the hostile environment training they talk about how the u.s uh americans don't get kidnapped because the U.S. does not negotiate. Yeah, this is what the, so when I went through the hostile environment training, they did a simulated kidnapping. It was really fun. It was so much fun. It was like role-playing. They give us this mission. They're like, hey, you're going to get in this van and you're going to go and do an interview with this leader of like a terror organization or whatever. And then the van gets like surrounded and then you hear like fake guns go off and then they grab you and they put a bag over your head and they zip tie it or something it's like a cloth bag you can breathe just fine and then you like they you can't see where you're going and they bring you there's

like a bunch of weird noises it's it was so much fun like i i knew where they were bringing us because they didn't have like a big facility but you could hear like metal clanking and like muttering and like yelling and then like guns being messed with and then they make you stand upright against the wall for two hours it was crazy it didn't feel like it felt like 10 minutes i was just standing there for two hours then they bring you in a room and they put a light right in front of your face and point it at you and then you can only see like the waist down of these guys who are like with an accent asking you questions it was a whole lot of fun afterwards they explained to us like it was this was a kidnapping scenario where if you're a

journalist in a hostile territory this is what might happen to you after they after everyone got interrogated they make everyone stand against the wall again and then all of a sudden you hear the door go boom and then you hear like gunshots and then you hear like down down down now now get on the ground everyone now and we all get on the ground, everyone now. And we all get on the ground, put your hands on your head now. And then the guys pick us up, walk us out, take the bag. It was so much fun. They told us when you get kidnapped, you got to just try and survive because the US does not negotiate with terrorists, which means these guys who kidnap you can only expect a helicopter to fly overhead, dudes jump out, and they'll kill each and every one of you in the building and your families. So if you kidnap an American, you better apologize

and let them go. But Germany and Spain pay out instantly. So when it comes to people in these territories in the Middle East, they love it when they find someone speaking German or Spanish. They're like, free money. We're going to make ourselves four million bucks. The American guy, they're like, you better think twice about this. The problem was ISIS didn't care. They were at war and they didn't want money. They had ideology. So if they found out you were American, they're like, good. So depending on which country, that's the point. What we've done now in the US, we've got bad leadership. Sorry, it's true. Not like Trump was perfect, but the biggest pipeline in the country attacked. And then DarkSide, the company that made the malware, was like, we didn't intend to do that.

Which shows exactly why what I'm saying works. You come out and say, the hacker group DarkSide did this. Find them. They're responsible. What do you think would happen if all the gas prices skyrocketed, gas shortages sweep across the southeastern U.S.? You've got 60 million people begging Joe Biden for war. Yeah, the Russian government would be like, we're going to lock these guys up. I mean, I get all that, but I also just am like, I don't know that as a company CEO,

as distinct from like a president, you can actually make that decision. Or that decision is really yours to make, right? To pay the terrorists? To not pay them, right? And then essentially force 60 million people to go without oil or something like that. Who decides to pay the the terrorists to not to not pay them right and then essentially for 60 million people to go without oil or something like who decides to pay them you do who decides to not pay them right but like i'm saying that the you that you are not like an elected official that as a moral matter you shouldn't be in the situation where you are in a position to get the

oil pipeline running for a reasonable cost yeah they should have went. And you decide not to do it. They should have been able to go to the government and say, it's in your hands, we're not paying. I mean, that was always their option. I just, I think. They paid me three hours. I can understand why they paid. You know, like the consequences of not.

I mean, we saw what happened with like the oil shutdown turned down for a week. We had a massive shortage. Yep, good. People need to start respecting responsibility and understanding what it means to be a part of a country, to be a citizen, and be responsible for the people who live here.

What's happening now is, someone says, for the betterment of myself, I would rather sacrifice the betterment of the nation. It's like, ask not what you can do for your country, but what you can do... My word, you have gotten right-wing in the nation. You know, it's like, you know, ask not what you can do for your country, but what you can do. My word, you have gotten right wing in the last year or two, my friend. That's not right wing at all.

That's left wing. To be responsible? No, not, I mean. Collectivism is not right wing. No, but like this, I mean, there's some big time, like, sacrifice for the greater good. And not just for, like, you know, soft greater good, but hard greater good. Do we have a responsibility? Do we have a responsibility do we have a

responsibility to protect the people of this country yes absolutely so if we know that paying a ransom to terrorists will make this country worse and cause more suffering should we stand together and say we we will not negotiate with terrorists i mean i think i think that there's actually a good case for a law to be written that basically bans companies from paying this sort of thing and then criminalizes it, essentially basically making it so that the companies, the incentives are different and doing something similar. This was the easy way out that sacrifices our long-term prospects for this country. Now we're already hearing that even before this, this was before the colonial pipeline, CNA paid $40 million. And that probably paved the way for more of this. And it'll keep happening.

They're going to hit cities. And what's going to happen is ideological extremists, they're not interested in the money. They're going to start asking for exorbitant fees, like $40 million, knowing I don't care if they pay or not. If they pay, great. We'll have more money to do more of this. When they gave the hackers $5 million, they funded a terrorist operation.

That's true. There's another angle to this. I don't know if we've talked about it, which is the crypto angle. I read a pretty compelling article today that was making one of the points that one of the current primary use cases of crypto is ransom. Right. I believe they used Bitcoin to pay the ransom. It may have been Monero or something. And I mean, it'd be very challenging to do that in dollars

or any actual currency through the banking system because there would be so many safeguards imposed by government. And there's none of those imposed on crypto. And one has to... Unless they use something like Monero, it's all trackable. And so they have to use... I guess my point, I know you're a has to, like, I'm not... Unless they use something like Monero, it's all trackable. And so they have to use... I guess my point, you know, I know you're a crypto guy, Tim, but, like, the logic that you just espoused

about, like, the need to sacrifice for the greater good and the good of the country, like, I feel like there's a pretty compelling argument that the greater good, in the context of avoiding ransom and really also the strength of the dollar as a country would suggest that maybe we should have a negative attitude towards cryptocurrency. Just because bad people use dollars all the time. Sure, bad people use dollars all the time, but that doesn't mean that it's a lot harder to do these kind of things.

Bad people use the internet all the time. Should we get rid of the internet? It allows bad people to communicate. No. Encrypted chat allows journalists to communicate. We should get rid of that, huh? No, no, no, no, no. So just because there's one negative use case, we can't throw the whole thing out.

We have to recognize that it's a tool. Right. But, I mean, if there's a, you know, if crypto is like, there aren't that huge number of use cases for crypto as compared to other things. I mean, it's a, you know, it's a currency, right? It's supposed to function. I wouldn't call Bitcoin necessarily a currency. A lot of people want it to be, but it's hard. It's not extremely easy to transact.

It takes a decent amount of time. It costs money. So it's a digital, non-copyable asset. Sure. And so, I mean, the other things you talk about, there are obvious, massive, huge external uses. If a primary use case of crypto is... So smart contracts for crypto, right?

Look, look, look. Long story. I don't think you know enough about crypto to make that argument. Maybe not. Bitcoin enables things called smart contracts for crypto right look look look the long story long story i don't think you know enough about crypto to make that argument maybe not bitcoin enables things called smart contracts the technology is in its infancy ethereum really expanded upon it and so bad people use technology for bad things tnt wasn't invented to kill people but they called nobel the merchant i mean i think i know a decent amount about smart contracts right like they're like self-executing contracts right right it can it can really become an efficient way of processing tons of things. In fact, smart contracts can be used. Crypto blockchains. One of the, one of the most interesting things

I've heard is how it can be used for automatic self-driving cars to communicate with each other and keep ledgers of all of the interactions very easily. So there's a, there's a, there's a lot that we don't, it's like saying, it's like saying at the beginning of the internet, it's like, you know, 1997 is like, I don't know, criminals are using this stuff. So we should not be fans of it. If you implanted it into you, you could have it, your body, when your body gets hungry, your coffee machine turns on and gets your coffee brewing for you and gets the microwave turned on. I mean, that's out there, but it's coming. The point is. I think you can separate like the technology of, I mean, the cryptocurrency can be replicated. Obviously, there are a million different coins out there, but it's coming. The point is... I think you can separate the technology of... I mean, the cryptocurrency can be replicated.

Obviously, there are a million different coins out there, right? And the use cases that are technological, right? Smart contracts, whatever this self-driving cars thing. Blockchain technology. Right. Don't rely on the cryptocurrency itself being worth tens of thousands of dollars per coin, right? But they are. They would function with it being worth 0.001.001 and and dogecoin is right and yeah sure and i mean if you were actually trying

to develop this technology you wouldn't be like well we're going to rely on bitcoin for our self-driving car exchanges because why would you incur the expense of using bitcoin i think you know the the the primary you know i guess you know the way i see it from a regulatory perspective is, is it in the interests of the United States as a whole, as a country, for cryptocurrency to be this store of value and therefore being used as this very opaque currency outside of the banking system? I don't know. The answer is undoubtedly yes. When you have corrupt politicians exploiting the people, the point is the people are supposed to be the government. We the people, the consent of the governed.

Instead, we have elites who are extracting value and burning everything to the ground, and they're using Nancy Pelosi buying tons of stock, you know, or who are these other Republicans who had a bunch of perfect trades? Kelly Loeffler. Loeffler and the other guy. Was it Perdue? They make a bunch of money. We see it over and over again that these people in Congress will make the perfect

trade just before some bill gets passed that causes a boom or collapse. So you've got elitists who are extracting from the system. You've got the banking system, the mass printing of money. Joe Biden now wants to spend $1.9 trillion at a time, $1.9 trillion at a time

when we're having labor shortages because nobody wants to work. So yes, to secure the value of the labor of the individuals in this country, Bitcoin is fantastic. It's a lot. Right now, Bitcoin functions primarily

as a non-copyable digital asset for a lot of people. And a lot of people aren't even in Bitcoin. A lot of financial institutions are getting involved in it, but it's decentralized. It's got stakes in a bunch of different places with a bunch of different people, and it's a good thing. When I'm talking about the pipeline, I'm talking about the people standing up together and refusing to let terrorists take advantage of us. Because, again, the most important point here, not only are we encouraging the terror, like it's going to keep happening,

we are funding it when we pay the ransom. So, I mean, the people, again, I mean, we're talking about a private company CEO with shareholders who has an obligation to maximize shareholder value, right? Like, to the extent that this would be imposed so that the CEO, I mean, I think you would need some sort of policy or, like, new law to constrain the behavior of CEOs so that they don't do the thing that is in their shareholders' best interest, i.e., pay a small, you know, a relatively small ransom to get the pipeline back on, right? It certainly, if, you know, the ransom people got paid $5 million, it definitely was costing more than $5 million for the pipeline to be shut off to Colonial.

Should we allow people to give money to isis if isis is threatening someone in their family no no should we allow companies to fund directly pay millions of dollars to terrorist organizations agreed and so in but this is my this is the corollary right like we're talking about a gut then we're talking about a government policy that says okay for the collective good we're going to ban these ransoms we're're going to criminalize it. I actually think that's a, that is reasonably sound. Um, because right, like that's a way to solve the sort of, you know, the principal agent problem, right? Like, or I guess it's a collective action problem. Everybody's better off if nobody pays ransom, but it's in the individual interest to pay ransom. Right. So you, you know, that's how a government policy can come around.

Well, there's, there's another dynamic to it, which is again, if, if, you know, there's an individual incentive for, you know, various individuals to have crypto, but the net effect of having crypto maybe is negative because it facilitates ransom, maybe the government should have a policy that is adversarial towards crypto. There's no connection here. It makes no sense. Well, I mean, without crypto, it's pretty hard to see how ransom can be paid. Without the internet, it's really hard to see how the tariffs get paid. Sure, but I mean, the internet has, you know, the infinite uses that we all use it for today. Not in 1995.

I mean. 1995, there were news reports saying the internet wouldn't last and it didn't do anything. And here's the other point. Like adversarial towards crypto doesn't necessarily mean adversarial towards the technological applications of crypto that you're discussing. Right. In fact, we got section 230 from Congress in the mid-90s to protect the Internet in its infancy, to embolden it and empower it.

Right. So if anything, we need the government to help us make it better and strengthen it. Maybe that's a better way of dealing with these things. I mean, what do you think about a national cryptocurrency? Like one distinct from Bitcoin, supported by the government. Yeah, UCBC. I think India is doing it.

The U.S. is already working on it. Central bank coin. People are calling it Fed coin. Yeah. I mean, there's other problems, obviously, that come to that because whenever you have a currency. You think the Federal Reserve is a good thing? I mean, I think here's the thing. I think in general, one really good way to have an economic crisis is to have a currency that you cannot dilute. That's the lesson. The way to think about it is, I mean, that's the lesson

of the euro crisis. So this is actually an economic question about the inability for, like, what happens when countries become less productive? And there's a basic behavioral truth. People don't like wage cuts. No one likes seeing their take-home pay cut in nominal terms. And so basically, in America, when that happens or when you have floating exchange rates, well, then the exchange rate just floats and your goods don't purchase as much of German goods. But at least in your own country, wages don't go down. But they're all in the euro. And as a result, wages're sticky downwards. It's hard for them to go down. So instead, a lot of people just don't get employed. And that's the Euro crisis. That's the gold standard of the 1920s in England. Um, there's a lot of, there's a lot of good reasons to think that like a really obvious

trigger of recessions in the past has been, um, fixed exchange rates. And so it's not obvious to me that you would want to have a, you know, the government unable to dilute a money supply because in that world, essentially you're dealing with a fixed currency. And if you have a decrease in overall economic productivity, that's going to manifest itself in unemployment if you don't have dilution. I like being able to spin up new cryptos to avoid the inability to dilute. So it'd be a sort of dilution by creating new finite supplies. Yeah. I mean, I think that crypto as technology, I don't think, relies on having crypto as

the store of value on anonymous world currency. Right. And that I think the real query is if the primary use case of the anonymous world currency you know crypto is rampant anonymous okay well i guess not anonymous but like pseudonymous or essentially like hard to it's actually the opposite it's uh bitcoin tracks everything you do right and they know who has what like so there's stories all the time about which white supremacist has which bitcoin and how much sure so it's actually more transparent and bad for a lot of these groups trying to operate for better or for worse in the shadows sure there is monero

which does obfuscate transactions right and and you know i mean obviously these i mean every one of these ransomwares we're seeing is being paid off in crypto right yeah i don't know is it so they use like uh pools to manipulate the flow and then take them in, launder Bitcoin and make it harder to track. Right. And they do that and they don't do it through the normal banking system. There's nobody getting a wire transfer of ransomware money. I doubt it. Right.

That would be insane. No, probably. Yeah. Well, I mean, to a bank account? I mean, a bank account could be supervised by the sovereigns much more easily than crypto. I'm not denying that it's a lot easier to pay a ransom with crypto than it was with a bank account. But I'm sure people have found ways to pay ransoms through bank accounts because crypto is relatively new. Sure. But it's like the explosion of these ransomware attacks is joined with crypto.

What do they do in the movies? Like Swiss bank accounts? Where are the Swiss? Yeah, but I mean, those still don't work as well, right? There's still sovereign. There's new technology. You know? Those still don't work as well, right? There's still sovereign. There's new technology. So I think what we should be saying is we'd be having the exact same conversation in the 90s about the Internet. It's kind of an absurd argument.

I mean, oh, I don't know. I think, you know, the Internet, again, you know, the Internet argument suggests that, I mean, there's this plethora of use cases for the Internet. I mean, we use it for everything we do now. Everything. Right. But in the 90s mean we use it for everything we do now everything uh right but in the 90s we didn't and so people could say why should we have this thing that's like 1.01 percent of our economy be facilitating crime sure but i mean i guess i've i think i've answered that by saying that the technological use cases of crypto that are you know the things that some

of the again you gave the example of cars and yeah smart contracts sure but they're not reliant on crypto itself being a store of value in an anonymous global currency it is like there are tokens that are utility tokens that are seemingly shouldn't be held as value but they have value because they're they're non-copyable assets there's they're they're scarcity to them like dogecoin has value in memery and the confidence people have in the idea of Doge being funny. So they buy it even though it's an inflationary coin and they keep printing more and more of it. So maybe, I mean, I know there's – my understanding of Bitcoin technology is that there's more and more coins, I mean, at an ever-decreasing rate, but more and more coins mined via computer. But it's finite. There'll be about 20 million total.

Right. computer but it'll be about 20 million total right so i mean imagine if you're totally focused solely on the technological use of crypto you'd probably want something that has a dramatically higher inflation rate right like dogecoin yeah i guess or something that creates you know you know it's so trivially easy to mine more new coins as opposed to difficult because like the idea of bitcoin is the yeah i guess i don't know yeah um but like that would be better technologically and then also that would be a terrible you know that would not be a great use case for i don't think for like ransomware if like the currency is just like constantly being eroded then nobody would be really willing to pay very much for any particular crypto

right but that like a good portion of crypto is inflationary and a good portion is deflationary. Right. It's just crypto is just non-copyable digital assets and there's a lot of things that can be done with them. Sure. And I get all that. And so, you know, the question, I mean, again, I'm, you know, I'm not saying all crypto bad. I'm saying crypto designed to be a store of value, global, stable global currency, probably

bad. But it's not. But I mean. a store of value global stable global currency probably bad but it's not but i mean like if you look at if you look at the original ideas of what bitcoin was a lot of people would argue that it was meant to be a currency where it's at today it certainly isn't right i know and but perhaps we shouldn't be trying to do that that particular use case it could be like you could use apples as or you could use seashells as a currency. Maple syrup. They used to. Yeah. Anything. They used to use seashells.

Gold. Then they had to figure out gold coins because they were soft and you could cut them thin enough. And then they had made, now they make cotton. These dollars are made of cotton. Yeah. But the thing about crypto is you could make a token like Canon, who we use Canon cameras, could make a crypto that's like a smart contract crypto that you know if you have it then when you sit down all your cameras turn on and so but if you don't have it you got to do it all manually so it's a it's a smart contract that does this stuff so you want to go buy it doesn't have

any value fiscally but it has value functionally so it will have fiscal value as a result and it's like there's no avoiding it the mind utility token Minds utility token isn't supposed to have an inherent value necessarily. Right. It's used for, but because you can use a Minds token to boost your post, while views have value and the token can do that, then the token has monetary value. Sure. I mean, I can see, like, my point is not necessarily to say that, like,

the tokens have zero. Everything's got monetary value. Yeah, exactly. Like, zero monetary value. Yeah, exactly. Zero monetary value. But rather that making them undesirable as stores of value, right? It might be good because if you do so... I mean, I don't know. Again, this is beyond my technical capability.

I don't like the idea of the government printing money to steal the value of working class people to give to the ultra wealthy. So I like crypto for that reason. I don't know. I mean, that's that's that's the underlying argument for like the gold standard and general like fixed exchange rates in general. And I mean, I think that the difference is Bitcoin can be forked and modified based on consensus within the decentralized network. So when you look at Biden saying he wants to print six trillion or borrow up to like 30 trillion or whatever, and they keep giving money to people who aren't working. Biden saying he wants to print $6 trillion or borrow up to like $30 trillion or whatever, and they keep giving money to people who aren't working,

and then those people who aren't working are then buying from people who are working, it's essentially redistributing wealth and giving people a benefit to not work while others have to work because certainly someone has to. That's only possible because they can just make more over nonstop. And inflation is essentially a hidden tax on savings. Bitcoin is the opposite. But it's not just Bitcoin. There's a bunch of other cryptocurrencies that do a bunch of other things. So many of them have value because people value them like anything. And so I don't like the idea that working class people can't save money. They got to spend money to be in the bank. If they hold the dollars and the dollars lose value, maybe they can't afford to fall onto gold. They'll try and buy something.

I like the idea that they have a hedge and Bitcoin makes it extremely easy for most people. I don't know. I mean, I think it's extraordinarily risky as a hedge. And I think in general, if you're trying to hedge against inflation, one of the better ways to do it, and if we're also one of the socially better ways to do it, is to invest're also, one of the socially better ways to do it is to invest in stocks, equities. What makes you think Bitcoin's risky? What makes me think Bitcoin's risky? Because I could, like, does it produce itself growth, right? Does it produce profit?

Yes. It produces heat when it's created. Right, it consumes it. Well, the computer produces the heat. Produces heat. The computer produces it. But consumes it. Well, the computer produces the heat. Produces heat. The computer. But it doesn't actually, it just transfers the heat. Right, right, right.

It transmutes it. I guess, so it transmutes, but I mean, it consumes energy. Yeah, it consumes electricity. It consumes electricity. Like, it doesn't, like, businesses, you know, transform lesser-valued, you know, factors of production into finished products that are more valuable. So like a digital asset that can't be copied is valuable to people. Right. I'm saying, but like the asset itself versus the company that makes it right. Like if you're investing in a company that transforms something to, you know, something of lesser value and something more

value, that's literally what they're doing though. But like, again, commodity versus the company, right? Like when I'm talking about why, like investing equities grow, they're doing, though. But again, commodity versus the company. When I'm talking about equities grow, companies produce things and transform. If they don't make things more valuable, they go out of business. Is a large rock worth less than the iron that is perfectly extracted into an ingot from the rock? Obviously, the ingot's worth more as a piece of metal refined. So taking energy and converting that into a non-copyable digital asset that someone can hold and can be used for smart contracts, if people want to do it, it becomes something more valuable. Sure, right.

Okay, so there's, again, distinguish the business and the commodity, right? Like the business of making Bitcoin versus individual Bitcoin. And you can invest in the companies that mine for sure right right and so but like again my point is that as a hedge against inflation right the token itself like there could be a move against it and it could go dramatically i don't know like i see you know bitcoin as being in some ways worse than gold um or more risky than gold because it could go to zero in a way how could it go to zero gold, you know, in the same way that when... Gold can go to zero?

Gold has just underlying fundamental use cases. Like what? Like beauty. You can eat it. Industrial. You can definitely eat it. Sorry, colloidal gold. Gold flakes.

I used to drink it a lot at the... But with crypto, again, you have smart contracts. You have underlying use cases. You have a lot of things. Right, but they don't rely on any particular crypto. Using gold as a conductor doesn't rely on the value. In fact, it's inhibited. We could be using gold for technology, but the cost is prohibitively expensive because people just want it for no reason.

Right. I mean, people want gold. And I mean, you could argue that that underlying, you know, that creates some higher demand for it. Right, those Bitcoin. Sure. OK, but the point, the idea is not like Bitcoin, like crypto. Right. If you say crypto has use cases, therefore Bitcoin can't go to zero.

It's like, well, Bitcoin has use cases. So it's extremely unlikely to go to zero. I mean, but like every those use cases are universal to cryptos generally. And so it can be replaced by other cryptos, right? Not necessarily. I mean, theoretically, you could create an identical coin to Bitcoin just using its open source code, but you don't have the network. You know what I mean? Is that even an advantage because of how much energy the network is burning?

It's an advantage because people use it. It's universally. What if someone said, like, gold? I could use aluminum. You know? Like, wasn't aluminum worth more than gold

at one point because it was harder to produce? That's true. And so just use a different... Look, if metal is valuable, then we'll use any metal we want. Gold could go to zero

because aluminum could go up. Or we could find a giant asteroid of gold and we're like, wow. It's worth a thousandth of what we thought. Right, that's true. And you can't do that with Bitcoin.

Diamonds are intentionally inflated in value. They're really not worth that much. We can mass-produce diamonds artificially using those neon gas chambers. So gold has some use cases in terms of a conductive metal. I think silver is better. And people don't use it for the most part because gold is way too expensive to actually use. So people just like having it as a status symbol. It's kind of a meaningless value, but the reality is gold is scarce. And so people value it as a hedge because it's a scarce commodity.

It's not even that good a hedge, honestly. I'm not pro-gold. I'm pro-investing in companies and the American economy. So you think being invested in a, in a valuable company that can weather the storm of a depression is a good hedge against. Right. Cause think about like Apple, people are going to keep wanting iPhones because they make a incredible product that, you know,

or companies that have like a sort of durable moat, a competitive moat. They're going to be able, they have pricing power. So if inflation increases the cost of their factors of production they can increase the price of the goods and people will still buy them um and that ability to durably make profit uh you know is means that they are a good even in a world of inflation means they are a good hedge against inflation that's like one thing i mean you know

you can like gold is more of a it's more speculating on fear in a way, right? Like, you know, gold isn't going to somehow magically replace the dollar as currency. But rather, if you're buying gold, you're sort of betting. A good way to think about buying gold is that you're betting people are going to be more scared in a year or two years than they are currently. And therefore, it'll go up in price. You're also betting the system will stay intact. The same is true to a certain degree with crypto but more sure but you're you're much more wisely invested in that case

because you've invested massively in ammunition and guns and things like that it'll be much more which is why i i buy decent i have gold and i have silver but i think about it's not so much about the guns it's about investing in function so we've also got we've got a kiln we've got a forge we've got fun and for the most part it's fun things that you can make we've also got a kiln. We've got a forge. We've got fun. And for the most part, it's fun things that you can make. We've also got 3D printers. This is mostly for making stuff, but I'd rather buy something that does a thing than just buy a rock. Yeah.

Agreed. I don't think much of gold. But I still do buy the shiny rocks, to be honest. Yeah, gold. They used to wear gold crowns, you know, the kings. I think it has healing properties. Apparently, it was in the earth. And you know you get your trace minerals when you eat vegetables.

You get like a little bit of iron in your diet. You used to get a little bit of gold in your diet. Gold was just scarce and easy to mold. They mined most of it out of the earth because they wanted it for currency. And now when you eat, you don't get the trace mineral anymore. The gold's missing. So people will supplement it by eating colloidal. They'll suspend it in water and drink a little bit at a time.

Is that why all the flakes are in the little sushi? Like they're really nice restaurants? Because it actually has value. I hear that it coats the neurons in your brain. It'll coat them and allow them to conduct electricity faster. I felt that when I'm stretching, when my muscle would rip, if I had eaten gold, it will fill in the muscle and I can keep stretching. I don't know about all that. It would like soak into their skin, the kings.

And that's why they would have it touching their skin. And gold rings. And then people turn blue. Silver's antibacterial, so if you have an infection, silver can help you cure that or heal that. And then you turn blue. A lot of these metals, palladium and platinum,

it's just not a science. People haven't really scientifically done much, I don't think, with that research. But trace minerals are legit for your diet. True. Cryptocurrency is a great technology. Moses, they say, ground up that golden calf and fed it to the people. I'm not hitting anybody for making a good trade.

If you made a good trade, you made a good trade. The rules of trading are you make money. I think there are people who just are Bitcoin doomers arbitrarily. Like Dogecoin, I understand if you're like Dogecoin is a bad bet because it's an inflationary currency that's mass produced right so it's like guaranteed to go down unless people are memeing it up which can't go on like really can't go that long now elon musk is trying to get developers to alter doge because they can't they basically can't because it's effectively abandonware and then maybe they'll do something to make it more stable but it's an incredibly unstable coin incredibly yeah you know i mean and elon of course encouraged everybody to buy it because

elon is a stock promoter with some research projects on the side yeah right like that's he probably i bet he sold all those at the top. Oh, sure. What do they say? Buy on the rumor, sell on the news? Is that the saying? Right. I mean, there's a weird way of making money in crypto that just becomes obvious. If you're a massive social media influencer, you just buy a bunch of random... No, no, no, no, no. You can make it like that.

Yeah. You can make ERC-20 tokens just instantly. Yeah. Make tokens, encourage your followers to buy them, sell the tokens. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's not an SEC violation. Encourage your followers to buy them. Sell the tokens. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's not an SEC violation.

I think it probably is, actually. I don't even want to draw the wrath, but man. No, no, no. It's vicious. I can make a bunch of t-shirts and sell them. Isn't that crazy? I can make a t-shirt and be like, everybody should buy this t-shirt and get your To The Moon t-shirt at TimCast.com by clicking the store button. I can make t-shirts

and sell them. I mean, the question is going to be whether it falls under the technical definition of a security. It's not. It's a commodity. I don't know if the SEC has said that. So the issue is what's happened to a lot of these companies that the SEC has gone after or

questioned is that they'll start a company, create the tokens, and then sell them to get funding for the company. And so they say, you're issuing a security. It's a really interesting argument because I can make little cards that say, like I can buy a bunch of white card stock and autograph them,

and I can get a million of them, and I can say, who wants to buy them? And people will buy them for a dollar each, and then I make a million dollars. If you've got the network and the influence, the influence is that a security no you're not getting anything from the company i don't know i'm you know this is an area of law i actually you know it was i took securities regulation in 3l when you stop paying attention because your your job's already settled at that point so you know my my knowledge of securities regulations

theoretically making a million tokens is just a digital object and you can make it and you can sell it it's a matter of like what they call ico initial coin offering that's when they spin up a million and then they'd sell 500 000 of them the issue is if the coins have a function for the business i suppose right if they're utilities then they're not securities this is my rudimentary understanding i don't know if it's it's real or not. As a lawyer, I have no idea. Maybe we're in too deep, you guys. My thoughts on crypto. I don't like the government

spying on us. I don't like it knowing or people with guns knowing every move that I'm making. That's a fair point. In that sense, I support Monero. But I see the danger of not being able to keep an eye on dangerous activity. But I also value, I want everyone to have their own crypto. You can use my crypto to buy my services with a discount, so they'll create inherent value.

My behavior creates inherent value for my crypto. And then we have an unlimited supply, but it's also limited because you know how many there will ever be. I don't know. I, you know, I used to, because the reason I argue so much about this is because I used to be a hardcore libertarian. Like I bought gold. I was into the, you know, in 2008 or something and made money on the trade, even though I was wrong about the reason why it went up. And, and so, you know, I look back and I'm not even sure, you know, I think a lot about, I've thought a lot about currency generally, not necessarily crypto itself, but currency more broadly. And, you know, there's real benefits to having a reserve currency as a country and being the beneficiaries of this, right?

Like the way to think about it is China basically is subsidizing so much of what we do. And, you know, as is the rest of of the world the fact that we can just print immense amounts of money and i mean we're going to see some inflation but not like have the currency collapse into a heap um and why doesn't it do that well it's needed to pay tribute to the you know by 300 million of the wealthiest people in the world to pay tribute to the most powerful institution in the world um and so my opinion i think Bitcoin will go to a million bucks. I think, you know, Max Keiser has said his target for this year is like two hundred and twenty thousand. If I had listened to Max Keiser in 2012, I'd be a billionaire right now. I'm not exaggerating.

I'm literally not exaggerating. I mean, I like I don't know. I mean, Bitcoin was trading at less than a dollar. Yeah, I remember. I remember that. I remember seeing you could have spent bitcoin you there was a period where uh 2011 you could have spent 10 grand and it would have made you a billionaire in 10 years it's crazy i asked a dude like where do i get it it was 2011 i think and we were playing poker and he's like you got to get write down your key on a piece of paper i was

like what i remember those days or i lose it he's like then you lose all your bitcoins i was they're worth 70 cents dude i'm not messing with you. It was so difficult to buy. That was one of the issues, too. Back in 2011, my famous story, when my friend talked me out of buying, he did. But it was also just like, it was easy to talk me out of it because I didn't even know how to buy it. I'm on these forums and they're like willing to sell Bitcoin. And I'm like, bro, you're in Nebraska.

I'm in LA. Like, I don't even know. So I was like, whatever. There's a thing called the Bitcoin faucet that was giving out, think 0.05 of a bitcoin every 15 minutes and so i was just like hitting the button and i had like 1.5 bitcoin just from this thing and it was worth less than a dollar and i was like whatever yeah i mean at the time everybody thought they had better ways to now that would be 60 grand you know and i mean like and that's where i mean on the other hand i'm not you know i'll

candidly admit like i got that trade wrong that would have been great to get in on the early bitcoin trade as a speculative matter see here's what you don't understand i've been through that loop probably 10 times when i saw it at 70 cents and then it hit a dollar i was like a dollar man i should have bought then i I saw it at $5,000. I was like, oh, then I saw it hit 15, oh, then 20, then 50, then 100, then 200, then 500, then 1,000. And every single time I said, if only I bought then, if only I bought then. And I remember when it hit 1,700, I was like, you know what? It was an all-time high. I was like, I'm buying it because I know what's going to happen. It's going to go up. I'm going to say,

if only I bought again. And I bought a small amount. And then I forgot about it. And then I just went out with my daily business. And then I remember when it hit. Because it was at, I bought at $1,700. It went up to like $1,300 in November. I bought a little bit more. I was like, oh, well, yeah, it looks like I got a little bit in my wallet. Whatever. I ignored it.

Then when it hit $40 within like three months, I was like, where's that phone? And I'm like looking for the account. And then I found it. And I was like, where's that phone? And I'm like looking for the account. And then I found it. And I was like, I'm sure glad I bought. Peter Schiff has been anti-Bitcoin forever. Yeah, he's also been pro-gold. And he's been wrong about a lot of things.

But it's funny that it's like Bitcoin hits, you know, 100 bucks. And he's like, ah, this is nothing. And now he's still complaining about it because it fell 30% to $40,000. And he's like, you see the thing about Bitcoin? I'm like, bro, I'm sorry, dude. You want to complain about Bitcoin? It's at 40 grand. Do you think I'm upset that it fell to 40 grand? Do you think most of the people who've been active in the crypto space are crying right now? There's a dude who like sold his house to buy a bunch of Bitcoin. And that this was four or four years ago, $1,700. And he's still actively

like, woo, this is great because it is a new technology. And imagine if you bought Apple stock before the iPod came out. You would be very happy after the iPod. It's not the same thing. I totally get your point. I like investing in functional things like companies. It makes a lot of sense. You're hoping the company continues to be functional. Right. Like there's always the risk that the company stops making something people want, you know, or just has some business problems. So it's a different kind of investment.

It is. It is a different kind of investment. Bitcoin is first in and best dressed. It is decentralized and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control the network. Now, Elon, of course, can screw with it, but a lot of people think he's the one who caused this massive sell-off. It's actually tax season. And he probably knew that, which is why he made his move. I don't know why he made his move.

But you see, people throughout the year, especially when Bitcoin went from $13,000 to $64,000, probably cashed out a little bit and went and partied. Tax season comes up. You've got to pay the IRS when they're like, hey, where'd you get that $13,000 to $64,000, probably cashed out a little bit and went and partied. Tax season comes up. You got to pay the IRS when they're like, hey, where'd you get that $15,000 from? I cashed out some Bitcoin. Okay, well, you got to pay 30%. Oh, let me sell some Bitcoin to pay you off. That caused a huge sell-off.

Now, here's what happened. Bitcoin dropped down to, I think, $29,800 and then almost in a split second jumped right back up to $35,000. Why? Because there was a whale waiting with a program preset the moment bitcoin it's 30 you put in millions of dollars someone noticed 750 million dollars move off of exchanges around this time somebody became a multi-billionaire in that sell-off sure i mean you know that's you know but i mean i guess like that sort of trading logic applies to any sort of security absolutely ever right yeah and so i mean the question is this is this like a really going I mean, I guess like that sort of trading logic applies to any sort of security. Absolutely.

Ever, right? Yeah. And so, I mean, the question is this like a really going to be valuable thing or is this going to be tulips, right? I think we're at 10 years. It's been around for, I think, 13 years, Bitcoin, 2008. And so it's continually climbed. It's been adopted by some of the wealthiest financial institutions on the planet. You know, one of the things that really got me is when it was at 70 cents, I'm like, nobody uses this.

Why am I going to be confident in something nobody uses? Now when it got to 20 bucks, you had an old Magic the Gathering website, Mt. Gox. It was M-T-G-O-X-Y. It was Magic the Gathering Online Exchange. And then when this guy was like, Bitcoin's a thing, he started calling it Mt. Gox. Like, it's actually a mountain. It's like rebranding to sell bitcoin well that that went belly up i lost bitcoin there

it got hacked right yeah btc or i don't know what happened but btce goes belly up i lost some bitcoin there but they still i didn't care they weren't worth that much and it wasn't heavily adopted then the winklevoss twins were like we're gonna put in what do they put in like hundreds of millions of dollars then you see a bunch of financial institutions finally say we're going to put in, what do they put in? Like hundreds of millions of dollars. Then you see a bunch of financial institutions finally say, we're going to start offering this portfolio. So I was like, okay, I really don't think these financial institutions will let themselves lose the money. So they'll resist.

They'll probably manipulate like Elon Musk does. So that's why a lot of people buy Dogecoin. A lot of dumb people sold. I'm not telling anybody what to do. No financial advice here. But Elon is pumping doge he wants to get rich off of pumping doge in my opinion and so these these whales these high profile individuals of 55 million followers are going to be manipulated playing that game

sure but i mean you know i i think housing crisis right like the nobody thought the housing market would go down nobody thought that the banks would get you know lose any money the housing crisis and surely nobody thought layman brothers would go under. I don't know. For sure. Bitcoin could end tomorrow, I suppose. The bigger risk, I suppose, is that it's young. People have confidence in gold because they've been born into confidence in gold. I mean, I think it's silly to have confidence in gold, frankly, too. I want to be clear. I think that it's just a thing.

And Bitcoin won't end. Looking at it as a monetary value is wrong. It's not wrong. It's just 1% of the way there, short-sighted. It's the functionality of the technology that's changing everything about the way we interact as humans. And it will continue to do so as we become more cybernetic, more attached to these devices. I can trade and make millions of dollars in a split second now with technology.

To put it simply, this was something that, this could be maybe a meme, but people are pointing out the cost, the energy cost for the financial system that exists today is like 40% more than the energy cost of maintaining Bitcoin. Just Bitcoin. Right. But it just strikes me as, couldn't you out-compete Bitcoin with one that was less energy intensive? Absolutely.

Right. Just like silver is a better conductor than gold, and we can use silver for certain things, but we typically hold them as stores of value. There's going to be more cryptocurrencies. There was a super chat. We'll read more, but someone mentioned that Dogecoin is actually stable because it has a standard two percent inflation per year i don't know if that's true but people are saying that basically means yeah i slowly go up i have no you know i have no idea like i don't invest in crypto and no financial

advice right i'm excited for i mean i wouldn't call myself a doomer but i'm a skeptic sir i like would you guys like inject a cryptocurrency into you to control machines? There's a patent for monitoring your body levels or something. It's a Microsoft patent. 06-06-06, something like that. Yeah, you either eat it or you inject it. You put a tattoo on it and it can measure. If you're looking at a commercial, it can tell that you're seeing that commercial.

And then it'll pay you crypto for at a commercial, it can tell that you're seeing that commercial. And then it'll pay you crypto for watching it. Creepy. Dude. And you're going to be able to turn your machines on from a distance. Would you do it though? Because you're going to be tracked. You're going to be able to turn your electricity on in your home the moment you walk in your home without having to call a company. As you wake up, it'll all start for you.

You're not going to need to send in your identification or anything. You're going to literally walk in and you're going to scan. It's going to get you. You're not going to need to send in your identification or anything. You're going to literally walk in, and you're going to scan, and it's going to get your address, and it's going to know. You'll be able to walk into your friend's house and power their stuff while you're there, like contribute to their network. Sure, but you can kind of already do some of that, right? I don't know. I just got a new apartment, and there's literally I can control my whole apartment from my phone. I can Venmo my friend now. Right, exactly.

Which is basically like the rudimentary beginningsmo my friend now. Right, exactly. Which is basically the rudimentary beginnings of contributing. Sure. Right, right. The issue is it's decentralized. Decentralization is epic. We need more of it.

I mean, I don't know. I think there's positives and negatives. All right, well, let's jump to a new story then. How long was that? 40 minutes? Check this out. PolitiFact has archived a fact check.

They have re-bunked the lab leak hypothesis. Oh, yeah. Archived fact check. Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab. Interesting. They have an editor's note from May 17th, 2021. The great re-bunking. They say, when this fact check was first published in September

2020, PolitiFact sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. For that reason, we are removing this fact check from our database pending a more thorough review. Currently, we consider the claim to be unsupported by evidence and in dispute. The original fact check in its entirety is preserved below for transparency and archival purposes. Read our May 2021 report for more information, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What they're basically saying is they published fake news based on some guy's opinion. Let me stress, they say researchers who asserted. Politifact, can we change your name to PolitiPinion? Because

having some guys come on and say, here's what I think is not fact checking. It's opinion checking. I could pull the opinion out of the ass of some homeless guy in my alley who says that he thinks it's not true and I can publish to my website. How about I do that? I don't know who these researchers are. This is what annoys me about the mainstream media. Our opinion, guys, are facts. Your opinion, guys, are wrong. That's the name of the game. Yeah. I mean, if you don't have total contempt for the New York Times and the Washington Post yet, I don't know what it would take.

One of the weird things about facts is they can be wrong. Like, a fact can be not right. What do you mean? Like, if you say the sky is red, that is a fact. That is a factual statement. It is not correct. It's a faux fact. It is also wrong, but it's not an opinion.

It's a statement of fact that is not right. That's actually a good point. And I think you understand this. You have to make a statement of fact in order to be sued for defamation. It's a false statement of fact. Right. But it has to be legally considered a statement of fact in order to be sued for defamation it's a false statement of fact right but it has to be legally considered a statement of fact there's a factual statement in this context though right like so this is clearly susceptible to fact checking right like did the virus come from a lab or not the real i think the real question is would it be a conspiracy

theory and i would argue that it couldn't be a conspiracy theory because there's no conspiracy theorized right well not just that it's when this story came out it was a is it possible no one said it is well a lot of people said it was but like in in media in conservative media in independent media they were saying interesting interesting and the reason for it like right when this story broke i even talked about it before there was anything happening in the u.s because because the Wuhan Institute was right next to the wet market. So everybody was like, yo. And you don't have to say, you don't have to think there's like some colluding Chinese scientist

deciding to, you know, evil and unleash this virus on everybody. You could be like, somebody made a mistake. That's not a conspiracy theory, right? It was like, you know, if one person could have done something, it's not a conspiracy, right? I always said this about that. I think I told you this joke or before like people would say the notre dame the idea that notre dame burned because of arson oh that's a conspiracy theory no one person can burn down a building or not a conspiracy or it could have been

a dude smoking or flicked a cigarette right exactly could have been an accident could have been intentional whatever right so this is the problem with today's media is that if it doesn't fit the narrative and they want power they will immediately assert opinion as fact and get away with it it's also they they all they see their jobs totally wrong like this whole you know since it's literally just since trump since trump they've seen their jobs no longer as like discovering truth but rather policing heresy right so here's a here's a weird fact did you know that like at the turn of the century there what imagine okay here's the here's the question what do you think the most popular major was at the turn of the 20th century the most popular what major in college what do you think people graduated folklore and mythology that's close Mythology. Close enough. Theology. Wow. There's always going to be a market for mediocre intellects who can do nothing but point and say something doesn't fit conventional wisdom.

Right. So we have to do something with those people. And in the turn of the century, the received wisdom meant that they would all be theology majors policing heresy. Now they're all journalists policing conspiracy theories. Everything's a conspiracy even when one person does it. Because conspiracy theory just means story we don't agree with. Correct. But I have to stress, PolitiFact did no research on this.

None whatsoever. They get an opinion, and some guy goes, in my opinion, I think it's not true. Debunked. We have officially debunked a conspiracy theory by getting a guy with an opinion to say it wasn't true. Well, there are scientists who have tons of opinions on like string theory or M theory or whatever, and they probably don't agree with each other on the math. Which one's the conspiracy? Whichever one the corporations dictate. So I got a bunch of sources for you. Check it out. You may have heard that Rand Paul questioned Fauci about gain of function research.

Newsweek reported on this. We've talked about it with Luke when he was here. Gain of function research. I think Luke took a more apocalyptic view of it, where it was like to make, you know, Luke was saying to make the virus as crazy as possible. Gain of function involves, yes, increasing virility or something, but not always to make it the most lethal.

Right, and it doesn't mean you're going from 0 to 100. Maybe you're going from 10 to 15. Or 10 to 11. Like, what if it was, if this evolves in this way, how do we deal with it in this way? And so, yes, there was funding that went to gain-of-function research.

Fauci lied in this testimony. Even PolitiFact says, well, there was funding from the U.S. to Wuhan's lab for gain-of-function research, and now the story is like maybe the lab leak thing is possible. Let me pull up some of these things I pulled up. So we got this. This is from April 28, 2020. NIH cancels funding for bat coronavirus research project. The abrupt termination comes after the research drew President Trump's attention

for its ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. NIH was providing funding for bat coronavirus research at Wuhan's Institute of Virology. That's where the bat coronavirus came from. This is... It came from a mile away

from that Right exactly Like across the street So this is TheScientist.com A NewsGuard certified source 100 out of 100 And I use this because If it's wrong

Don't get mad at me NewsGuard said It is the cream of the crop The best of the best And they reported this A year before We have this story From February 25th

2019 Human error In high biocontainment labs, a likely pandemic threat. Incidents causing potential exposure to pathogens frequently in high-security labs. You get the point. They talk about a bunch of stories. It's not necessarily about Wuhan. The point is the likelihood of a lab leak, potentially high.

They say human error in high is a likely pandemic threat. So is it possible that a pathogen leaked from a lab according to the bulletin.org i don't know if it's like the bastion of this was not news guard certified they said they were they reported in 2019 it was when we go over to the washington post fact checking the paul fauci flap over wuhan lab funding this is where it gets funny because they start playing games well it's not really not really gain-of-function. It's overly verbose. The grant was more like dark money. It wasn't specifically for bat coronavirus.

When you said he lied, I would be like he was misleading. No, he lied. I mean, because from my understanding is that he defines gain-of-function research in a very narrow and lawyerly way. I'm sorry. That's lying. Do you know how he defines it? I don't remember exactly.

With all due respect, you are wrong. We have never provided funding for gain-of-function research. And then you have PolitiFact. Yes, they did gain-of-function research. But Fauci is arguing semantics. You know, Pharma got a lot of shit from everybody for a really long time. And, you know, our public health authorities were always held in extremely high esteem. Like, if you actually looked at that, right, what are people's opinion of the NIH, CDC versus what are the people's opinion of pharma companies?

NIH looks like it probably caused the pandemic and killed a few million people, like, or has a role. I think the lab leak hypothesis is right um and if not nih then institutional public health right right uh and pharma companies solved it right did you see the video from the white house where they're all hugging and kissing and like no one's wearing any masks no yeah yeah that's new and so i tweeted the pandemic was over somewhat facetiously youtube chill i'm making a point that the white house nobody was doing anything and i mean so there we go i mean the the taxes in florida have lifted restrictions obviously a while ago and now i was recently watching there's a cnn segment with Fauci and Chris Cuomo. And Cuomo was like, why aren't there vaccine passports? And Fauci said, because we can't force people to get the vaccine.

So that means if the guideline is if you're vaccinated, you're okay. Take your mask off and these businesses can choose what they want to do. What else is left? People who don't want to get it aren't going to get it. But I will mention one thing that's really hilarious. How does it make sense that if you get the vaccine you can still get sick but you'll be asymptomatic like bill maher was recently so you'll be able to give people covet right if you're that's not my understanding of the latest sciences that suggests that it does it's very not transmissible

by people who've been vaccinated in the same way that's not really not transmissible before then then i stand then i will stop right there and say all right makes sense there you go so then uh why should people who aren't vaccinated wear masks um who aren't vaccinated other people who aren't vaccinated don't get sick well i mean like at this point that yeah i think you're right that there that there's kind of a weird argument to be making. In general, I think once, you know, once facts, you know, mask wearing before was a public health measure because there's no other measure available at all to, like, deal with spread. But, like, once everybody has the personal choice about whether to be vaccinated or not, the value of masks. You know what? You know what's really irksome?

What? The lab leak hypothesis was published last year by the washington post and that was what like really the first time i saw it there was also stories from the daily mail and a few others that were asking these questions and immediately very left-leaning democrat media said it's a conspiracy theory political politifact for instance is extremely everyone who did that should be out of a job in a in a properly functioning media environment every one of those journalists that would be like, because like, think about are there more important? How many more important questions are there than how did the pandemic that killed three million people start?

Right. And you went out there and you said the theory that actually looks like the most prominent was impossible. And it debunked conspiracy theory based on the wit. Go be a barista do something else and it like got people's livelihoods destroyed and it like people that would talk about it online would get shut down right like lost revenue and things i agree with you yeah go be a barista you're not a journalist anymore like you you're a journalist maybe we need like professional licensing for journalists in the same way that we have for lawyers and doctors.

I'll say this. Anybody out there who knows anybody who had a strike or was taken down or suspended for talking about lab leak should file a lawsuit against PolitiFact. There's real damages there. Yeah, that's a real – yeah, actual damages for defamation, right? Although, I mean, since it you know they would say it was specifically lying but yeah reckless disregard for the truth by claiming that an opinion of a researcher was a fact people have you've looked james o'keefe won that new york times motion to dismiss he won he won the motion to dismiss right which is where the judge said i if you're gonna insert opinions

you have to say it's an opinion that makes sense to me we'll see where it goes from there but at least he got to that point yeah so you can't just i think it's defeatist to be like well they'll probably say no well file it anyway it depends you have to be you have to be able to allege malice right like and and reckless reckless disregard but reckless disregard has a tech i mean it has a technical meaning like you know and that's like that's ultimately gonna be like conscious disregard right so like improving that's always going to be very challenging. Sure, sure, but you've got to fight. You've got to fight.

And the O'Keefe case has the unique thing of like they have the time stamp of when the emails were sent and the impossibility of comment, which is how he got over asserting the problem of asserting males. So all these news outlets started lying. YouTube just agreed with the liars and the negatively impacted people. And now they're all starting to come around. Why is it that conservatives just buckle so easily? Well, you know, we just don't control the media. And it'd be really nice if we did. Yeah. The media became more and more left leaning and maybe it'll change. You know, Daily Wire is doing particularly well. We need to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan.

It's too hard to prove defamation. Like, the intent standard that we've talked about, malice, is way... Because it means you have to prove someone's state of mind when they lie. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just be able to allege defamation, file a suit, say to a judge, here's the fact that they got wrong, and proof. And if it's true, the judge can say, issue a correction. Right. And also, I mean, think about it from the perspective of like, what is defamation, right? Defamation is you've said something that's injured someone else's reputation. Well, the person whose reputation is injured is an innocent victim who had nothing to

do with it, right? You just talked about them and lied about them and said something false about them that hurt them, that did them damage. Like, maybe you should just be liable for that. Maybe we shouldn't look at whether or not you knew you were lying. Like, maybe you were, or maybe we just have a lower standard of, like, negligence. Like, if you were just, if you didn't take reasonable care and you said something about someone that was false and did them damage, you should pay for it. Is it so hard for the New York Times to just put apologies, we were wrong about this right like i mean or god forbid they actually just have to you know they have a process where their editors ensure that whenever they make factual statements about someone that

could injure their reputation they take reasonable care yeah right like they do they act like reasonable journalists not that they knowing the standard shouldn't be did the new york times knowingly lie the standard should be did the Did the New York Times knowingly lie? The standard should be. Did the New York Times take reasonable care? What we do is we put the burden on the plaintiff so that but we get rid of the standard. So basically make it so that you have to show the court what you perceive to be defamation and evidence to support that. That it's what they said was demonstrably false, only after those two criteria are met, then the person being sued has to respond.

I mean, that's kind of the way it works now, right? You have to, you know, allege and basically you have to... I mean, like, go a step forward in actually presenting your case of, like, here's proof to state that it's an incorrect statement. Yeah, I mean, usually that's done. That's the easy part of defamation right usually when you bring a defamation case you have that evidence and honestly like you probably have to do that and then so like if i said something and then someone filed a suit against me and said he said you know x equals y but you know actually it's x equals z then my response is just here's

an article from the new york times you know or whatever here x equals z then my response is just here's an article from the new york times you know or whatever here's the evidence backing that up would that be sufficient i mean it would be again probably because you'd have to show that are you did you take reasonable care right like and what reasonable care is going to look like is probably developed through judges but we we know what it looks like in the context of journalism like did you research the claim did you try and verify it was true or false did you make a good faith effort to do so if yes then probably it's tough it is tough you know still it's still it's better it's a lot better than can you prove that i knew i was lying or that i consciously disregarded the problem now is the new york times can lie politifact can lie and you cannot do anything

about it and it gets put into the record It gets put into historical record and encyclopedia. And then people end up believing insane BS. And that's not the way it was in this country before New York Times v. Sullivan, which constitutionalized. Before that, there was libel law in every state. It totally coexisted with the First Amendment. Except until the Warren court decided, no, we're going to eviscerate state-level libel law and impose new federal rules. And then it's not the way it is in other countries too, right?

In Europe, especially in England, libel law sounds a lot more like what I talked about where the standard is not, can you prove they said something false, but rather like, did you take reasonable care? I'm concerned if YouTubers smack talk each other that one will get busted. If we repeal Times v. Sullivan, which I don't actually know what is it exactly, Times v. Sullivan.

So Times v. Sullivan is the case that sets the standard for intent in the defamation case. And that's distinct from what you're talking about. When you're smack talking, that could be opinion, hyperbole. If it's not intentionally meant as true, then it's not something that could be defamatory in the first place right it has to be like a false statement you know put forward for its truth um i don't know if we got exactly right opinions would still be protected opinions would still be protected the question is like once you've demonstrated that somebody said something false about you what do you have to prove about their state of mind right and if the standard is

actual malice you have to prove not only that they said something false but that they knew it was false when they said it or that they had what's called reckless disregard for the truth but that reckless does a lot of work you have to prove like conscious knowledge of or conscious disregard of things they should have done uh potentially in the james o'keefe case the new york times yeah exactly they didn't even bother calling the people to like fact check right they just said James O'Keefe is lying like well did you actually

look at it no and also like we don't that might get reversed on appeal you know like that that's just one state court judge you know we don't we don't know if that if that ultimately proves it whereas again negligence is very common throughout tort law and that's not intent like you can just be negligent if you didn't take reasonable care so if we repeal times be you can just be negligent if you didn't take reasonable care.

So if we repeal Times v. Sullivan, could you be negligent and not be held responsible? Well, if we repeal Times v. Sullivan, that Times v. Sullivan set a federal rule for what the intent standard had to be in defamation cases. Repealing it means, okay, now we're back to state by state themselves figuring out what the rule should be in defamation cases. And if I'm in Texas using a YouTube video whose headquarters is in California talking about someone in North Dakota, then are all three states involved? Welcome to choice of law. Like that's actually a very common, this is not, you know, defamation is not the only area of law. There are obviously areas of law, contract law, for example, where most things aren't,

where things aren't federalized in civil litigation. And so oftentimes a question comes up of which state's law do you choose to apply? Um, and so that's, that's very complicated. Uh, and each state has their own, here's another really, really been around. Each state has their own laws about how to choose which law applies in their courts. Uh, well, Texas and Florida is social media laws will be interesting. Yeah. I mean, so that, that actually is an interesting example of,

I mean, not quite in the social litigation in the civil litigation context, but, um, maybe, uh, but yeah, like different States have different laws and,

uh, you know, people will find ways to, especially like one thing that happens. I mean, in almost every business contract, if you sign or a lease, you'll notice that there's a choice of law clause in those leases. You sign for an apartment that says this contract will be governed by the law of the District of Columbia or whatever, right?

Like that's, you know, because that's a smart thing to include because it eliminates that dispute. You can contractually agree to which state's law applies. Yeah. Well, defamation is a, it's probably one of the most pressing problems that we're facing right now, especially in cultural politics and politics. The record, as it stands over the past 10 years, is fake. Yeah. Agreed. Which record?

Everything. Well, a lot of it, yeah. Because the paper of record was putting out fake news So the record is fake The New York Times Has put out a ton of fake news Like they won awards for it It's true now Awards for it

Dude we've lived in the age Of obfuscation There's so many It's a dark age It really has become Kind of there's so much light That it is blinding us And we can't see

So we might as well Be in the dark And I mean Before they screwed up But at least they tried You know they had like The Nework times got rid of its public editor i mean they got rid of their copy editors they just they even have fact checkers anymore i mean i assume so but remember when you used to get a phone call from a fact checker and they're like

hi my name is john i'm a fact checker with the new york times yeah i got one from the new yorker a little while back new yorker doesn't yeah they still do it maybe it's just too expensive to do and so whatever, just let your activist journalists say whatever they want. I think it was the New Yorker that put out a fake story about me where they mashed two quotes together

to make a totally out of context quote. That's wild. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Super quote. So basically what happened was a story I told was offensive to some people who then threatened, I guess, I don't know exactly what happened,

but I think they threatened a lawsuit so the New Yorker just wrote what they wanted them to write. And so then the New Yorker accused me of giving them erroneous statements, which is obviously false. What happened was a guy at the New Yorker took two different stories

and combined two quotes into one with like a space. So it sounded like two separate sentences from 15 minutes apart was one sentence, totally changing the context of what I had said. Right. And then obviously when the other individuals involved in the story saw that it was lying and making them look bad, which I never said, they told them, that's not true. I never said that. So then instead of taking responsibility, they said Tim Pool provided erroneous statements.

So then I called and said, no, I didn't. And the journalist told me to go screw myself. He wouldn't correct it. And it was funny because the issue was the person that I was, the story I was telling involved a massive corporation who scared the New Yorker. They weren't scared of just one guy.

So they ultimately just told me to screw off. Yeah, evil, evil people. Evil. Not. Evil. I have so little time for modern journalism it's so it's so terrible it's just it's it's maybe the most endlessly frustrating it's like because every day you see a news article and every day you're like oh another you know at best misleading article from you know it's a big part of why i am concerned with cancel culture and canceling,

because in an age of propaganda, you need to have access to be able to speak who you are. And so people can see it from the same people policing everybody for misinformation and heresy are the same people. I mean, I had a talk with a journalist the other day and they were like, you know, talking about how no misinformation is a real threat. And I'm like, you realize that your outlets put forward a theory that a billionaire real estate magnate turned president was really secretly a Russian agent. Like, think about that for two seconds. That would get laughed out of a Hollywood plot.

And yet that took hold of the liberal media for three years and was promulgated by all the, you know, the reputable media outlets. It's just, it's a total joke. And, you know, we have the First Amendment in this country. In general, the things that should be protected are statements of opinion about the news. It's one thing to say, I think we should be much stricter

when it comes to defamatory content. You say something false about a person that hurts them, that injures them, you should be held liable for it. Let's play a game. If you're in a public debate, leave it at Wild it. Let's play a game. Are you in a public debate? Leave it at Wild West. Let's play a game.

Andrew Marantz of the New York Times. I know Andrew. I'm sorry, of the New Yorker, mishmashed two quotes of mine from two, it was a one long story with different chapters per se. And he took one quote and one quote and he mashed them together. It was about vice. Vice took issue with the statement provided. So in order to avoid my response, Marantz or someone added to the article, quote,

an earlier version of this article included a quotation from Tim Pool concerning Vice News' coverage in Ferguson. The quotation has been removed because it contained several errors. That's vague. It sounds like the errors were mine. It was a quotation provided with errors in it. That's clever. The quotation was theirs. Andrew Morantz wrote a fake story

because, in my opinion, he's a liar who realized he could make a salacious, juicy story by mashing quotes together for the New Yorker. And the New Yorker published fake news. And I'll add one more to it. There's another story from the New Yorker, which they pressured us and tried to publish fake news. And they embellished this most insane story about me and my friend. We get a call from a fact checker and they're asking us outrageous, stupid things. And I'm like, all of these are exaggerations.

And they're like, yeah, come on, come on, come on. They're like, they're asking us outrageous, stupid things. And I'm like, all of these are exaggerations. And they're like, yeah, yeah, yeah, come on, come on, come on. They're like, they're asking me, you sleep in a closet, don't you? What? And I was like, no, it's a box car. You know the box railway apartments in New York where it's like you got to walk through one room to get to the next? Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's like a closet. And I was like, it has a window.

No, no, no, but you know what I mean? Like it's like a closet. I was like, sure, it's like a closet, I guess, or guess or something that effect that's the new yorker they write fake news andrew morantz is a liar do not trust him he writes fake stories and he will smear you here's what statement of fact wait here's what morantz wrote about me in his book let's see here talking to chamberlain about politics felt a bit like talking to a young earth creationist about dinosaurs. I considered some of his core beliefs, for example,

that Donald Trump should be trusted with a nuclear arsenal to be irrational, almost to the point of incomprehensibility. But once we had agreed to disagree on a few core premises, we could start to have a conversation. His goal the whole time was to pretend that because he had access, he was writing the truth. Instead, what he did was he came to my apartment and I thought he recorded the whole thing. And I was like, excellent. And so the story was very simple.

I said on one night I did X. On another night I did X and they did Y. He combined those to make it seem like Vice failed to do something on a particular night, which resulted in a failure for the company. I can't get into too much of the specifics. You can read the story, I suppose. Vice got mad about it. They were like, that's bullshit. That never happened.

And so. And he wouldn't correct. That's so embarrassing. Well, you see what they wrote. You see what he wrote. It contained errors. He didn't say they're weasley. This is what the media does.

Do not trust these organizations. Take a look at, there was, man, I don't want to get too much into it. Take a look at what Lauren Southern has been posting about the smear piece about her. I am surprised how often these conservative personalities are like, these journalists are cool. I trust them. Why? They're going to lie about you.

Do not give them money. It's like what they say with the police. You don't have to say anything. You know, you have a right to remain silent. Yeah, I know. Maybe I shouldn't have talked to that journalist yesterday. I had some journalist call me and ask me about the poll watcher video. And I was like, I'll just answer questions.

You know, I won't do it like maybe i'll you know maybe i'll be hurt but also at some point i actually like putting things on the record with them and now now you know what they can do what you let's let's i'll explain to you guys how it works let's say you get a phone call from a journalist like hey i was wondering i was to ask you a question about the video you posted it was a video about a dog doing a backflip and you're like oh yeah yeah i was walking down the street and i saw a dog do a backflip what do you want to, oh, yeah, yeah. I was walking down the street and I saw a dog do a backflip. What do you want to know? Oh, what kind of dog was it? I think it was a German Shepherd. Pretty big for a dog doing a backflip.

Interesting, interesting. And how did you feel about it? It was all right, I guess. Okay, thank you. Oh, well, have a nice day. Then the article comes out. I called Will Chamberlain to ask about a video he posted and he was immediately agitated and aggressive.

I was kind of put off by his anger and animosity, but nonetheless, I decided to ask him the question anyway. Fair point. Why did you film the dog? Immediately, a response scared me. He seemed angry at the dog, almost violent, and I was concerned he would actually hurt dogs in the future.

When he explained to me he was a German shepherd, I could hear the hatred in his voice. I think this man is violent and dangerous and needs to be arrested immediately before he hurts an animal. And then as soon as you say, that's not true, they're all opinions, and do you have the phone call recorded? That's true. I didn't record this one. I should have. So what do you do when they lie about you?

When you get on the phone with someone, you give them the ability to say, I spoke with them on the phone, and this is how I felt. Swipe? No, don't answer. I always do everything over email and writing. That's smart. That's smart. That's probably how I should have done this. Because then I can just publish the the emails and be like but they can still say in the email they were furious i was shocked they were their threats

of i felt unsafe the emotions i felt when i read that text yeah those scratches on that wall yeah the author liberal that's actually a good general practice. Like, liberal outlets can send you written questions. I was going to say, I think there's too many news organizations, but I don't want it to centralize into the hands of a few. So maybe it's good. You know what I do? When I get emails from, like, liberal organizations, I respond with a statement like, you know,

the rioters on January 6th should be in prison. And that's my response. Smart. So it's like, what are they going to say? Well, we asked him about whether or not he was a fan of Bitcoin, and he said the writers should be in prison. Jail. The jail meme.

Yeah. Right. They'll still try and play games, so you've got to be careful. They'll say with an unrelated and nonsensical statement or something. He's obviously crazy. Authoritarian Tim Pool suggests. Yep, yep, yep. try and play games so you gotta be careful they'll say with an unrelated and nonsensical statement or something you know authoritarian tim pool yeah yep yep yeah and they and they can they can say he responded with a white supremacist slogan because that's an opinion that's why you make the news you are the news that's why we make videos and you put yourself online because no one can twist that yet yeah deep fakes are coming. Ian, we talk about how history is written by the victors.

And at least for me, I always thought about that in the instance of like war and wars being fought. That is not the case. History has been written by the victors. It has been written by people who won the culture war and they are shaping the way that people think now and the direction that we're pointing now.

It's a huge problem. And I don't think that we saw it coming or expected it when we should have. Let's jump over to Super Chats. Oh yeah. It's time huge problem and I don't think that we saw it coming or expected it when we should have. Let's jump over to Super Chats. If you have not already, give a little tap to that like button because it seriously does help. But more importantly, always sharing the video

is massive. There was someone who posted the metrics and they were like, look what happens when you share. That's how we're going to actually... I mean, maybe it's not perfect, but it helps us and the work we do when you share and it's like it just that's how we're gonna uh actually i mean maybe it's not perfect but it helps us and the work we do when you share and it spreads the ideas to people who might not have them you maybe you know someone and you're like they just don't understand well maybe they haven't seen an episode of timcast.io smash the like button go to timcast.com

we are going to have i'm not kidding you you are absolutely going to love the upcoming bonus segment because it's going to be a wild ride of crazy conspiracies. Donald Trump from the future, time traveling and a whole bunch of crazy stuff. It's going to be fun and silly, but you're going to want to hear this stuff because, I mean, there's some really weird stories. And this stuff isn't relatively new, but we're going to go through these crazy conspiracies that look at real things that make people say, how is that possible? Time travel. That's right. Anyway, we'll wait some Super Chats. Stay tuned.

Go to TimGast.com. Become a member. Make 1984 fiction again says just your weekly reminder that total deaths per capita in the U.S. has not changed in 10 years, including last year. But hey, let's destroy the economy and redefine our culture and society for it. Now, that came from a John Hopkins op-ed, that official data, but I don't think that's correct. Yeah, excess deaths were up.

They were, yeah, yeah. So there was an op-ed. There was a global pandemic. Right, but here's what happened. There was an article written by a doctor for, I believe it was John Hopkins University page, blog, or whatever, that showed data points saying that it didn't go up, and believe it was John Hopkins University page, blog, or whatever, that showed data points saying that it didn't go up. And then it was immediately challenged by a bunch of people.

I just got to say this. When I see one story say one thing and, like, a thousand say something else showing data points, I understand we just went on this big rant about media lying. That's why I try to look in aggregate and try and track the data myself. So I'll look at these institutions. There was one story that said they weren't up, and I'm like, I don't think that's going to happen. I don't remember exactly what his name is, Lyman Stonsky, but he always had really good charts on Twitter that were showing excess deaths. And, I mean, excess deaths were up.

They were up everywhere. Not only that, but it's interesting that someone would assert they weren't when we have stories of violent crime skyrocketing and murders being up. So if murders are going up, wouldn't that indicate the numbers should be up i guess you could try and argue maybe the car accidents are down too because if you know like that's a big contributor to death as well right like there was and apparently there were like way fewer for example like child injuries like there were whole part of what happened as a result of pandemic is like those wards got crushed in the hospitals. Now here's something I care about. Rampton says, what do y'all think about Nicole Arbor feuding with Candace Owens over cancel Chrissy Teigen and walking off Candace's panel on her show this week?

I don't care. I don't know anything about that. Was the argument that Chrissy Teigen shouldn't be canceled? I don't know. I will try and make I will assume that there... I will try and make the best argument that a co-op recruit have made, which is that we should stick by the principle

of not canceling people because, you know, we should be the principled side, blah, blah, blah, blah, and say that, no, we don't unilaterally disarm. I disagree. You don't think so?

I think the right needs to be the side of uncanceling. If all you do is say stop, then they're going to keep taking ground. I don't know. I think you have to be – I think of it more from a deterrence perspective, right? Like they must make them live up to their own book of rules. Fire with fire. Oh, you're saying so we should cancel them. Right.

Like you should cancel the cancelers, right? Like if the people promulgating – anybody promulgating cancel culture should be forced to play by their own rules oh of course of course right but i think on the other additionally the right needs to be the party of actively uncanceling people sure i absolutely agree bring back milo and laura loomer oh yeah like i think you know you know i don't even like laura loomer and i think we should bring her back she's she has a right she's an american citizen it was a right to speak. Exactly. I remember I was talking with some tech bro who was trying to explain to me why he and I actually agreed about censorship policy when we didn't.

It's like the supervillain in a movie being like, you know, Bond, you and I are a lot alike. No, we're not. You're a villain. He's trying to say this is actually a communications decent, like a different thing about copyright. And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no. Here's what I want. I want you to have the same right to speak in a public park that you do. Same right to speak on Facebook and Twitter that you do in a public park.

That's what I want. And he said, but there's a lot of really nasty speech on Facebook and Twitter. And I was like, yes. Yep. That's also the balance struck by our First Amendment. There's a lot of nasty speech that's protected. Yeah. Right.

Like, this is not a technocratic disagreement. We have a values difference. All right. Let's see what we got. Eric Pabst says, nothing Biden does is surprising anymore. After hearing him say, we the people, well, the people are the government. So according to Biden, we are a nation of the government, by the government, for the government. I will say, you know, the one really compelling thing

that Biden has said before was, shoot it on a shot with a pressure. Fatty calf care. Did he get us that yet? So you know the phrase, the banality of evil? Yes. From Hannah Arendt? Yeah.

There's a banal awfulness to the Biden administration. It's true. Right? What does that mean a banal awfulness to the body administration right what does that mean banal so like boring pedestrian like uh you know the banality of evil refers to how people just mindlessly followed orders like willful ignorance willfully ignorantly no no no no no no no not like just just sort of passively accepting of awful policy, right? The classic example is like we opened the show with the discussion of the smuggling children. That is just like there's not some evil cackling person in the background.

There's just like, oh, how do we get this off the news? Because all the kids in cages photos are bad. Ship them off. I guess we just put them on planes and hide them. You know what I should do? What? Eventually, I should run for know what I should do? What? Eventually, I should run for president and I should grow out a twirly mustache. And then I'll run as a Democrat

though, and I'll be like, and then we'll strip the pension funds and claim we're giving people health care. The system will burn down. Democrats want to reinstate the salt cap. Have you followed that at all? I love this, right? It's literally like the,

it would be the most regressive thing. It would be the most enormous cat tax cut to like hedge fund managers in New York and California and venture capitalists. And Democrats should be opposed to it, like Bernie is, but Democrats are like, we need a middle-class salt cap to cut. And it's just like, you guys are so transparent.

I want to be on the debate stage. And when they're like how many of you are in favor of open borders or decriminalizing border crossings and they all raise their hands. I'll be like excellent and then we'll use them for cheap labor under the table so that we displace the working class and strip them of their

value. Like say their policies are a good thing but explain why they're bad as the villain guy. I'll wear a top hat and I'll have like, like, a monocle and a cane, and I'll wear a tuxedo. And then I'll be like, excellent, excellent. Ah, the Koch brothers. They must be celebrating the idea of the industry getting cheap. They literally are.

That is exactly what they're doing. You could do that and then make a video on YouTube, and your video would get more views than the debate. Maybe. Actually, that's a great idea to green screen yourself into the debate. And when they say something like, you know, in California, when they're like, how many of you are in favor of giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants? And they all raise their

hand. Be like, and then American citizens who have paid for 20 years won't be able to get healthcare. And then I could have a group of henchmen behind me wearing weird suits with goggles and gas masks going... That's the plan, man. Yes.

I'll do it. Nice. I'm here for it. We need to hire a production crew so we can do these skits and just make a skit channel or something. I also want to hire a patent lawyer. What? All right. I just have ideas.

You need a referral? I could probably get somebody for you. Okay, cool. Lawyers are cheap, right, Will? No. Yeah. They are not. What if I cheap, right, Will? No. Yeah. They are not. What if I paid him a percentage of the money the patent's making?

Oh, interesting. All right. A sea lion in orange says the Democrats are the Beth monster and the Republicans are the Jerry monster from that one episode of Rick and Morty. It's true. Have you seen that? I've never seen an episode of Rick and Morty. The Beth monster is basically Beth and Jerry, they're two people. They go and then this machine makes like their mental version of themselves.

So Jerry, how he sees his wife and how his wife sees him. Married couple. He sees his wife as the alien from Alien. It's like big. And she sees him as a slug going. And then she takes him and uses him and it's hilarious. Well, the whole point is that they're codependent and they require each other to survive. And he's like this spineless, sniveling little slug.

And she's this overpowering, domineering woman because she's a mental image of how he sees her. So, yeah, I could see it. Oh, no, no, no. Kyle Miller says, let's storm the Tim Pool compound. He doesn't have enough 50 BMG to stop us all. Are you sure? Also, Lydia, can you please say, aura, aura? I don't trust that.

Let me just assure you, I do have enough 50 BMG. Also, there's very clear signs that say trespassing will be prosecuted on the way. My mom got me a sign that says trespassers will be shot and survivors will be prosecuted. I'm like, I'm not putting that sign up. Survivors will be prosecuted. We're not, I'm not putting that sign up. Survivors will be prosecuted.

We're not putting it up. We'll put it downstairs somewhere. I've seen one that says survivors will be shot again. It's a joke. It's not real. Oh, yeah. Potato Masher says, does anyone know what freedom is? Just some thoughts.

Freedom is the ability, obviously, to take your pants off on the stage of the libertarian debates. Heck yeah. Freedom is the right to sell heroin to children, if I recall those debates. Yes. Freedom to a prisoner is the ability to walk around and see the sun any time of day. So it's kind of relative.

Seth Elvery says, Tim, if you're angry at rep politicians, invite one onto your show. Surely there's some who would have a conversation with you. Wasn't Parnell on last night? Yes. He's been on several times, but he didn't get in yet. Ah, okay, so he elected official. He's running for Senate, and I like the guy.

So I hope he does win. And I'm glad he's willing to come on the show and have these conversations. But every time I message someone, they say, What? Yes. Email this person. Yeah. And then I say, okay. And then you know what that person says when we email them? Nothing.

Yep. There's a lot of people that I've reached out to that say yes. Politicians are the worst. Hmm. That sounds like an actor. Sounds like you're dealing with actors. You could probably get Ken Buck on. I bet you could get Ken Buck on.

Colorado? Yeah, because I know he's chief of staff. So that solves the staff problem. I don't, you know, I've got to be honest. If someone refers me to a staff member, I'm just not going to bother emailing them at all. Fair enough. If I can DM you, I've DMed probably like four or five Republicans, and I'm like, yo, we can take care of it.

Here's the plan. Here's what we want to do. Are you interested? And they say yes. I say, we're good. Figure out your schedule. Let me know. It's no problem, right? We we're in dm now no they pass me off i say okay just say no next time i'm not gonna i'm not gonna waste my time i think that's just a function

of how their offices work there's a guardian of the schedule in a way that like you know politicians yeah maybe maybe you don't have to waste your time you're i mean it's just this is where yes minister comes in right like the The whole point of these little officers and all these little underlings is they control... Rand Paul, come on the show. We're big fans. Whenever we're like, all politicians suck, we're like, Rand's okay. No, Rand's awesome.

Thomas Massey, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley. Josh Hawley would be sick on the show. I hear such good things about Josh Hawley. He's like a homesteader. No, that's Thomas Massey. I get all these on the show. Yeah, yeah. I hear such good things about Josh Holloway. Doesn't he? He's like a homesteader. Is he? No, that's Thomas Massey. Oh. Yeah, yeah.

I get all these names mixed up. Yeah, Thomas Massey and Rand Paul are like at the top. Thomas Massey. Yeah, cool, dude. That guy's cool. Yeah, but there's like, what, 10 Republicans? We've got to meet a new party. I don't know.

We're working on it. I don't know. More than working it good. I mean, the freshman... You're sorry. These terrestrial snails, starfish, and jellyfish in the Republican Party who support the Democrats need to be voted out. Primary them.

Primary them. You can't even vote. You have to vote someone else. I've never seen any of them on any Republican news show, podcast, anything. Like, every one of those Republicans is like a creature of the nrcc and has who ted cruz has a podcast with my oh no no but i'm talking about the ones who voted no right other than like liz cheney i'd never heard of there's like some of them go on like lib media right like cheney and kinsinger and whoever but none of the 35 they were all these just anonymous republican

congress people who've never been on a Republican program. Yes, primary. It's time. Kristen F. says, went to a local brewery in northwest Indiana this past weekend and overheard a couple talking about the latest Tim Pool episode. Feels good knowing there are others in a predominantly Democratic area aware of good independent media.

I actually think the opinions that we have on the show, mostly like me and doing my show, resonate with Chicagoans because that's probably from being in Chicago. In our metrics, we can see that the largest location with the most views is Chicago. Oh, that's awesome. Interesting. I wonder if it's – I talked about this before. You grow up in a city that's been run by Democrats for 80 years.

There's no qualm with Republicans because they're not relevant to the local conversation. You just keep getting Democrats who make everything worse, and people keep voting for it. Eventually, all you're saying is, I hate Democrats. You're not a Republican. You're a moderate liberal. But the Democrats in your city just have a stranglehold, and they're destroying everything. I can talk about when the mayor came down to my local park and was like, we're going to build you all a skate park.

And we're like, yay, photo op. And then he's gone, never comes back. I hate them all. Never built the skate park? No, they built it. There was already a trash park there, and were going to make like a good one they said there's a photo op to go out and pretend like he helped the kids or something you know that's funny i i lived grew up in cupertino california i've been around democrats lived in democrat areas

my entire life except for like a six month stint in boise idaho uh and i feel like that almost that made me like i like some if you actually look at just my actual policy views are pretty moderate. But in terms of attitudinally and like what team I'm on, I'm like, I want Republicans to win. I want I think it's very important that they do. And I'd prefer Democrats not to win. And I just wish there was something other than Republican. Man, Dave Smith with the Libertarian Party. That's like this big deal.

He's cool. He runs for president. And's like this big deal. He's cool, dude. He runs for president. And I don't even know if he's who knows. I've never seen a Libertarian win the president. But Abraham Lincoln was built a fourth party to win his Republican election. He created the Republican. Dude, if we get hard behind Dave, he goes. It's just about.

Oh, whoa, whoa. The process. Let's read some more super chats. Wolf's Black Rose says, I didn't know Will was anti-Second Amendment. His anti-crypto argument is a page out of the Gun Grabbers handbook. That's actually, that's an interesting rejoinder. I am pro-Second Amendment, by the way. Sorry, just to make that clear.

But criminals use guns. It makes it easier for them to make guns. Criminals do use guns, but it's a constitutional right, and it's also important to self-defense. I think that your ability to defend yourself against violence from knives or punching or whatever is a basic right and it's also important to self-defense i think that you know your ability to defend yourself against violence from knives or punching or whatever is a basic right and that's what about my ability to defend myself from inflationary currency uh defend yourself from inflation currency well not a constitutional right and there's a collective action problem there with like if you you know the consequence of not having a having a currency that is not possible to dilute is things like the 2009 crisis.

All right. Nua Haking says, I live in Logan Square, Chicago, and on the way home last night, there were signs calling a woman and her husband out by name. Photos defining characteristics and social media usernames directly calling them neo-Nazis. Jeez. Creepy. And it would have been vandalism to rip those signs down? No, I don't think so. I don't think so.

Yeah, unless you had a right to put them up for some reason. Sonny James says, I love the Jewish people, but statist secular Jews have misrepresented them to the point since I've openly criticized Zionism, my superchats are carefully monitored and impossible to get through. To be canceled soon, don't tell me I'm the only one.

So wait, is this like, are you saying that your anti-Zionist Jews get canceled? Is that the argument? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm confused. Whatever. Jurassic Josh says, Timothy Poole, the U.S. not negotiating with terrorists is a quote from a Harrison Ford movie.

It is not an actual stance of the U.S. government. Grow up. Stop lying to your viewers. That's weird. When I did the hostile environment training, they specifically said the U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Sometimes, in a general sense, I'm sure in certain circumstances, there are. I think he's talking about Air Force One. Did you guys see that movie?

Harrison Ford plays the president. He punches a guy in the face. We don't deal with negotiating with terrorists. That's how it should be. It's a great movie. Commander 232 says, Well, to give you a bit of positive news, myself and my comrades in Federal Protective Services

walk off when we were tasked to help with the smuggling of the illegal immigrants. No way, for real. Is that a true story? Good for you. Yeah, wow. Good for you. Happy good for you happy to hear it all right let's see what we got here sunny james says so what the heck difference does it

make if you have all the crypto in the world if the government seizes your assets for the ever growing crime uh list such as racism and the old conspiracy charge no crypto can help you the y islands are risky by that is not true. Crypto can be stored in your brain. You can remember 10 words and have access to your crypto forever and they can't seize it. It's impossible. The blockchain exists decentralized around the planet. They can arrest you. They can demand it. And then as soon as I mean, sure, they can lock you up and throw away the key. They can do that regardless. But remembering it's 10 words, right?

Yeah, something like that. It ranges. Sometimes it'll be eight. Sometimes I think 16. It depends on the service. And it'll be like dog run, car fly, airport, theater, pizza. Yeah. And then that's it.

You remember those 10 words, and then you can log in and access your crypto from wherever you want. They can't take it away. They can't seize it. Until they plug into your brain with a neural net and start trying to read your memories and your thoughts. Or like take bamboo and shove it up your fingernails or whatever. Nothing is forever. Nothing's permanent.

And nothing is stable. We're always at risk. But I think crypto is a lot less risky than fiat at the moment. All right. Tag says, the problem with the gold standard is the development of asteroid mining. One of the reasons gold has value is because it's rare. Once asteroid mining gets off the ground,

gold will no longer be rare. I don't know. I mean, that's actually literally the opposite of my point. The problem is the fixed supply. You know, having your own national currency be something that's not under your control can lead to recessions

because of the problem of wage stickiness. Like if your country becomes less productive, you have the choice of either diluting your currency or your currency floating against others or wage cuts. Everybody hates wage cuts. So if you actually choose that, what you're really choosing is mass unemployment. Brandon D says,

Ian, read your personal crypto idea. Read the unincorporated man. Not exactly one-to-one, but eer similar oh thanks tis said tim look up look up wyckoff distribution distribution theory it just happened to bitcoin the big institutions are now manipulating the market perhaps i've warned about that as well mount romer says hack seems sus government hates monero could be a win-win for them more private coins too like pirate govs do shady deals themselves banning never makes it go away but makes it more valuable didn't a bunch of like feds steal silk road bitcoin that was like i would guess they would seize it as an asset no No, no, no. They got arrested. They went to jail or something.

Oh. Yeah. Was it like... Was it... Because obviously the guy who... I guess they... Who was responsible for Silk Road's in jail. Yeah, something happened. He got convicted.

The Dread Pirate Roberts. Yeah. Right. And so... Russell Rick. So like, yeah, Russell Rick. That's right. So the prosecutor or the police officers on the case like stole some Bitcoin.

Yeah, like $750 million worth or billion. That was a lot of money. And it was like two in March or something, I think, just happened. Yeah, it's not the first time cops have stolen drug money. They seized it. I don't know when they got caught in March, I think. Well, if they seized it, it would be illegal. They just stole it, right?

Seizing is something the government's allowed to do when you forfeit assets. But they personally transported the coins stole it sean kent says tim you need to form a coalition with the likes of the intellectual dark web and other prominent anti-woke people make an llc media organization to rival the legacy media get collaboration with big time players get enough momentum rival youtube i am not a big fan of the intellectual dark web that's about it i personally don't like cliques in general. I like those people, though. There's no closed groups of people that are like,

we're this now, look how we are. Yeah, expansive. And they fell apart. They don't even hang out anymore. If it was a clique, they don't... Ruben and Sam Harris, you'll notice they don't really go on each other's show. Brett Weinstein is legit.

I like Brett a lot. I like all these people as intellectuals. Sometimes I think they are wrong, especially when it comes to matters of political strategy. I think they often get it wrong on that question. Brian Scanlon says, Charles Hoskinson, the creator of the cryptocurrency Cardano, said in a recent AMA that he would like to come on the show. You guys should reach out to him. Cardano is an amazing project. There's nobody better to answer all of your crypto questions. We have. Did you message him on Twitter?

I can't message him on Twitter. But I have reached out to him on a couple different occasions telling him to get in touch with me because I do the guests for IRA. So the ball is in his court. Hopefully soon. Alright. let's see what we got here. Someone posting some

what is this? Some nonsense? Oh, okay. I don't know. Do-do-do. Let's see. Let's grab a good one. Everyone's just basically saying crypto is the best. Will is wrong. I'm not surprised by that.

It's like the inverse of the last episode where I was like Everyone's like, Tim's wrong. I'm not surprised by that. It's like the inverse of the last episode where I was like. Yeah, everyone's like, Tim's, you're wrong. I'm like, jail rioters. Everybody's like, yay, crypto bad. What? We're going to go back and forth. Yeah.

All right. Let's just see. We'll grab a couple more down at the latest ones because YouTube jumped on us. And it's. All right. Let's see what we got. Joshua Vogt says, hello, Tim, from a Air Force military police vet thinking of running for mayor of my town in a couple years. It's super leftist for the longest time.

I'm not. Currently work in pest control. Love y'all. There you go. That's cool. Danine S says, You keep mentioning PayPal and Stripe. Can I just pay with a card?

I don't know anything about Stripe, but after my mom died, PayPal made it impossible for me to close her account. I'm not doing PayPal. When you click Stripe to become a member, it literally just asks for your credit card information. It's like super easy to do. It's awesome. Stripe is really fantastic. Great service. Super excited to have them integrated. But again, you click sign up to be a member and it just says credit card information. You go, boom, done. Well, there's probably a little bit more involved in that, but it's relatively easy.

Sean Kent says, Also, can I submit skit ideas for you? I have a free one here. SJW chess player goes to get a bank loan and puts two pennies on the counter. Teller says, Sir, two pennies is not enough. SJW, did you just assume my currency's value? Hey, there you go.

That's the next. Okay. Yeah, my currency's value. It's meta. Gabriel Martinez says, Tim, first time commenting, you would win on a Republican ticket. Do it.

Also, currency and money are two different things. Gold is money. The dollar is currency now. Bitcoin is the new gold. You would. No, I don't think so. If Republican, you'd win. I don't really think there's a meaningful difference

between money and currency, unless you have a narrower definition of currency. That's like state run or something. No, the conservatives, I disagree on policy, on a lot of these policies. That's why you would win. Vote for someone you disagree with. It's an ever encroachment to the left just because I don't like them. If they like you, that's why they vote.

Oh, yeah, I guess. And I'd have a really easy time with fundraising. I wouldn't need the fundraise yeah wow yeah like you know sean came on the you know on the show and he's talking about the need to fundraise and i'm like i don't need to that's the way the game works though i guess you know the people who run big companies and make a ton of money can easily just run for office on some level yeah gotta make a bunch of promises but the more important thing is that the amount of media play I could get from my own work is way

more than they could buy. Dude, if we did, they'd leave vlogs from the White House. Well, the New York Times would lie and smear. That'd be so fun. Weren't there some Brazilian YouTubers who got elected? Yeah. That's what I heard. Because they control a lot of the media, you know? Yeah. So while these other candidates are desperately trying to

buy media, I just turn the camera on and say, yo say yo what up would you guys be down to paint the white house because i don't think you can just do that well if we're the president if you're the president can i don't think you can we get like taxpayer support is going to run on a platform of tradition but because the romans they always my... My Republican platform would be insane good. If I ran for president, it would be awesome. Yeah, I know. I'd be like, I'm going to pardon everybody, basically. All nonviolent offenders will go through where there's victimless crimes, drugs, and abuse and stuff like that.

Just start rubber stamping it. Especially federal gun crimes that are nonviolent. Boom, boom, boom, boom. Marijuana. Oh, you betcha. Boom, boom. Just just cranking them all out, pardoning everybody like crazy. The first day I just be like, give me the list.

I'm pardoning them all. Send them home. We got too many people in prison for dumb things. Stop wasting money. And then the taxpayers don't got to waste that money. So we'll lower taxes. How much money can we save by pardoning, you know, all nonviolent offenders? I mean, Philly's trying this experiment.

Nonviolent offenders? Yeah, because like think about it. People plead, right? No, no, no. The nonviolent offenders usually don't go to jail for as much. We've talked about this before. The review would involve, would not include anybody who pled down from violent crimes okay that's right okay so the file says this person was accused of doing x y and z and then they they pleaded to discharge

i'd be like sorry but if it's like some some some guy was chilling on his stoop with a you know with a 40 and his friends and you know he got arrested i'd be like get out of here or if it was like a guy was selling like marijuana or something i'd be like no or if a guy was like he had a suppressor and he didn't file the nfa i'd be like not get out of here like you're was like a guy was selling like marijuana or something i beg now or if a guy was like he had a suppressor and he didn't file the nfa i beg not get out of here like you're free to go you're free to go second amendment free to go free to go a lot of stuff protected the constitution like that's probably the only thing i would do i'd say like i'm gonna go through every single federal case and anything on constitutional grounds pardon we need less law so i'm down with that like you got a story about a guy's like chilling in his

house and the cops like kick the door without a warrant or whatever and then like he fought with them and then they charged him i'd be like oh he's going free oh even though he fought but it was self-defense there's a lot of there's a lot of creepy stories like that you know so i'd probably err on the side of freedom which could be a little bad i know conservatives wouldn't like that you know what i mean yeah no i think the whole like, free all the prisoners is not a traditional conservative policy proposal. Yeah. Hey, you want to lower taxes, right? Yeah.

Well, then how about the guy who's, like, nonviolent offender who was, like, minding his own business smoking pot shouldn't be in prison? I mean, I think most conservatives would agree with that. There you go. We're going to save you money. That guy can go home and he can smoke all the pot he wants. I don't care. Why should you pay to lock that guy up because he was rocking a ganja in his basement? That's stupid.

I mean, I just don't really think very many people are in jail for that, honestly. No, but in federal crimes, it would be more than just a guy in his basement. It would be like trafficking or selling or something. But I don't care. I think it's stupid. People should be in jail for that, nonviolent offenses. It's not so simple. I'd also run on like executive order instructing the ATF to stop doing all their jobs.

Like you will now be allowed to play video games all day and just don't do anything else. Right. Yeah, just the rubber rooms. You know where that comes from? I'm kidding, by the way, because they still do things that are important. In the New York Teachers Union, they literally have things called rubber rooms, which is where they put the teachers they can't fire. It's called a rubber room because you play a rubber bridge, the card game.

Oh. Right. So they're expected to just sit around and play cards all day. No, I'd be like focus on firearms. I'm sorry. Focus on explosives. Sorry. It's alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives.

I'd be like ignore the firearm stuff and just focus on the explosives. Oh, they'd love to do that. That's like the tobacco, firearms, and explosives. I'd be like, ignore the firearm stuff and just focus on the explosives. Oh, they'd love to do that. That's like the FBI's favorite thing to do. They find some radical and then they're like, oh, we'll just insert an undercover agent and offer to sell them explosives. No, I got a better idea. I'd make them like actually enforce the law against far left extremists. Yeah.

That's very good. Jail. Jail. Hey. Right to jail. Right to jail. Right to jail. The reason I want to paint the White House, and I'm joking, is because the Roman, where we got this architecture from the white marble pillars and stuff, all the Roman architecture is white marble pillar because the paint faded away. They painted that stuff.

The statues, these white marble statues were painted. They look normal. First last says we should make Ian's white party. I disagree. Do you know the story? I do not know the story. So Ian said that there should be a new white party in the States or whatever. And I can't remember if it was me, Luke, and Thomas.

For white people? No, no, no. There's red, there's blue, there's white. Red, white, and blue. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And there's red states, there's blue states. What if there are white states? Red, white, and blue. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And there's red states, there's blue states. What if there are white states? Red, white, and blue.

And they're like, racist. Yeah, he said, we need white states. And we're like, no, no, no. You could interpret that in the monarchist sense, because white was traditionally the color of the monarchies in the French Revolution. So you could go that old school reactionary angle, if you want.

Because the alternative is not good. No, it's not. I don't think we need political parties. My friends, we've got a crazy, crazy conspiracy that's going to be a whole lot of fun. A lot of laughs. Time travel. The secrets of the alternate timelines. We're going to talk about all of this.

And there's an actual news story that I'm going to bring up. And you're going to laugh. And it's going to be hilarious. So make sure you go to TimCast.com and become a member. Because we're going to have about all of this, and there's an actual news story that I'm going to bring up, and you're going to laugh, and it's going to be hilarious. So make sure you go to TimCast.com and become a member because we're going to have fun with this one. You can follow us on Facebook and Instagram at TimCastIRL. You can share our videos on Facebook. It helps grow the channel, and then we try to leverage that to get more viewers and people on the website. We're really focusing on getting people on the website.

So we're going to be also hosting things on Rumble moving forward. It's going to be really awesome. So definitely make sure to check us out when we do the show, Monday through Friday live at 8 p.m. You can follow me personally at TimCast, basically everywhere. And sign up at TimCast.com. Leave us a good review. You want to shout anything out, Will? Yeah.

I mean, human events, guys. Again, if you weren't here at the beginning, we hired Jack Posobiec. We're really stoked on it. I mean, he's going to be doing podcasts and stuff. And we're going to. Wow. So we're going to be. I'm really excited about the future of human events.

We have a big investor in, brought in Jack. There's more coming. That's big. Awesome. You can follow me at iancrossland.net and at iancrossland all across social media. Thanks for coming. I love you guys. Bye.

You guys can follow me on Twitter at Sour Patch Lids in my journey to have more followers than Sour Patch Kids. That'll be fun. We will see you over at timcast.com. Videos should be up around 11 or a little bit before or after. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you then. Bye, guys.