Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #307 - Political Catholicism Vs. Cultural Marxism w/Sohrab Amari & Seamus

Episode Date: June 12, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join author and commentator Sohrab Ahmari to discuss the roots of critical theory, how wokeness is infecting the economy, universal healthcare, Twitter's monopoly, and the idea that liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ladies and gentlemen, Ron DeSantis has won. He has gotten critical race theory banned in Florida schools, though they didn't explicitly say critical race theory. They have banned core tenets of the reactionary racist ideology that masquerades as academic theory called critical race theory. Many other states have done something similar, and this leads to a very interesting conversation around free speech, around whether or not kids should be taught certain things,

and of course the leftists, the woke, try to say, we're just teaching kids about the theory. But actually, no, they're telling the theory is true and correct. There's a big difference. And it isn't. It's a cult-like racist ideology. And they're trying to hide behind science to make these things a reality. In reality, it's a non-theistic religion. Wokeness, intersectionality, critical race theory, critical theory in general, or as some people call it, cultural Marxism. So it's a Friday night, and we're going to be chilling and talking about political Catholicism or just Christianity in the United States, the moral frameworks, things we have to talk, we talk about that quite a bit sometimes, and cultural Marxism. And I think one of the core

components of the culture war right now is that wokeness, critical race theorists, intersectionality feminists, whatever you want to call it, social justice warriors, have an absolutely different moral framework. Perhaps they don't have one at all. And the United States was founded upon, whether liberals like it or not, a Judeo-Christian moral framework. Joining us to talk about that today is Saurabh Amari, author of The Unbroken Thread.

Thank you. Thanks for having me. Do you want to just do a quick introduction for who you are? Yeah, sure. So in my day job, I'm the op-ed editor of the New York Post. And on the side, I write books. And most recently, I wrote this book, The Unbroken Thread, Discovering the Wisdom of Tradition in an Age of Chaos, which is a book I wrote for my four-year-old

son. Although when I started writing the book, he was two. Right on. We also have Seamus of Freedom Tunes. Yes, I'm here, actually. I wasn't planning on doing the show. I don't think we had me slated for tonight, but we got into this really interesting conversation and all decided that we should continue it on air. So, happy to be here. I think this will be a really

interesting show. Fridays are pretty conversational and, you know, we're planning on discussing cultural Marxism, critical race theory, and the more traditional moral framework, which is Christian values. And Seamus is a perfect person to join that conversation. Thank you. We also have Ian. Yeah, I'm really excited about this. I listen to a lot of Graham Hancock's work. He's an archaeologist and talks a lot about ancient history and cultures and about looking back to remember a lot of the wisdom that we've lost over the ages.

I think it's such an important conversation. But Graham Hancock believes that there were advanced civilizations in prehistory, correct? I think he thinks that it is highly likely. I don't know if he's ever found any proof of it. I think he's actually making a great case for lost wisdom by thinking that, you know, well, there was a, there's,

I watched a video of this guy who could move like 200 town stone, 200 pound stones, 200 tons stones by digging a hole under one side and then bouncing it back and forth using its own weight against it. So that's, you know, and, and using sand to push things,

you know, lowering and like vibration. They used to have these temples where they'd go in and they'd like strike the key of A in one area of the temple and the entire temple would start to vibrate. You know, your bones are made of this crystal. You could move very heavy rocks, very heavy objects by vibrating. And now science is developing acoustic levitation. So we're seeing like it's like almost like we're rediscovering not. I mean, I think we have a more powerful power source than we've ever had with like fusion and nuclear power.

I don't I don't see any evidence that we've ever had that amount of energy before. But it seems like we're like, you know, recursing technology. And that's what Ian will bring to this conversation about theocracy and religion and cultural Marxism. We also have Lydia pushing on the buttons. I think it's going to be a really fun conversation tonight. I am Lydia. And the reason the camera switched smoothly. Here's Tim.

Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com. Click that beautiful Members Only button, and you can become a member at TimCast, which gives you access to the Members Only area with a bunch of really amazing Members Only segments. It's a huge library. How many pages do we have? We have over eight. There's probably way more. Tons of full podcast episodes available if you are a member.

But when you become a member, the money you are paying into TimCast.com is allowing us to hire journalists, expand the operation. The new website and the newsroom will be launching hopefully in the next week or two. And we're going to take this operation to the sky, baby. I want to have five journalists working in the newsroom within the next couple of weeks. I want to have 50 by the next year or so. And I want to actually start cranking out fact-checking checkers and all the fake fact checks and actually doing the groundwork on journalism, producing documentaries, producing podcasts. That's why we got to get as many members as possible. So with your support, we will do that. And let's just jump into the conversation. So

why should we have an authoritarian theocracy? I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Yeah. But so today we saw critical race theory was trending. And one of the things that really worries me the most about whatever this is, right? I actually think critical race theory is the wrong way to describe it. We are giving the battlefield to the left by using their terminology. This battle, this culture war has been going on for a very, very long time. And you can say the first modern battle in In the culture war was Gamergate. Then we see you know movies.

Video games. Cometgate etc. Where you started to see this critical theory. Whatever you want to call it. Some people called it cultural Marxism. I think that's a bigger umbrella term. A better umbrella term for a lot of what it is. Wokeness is an easy way to explain it colloquially. But when we talk about critical race theory.

It's easily masked by the woke. They just say oh it, it's just an academic theory and you're overthinking things and we shouldn't ban academics for children. But what's happening is critical race theory is a core component. It's just the racial component of critical theory, which is quite literally an advance on, or I should say developed off of Karl Marx's thinking and the Frankfurt School. I don't want to get too jargony, but it essentially is a totally different moral framework from Christianity in the United States. And this is mostly just my opinions, but you guys can feel free to chime in. It's built on a Christian framework, Christian moral framework. You look at what Ben Franklin said about it's better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer, which was just taking from Blackstone's formulation. It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer, which was just taking from the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah,

which I believe he quite literally said. So we end up with a society where you have a lot of secular liberals, atheists, etc., who are living by this moral framework they don't understand it though you know over time we've moved away from the more i guess societally enforced you know um i don't want to call it theocracy but societally enforced religious views or faith and understanding why we have these these moral frameworks by losing that something else comes. These woke people believe there is no truth but power. And therefore, they're entitled to lie, cheat and steal to get whatever they want until they gain power. So I'm curious your thoughts you wrote. And you can talk about your book and explain to us what your thoughts are. I think you call the political Catholicism.

But yeah, sure. No, I mean, I think that's right, that the fact that they're moving in to me shows, is proof that there was never going to be any kind of a neutral public square, that our societies will one way or another always enshrine some orthodoxy, some authoritative view of what it means to live a good life, some account of the highest goods of human life. What's the purpose of living? One way or another, a society will enshrine that. And for a long time, the society had, as you said, a kind of Christian,

I would say kind of a Protestant establishment, a Protestant consensus. And then in much of the 20th century, Catholics and Jews were added to the picture. And we started using terms like Judeo-Christian. And that was the consensus. But a certain element of liberal ideology, which I think our society is ultimately a liberal civilization, has this tendency to be very suspicious of orthodoxies, of attempts to enshrine ultimate meaning in the public square. And so it chipped away at those,

culturally, politically, over a long time. And we see that in the vacuum that was created, the wokes moved in, right? And now they're moving very quickly. Every element of national life, you know, corporate businesses, universities almost certainly, obviously, but now K through 12 education,

there's not one dimension of American life where you can escape it. So to me, that just shows neutrality is over. And it was always an illusion. There was always going to be some account of what it means to be happy, what it means to be good, what it means to be fully free. The woke, whatever they call themselves or whatever it is, they need people to believe there is no conflict. They need people to believe we're just teaching about slavery.

We're just teaching history. No, I mean they're quite literally fabricating with the 1619 Project. It is a – I would argue it's a different moral framework, but I think it's just a lack thereof. No, it is. These things often are. It's a kind of bastardized Christianity. I think you said that, Tim. So, for example, it has an element of original sin.

But the original sin in biblical religion is something we all inherit. And you have to seek redemption through faith and so forth. But the opportunity for redemption is open to everyone, and everyone is equally fallen except the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yeah. So now we have the concept of original sin, but it's sprinkled across different groups.

Depending on your skin color, you are forever tainted by racial sin and have to spend your life trying to expiate this racial sin. And if you're a minority or fit whatever intersectional boxes, the more the better, like trans, disabled, black, blah, blah, blah. Exactly. Then you're sort of part of a holy class. You're sort of – Unless you're an apostate. Unless you are, say, a black – John McWhorter or something like that.

Candace Owens. Well, I think this is interesting because – so you were sort of suggesting that this wokeness, leftism, critical race theory, any of these similar types of thought are a moral system in and of themselves. And you were sort of alluding to them being a lack of a moral system. I think what it is is a moral system without any virtue or any emphasis put on virtue. And so it can be very confusing to suss out exactly what it is is a moral system without any virtue or any emphasis put on virtue. And so it can be very confusing to suss out exactly what it is. And I think you're also right that it was impossible for there to be any kind of neutrality. Ultimately, what the government has to have is some kind of definition of what a human being is, because you can't govern something without reference to what that thing is.

And so if humans are created in the image and likeness of God, and the government believes that it's going to govern a certain way if human beings are just blobs of organic material that happen to have amassed consciousness through some information processing at the level of the brain and there's nothing inherently value about us metaphysically the government's going to govern in a very different way this is actually really interesting because i think we had a conversation about aliens on on this show maybe a few months ago. Would

the Constitution protect the rights of an alien? If like an alien spaceship landed on Earth and these little gray men came out, would they have free speech rights? Would they have constitutional rights? And typically when we talk about this, people are like, well, of course. I mean, they're presumably people and it's like, okay, well, if it's

a different, entirely different species of being being then why do not dolphins or elephants have constitutional rights in which case there there is a presumed definition of who the law applies to and it's a human being yeah and i would also say too when people get into the discussion on aliens obviously it gets extremely theoretical but the question is are we talking about a creature which has free will because people will say things like intelligent life well how are we defining intelligence i think ultimately it's it does this have free will does it have a soul so to speak or a rational soul well you know what else is our people as corporations according to our government legally and you want to talk about modern day religion we're living in it the corporate corporatocracy maybe that's what this

should be a corporatocracy not a theocracy what this should be, a corporatocracy, not a theocracy. It's interesting. You were sort of talking about this, but how a lot of this intersectional stuff is really just a corporate religion too. It helps them because you can look the other way on how they're abusing their workers as long as they're giving money to the right causes and promoting wokeness. They all changed their Twitter bio picture to a rainbow flag this month, so I guess they're nice and progressive and we don't have to worry about anything they're doing. But yeah, I think it's interesting that Wokeness, you can kind of trace its birth.

I mean, Gamergate is interesting, but that it came after Occupy Wall Street. I actually, it was at Occupy, it was. Well, no, but the thing was like Occupy was making, I think now at the time as a conservative, I was like, oh, these crazy leftists. But after what kind of big finance did with the Great Recession, in fact, those demands weren't – now in retrospect, I think weren't so crazy because the idea that you would privatize all the gains but then socialize the risk onto people, that's outrageous and that was crazy. But that movement didn't work and what instead it turned to is instead of a kind of class-based movement having to do with legitimate economic injustices and overweening corporate power in this country it shifted to wokeism which is really really easy for for corporations to accommodate i actually think that was intentional during occupy Street, during the first week or so,

actually, I know a lot of people are like, where's Luke at? We demand Luke. No Luke, I puke. So our friend, he's like an ANCAP libertarian, Luke, whatever you describe yourself as. We met during Occupy Wall Street, and he's libertarian right,

and I was very libertarian left, but we both met during Occupy Wall Street in New York. There were conservatives down there sitting in with, you know, sitting down, holding up the American flag during Occupy Wall Street. It was very much just a general populist movement complaining about the 1%, the elites. And then something really interesting happened.

A lot of conservatives came out against it and there were conservatives there. So that was, you know, for me, I was kind of surprised. I actually interviewed an older couple and then the woke came in all of a sudden the conversations around wealth inequality turned into racial inequality all of a sudden when you started making demands about the big banks stealing from the working class they said you're white shut up and then immediately conservatives and libertarians started leaving not wanting to pardon this probably not wanting to sleep in a park probably that's fascinating i didn't know that and then we started

seeing the rise of the i am the 40 47 percent movement which to me was also very strange why were a bunch of people deciding to be opposed to a popular economic populist movement i mean i think bannon just the other day said tax the rich, you know, today. Yeah. Yeah. So so to me, I was kind of like I was like, oh, I totally understood what they were saying. But the people who initially came down and were protesting the establishment, the elites, ultimately what I ended up experiencing. I went to the deplorable when when Donald Trump was elected and I'm there. I'm like, wow, it's a bunch of conservatives. I don't know anybody.

I know who some of these people are. And then all of a sudden some people come to me like, hey, it's a bunch of conservatives. You know, I don't know anybody. I know who some of these people are. And then all of a sudden, some people come to me like, hey, Tim, we're big fans. And I was like, oh, really? I didn't realize Trump supporters, you know, like watched my my my live streams on my YouTube channel. And they were like, no, no, no. We were we were down at Occupy Wall Street. And I was like, and your Trump supports.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, screw the establishment. Screw Hillary Clinton. Trump's the one who's going to knock that all down. So what happens is wokeness shattered the economic populist movement after 2008. And now we've been entrenched in that battle where I think we are very much distracted by it. The problem is they saw an opportunity to move in, the woke. They saw a grievance, and they saw an opportunity to manipulate, and I think most of these corporations saw an opportunity to as well. If you shift this to this kind of stuff,

as my friend Christopher Caldwell says, where he says, in various realms of life, whether it's public corporations or government, they'll say, well, we've done nothing for the working class. We've done nothing for the working poor. But you know what? The new CEO is a trans woman.

It's just you shift power within elites according to hierarchies of intersectionality without actually shifting economic justice one iota. Now Oprah Winfrey is oppressed and a homeless white veteran

in a wheelchair is the oppressor. And his privilege is more dangerous because he doesn't recognize it. Yeah. I think that, I mean, everything you're saying rings true. And also there was this period of time, I would say right after the Occupy movement, and this was really all post-financial crisis, right after 2008, your ordinary person, many people were upside down in mortgages. And what happened?

Well, the banks got bailed out. And so on the right and left, you saw the rise of these populist movements. And you had Occupy Wall Street, which was generally considered to be more left-leaning. And you had the Tea Party, which was generally considered to be more right-leaning. And I think the media and the establishment were terrified of people realizing just how much overlap there was between those two groups, because then you could actually have the left and right working together to pursue some kind of economic justice. But that isn't what happened. Then you had a revival of these populist movements as a result of, I would say, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. And then they were split between those

two groups. But I would say for as much as I dislike Bernie Sanders, I would get along with a Sanders supporter a whole lot better than I'd get along with a Biden supporter in terms of what their aspirations are for the country and what problems they identify and how they view the political class. Yeah, I completely agree. Although Sanders, I think in 2020, got absorbed by the woke blob. I think so too. And I have never, as I've said, never been a fan of Sanders. I think I'm sympathetic to, at least in some way, the desires of his followers. I think I agree with them when they point out certain problems,

though I very much disagree with their solutions however sanders was very disappointing and it was almost like he just begged the establishment to take that nomination from him the second time he was never very solution based i liked the guy's fervor and vehemence but he was always like we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and i was like if he says crumbling infrastructure when we're i'm gonna lose my and he would never say how yeah i never once heard him say one percent the one percent that's all the money that we need to take and it was also very much you're right it was it was just highlighting grievances and he would talk about democratic socialism and there would just sort of be this vague notion of we will do what europe does this is you know the most frustrating thing is the left doesn't understand what the economy is

or what it means and they assume that by simply having money, people will be able to do something they were already able to do. Just because if you, like, you don't need the money to do it, you just need the movement within the economy to do it. If everyone decided right now to go spend money, you don't need to tax anybody. The economy would just be on, it would explode. People would just buy and spend,

and the money would be circulating really quickly. The amount of money is less relevant to people actually just spending it. They don't understand that the real core of the economy is the labor within it, not the digital number in a bank account. That's what you end up with, though. That's what they advocate for. I think for me, I've shifted on economic issues. I used to work for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and that's obviously just your typical – the absolute end of all government is to cut marginal tax rates and promote growth. Over time, I mean, partly personal experience and partly you see the response, the populist response, and you're like, well, there's something wrong in American society where the way I put it. Actually, I should quote Tucker Carlson where he says, I don't just want growth.

I want a decent society, a society where it's just based on maximizing growth or maximizing the economic rights of individuals isn't necessarily a good society. So there are things where as a conservative, I've come around to the, you know, at least the diagnosis. Maybe the solution standards and I will disagree, like you said, Seamus. But, for example, health care is legitimately a problem in this society. 100 percent. 100 percent. I have, you know, I have a corporate insurance. You know, I used to live in London and we had our first child there.

And, you know, look, if he got sick and if you're a new parent, you right away take them to the doctor because you don't know what's going on. And they were treated for free. And then we moved back to the United States, again, back into a kind of corporate insurance plan. Kid gets something called a human metapneumovirus, which is not a big deal, but it needs one night of monitoring in the hospital. And we get a bill for $20,000, of which we were responsible for $3,500. And I was like, okay, well, I can give an extra speech somewhere, I can write an extra

essay, and it's not a big deal. But how do middle-class people deal? They don't. They just go bankrupt. They just go bankrupt. It's profoundly unjust. It's complicated. And this is another area where I agree with the Sanders types in terms of their diagnosis of the problem. I think the solutions they propose are really bad because often it's been state involvement and just lobbying from health insurance companies and government overreach that has led to health care becoming such a disaster in this country. And they'll say things like, well, we should have Medicare for all.

Even in Europe, most of the universal health care systems are not single payer like that. And Medicare for all would be unbelievably expensive at a time when we're already massively in debt. I can't claim to know what the exact solution is. I tend to be in favor of limited government solutions. But health care is it's such a complicated mess right now that I can't say one way or another. This is this is my preferred policy. I have some ideas and I think it would be good for lower-income people, for example. I think what we have to do, what we absolutely have to do, is reconnect people to prices, but in a way that allows for people who are low-income to be treated when they need it.

I think most health care spending is not emergency spending, so people really could be shopping around. But instead, they go, my health insurance company will pay for it, so they don't look at how much the services cost, and it allows hospitals to inflate the price of basically everything they sell, which makes it impossible for poor people to get treatment. So I, for a long time, was very pro-universal health care. And even up until sort of recently, idealistically, I very much like the idea of universal health care. Kind of like how other countries do it. There's a basic level of coverage everyone has access to, and then you supplement with private insurance. And we do try to save as many people

as possible. However, in the United States, we have two really, really big problems, which makes me feel like maybe this is not going to work. The first of which is Bernie Sanders saying, abolish private health insurance. And immediately I'm like, okay, no, no, no, no, no, no one. He's like, we should have universal health care like everybody else. And then abolish private health insurance. And I'm like, no one did that. You can have your own private coverage on top of your standard universal coverage. But I'll tell you the nail in the coffin for universal health care for me.

You know what it is? It was when they announced racial distribution for vaccinations. And that was a hard stop if critical race theory wokeness are the driving forces for how we implement policy and it seems to be the case these days with them flying black lives matter flags the embassies the last thing i want to see is them going okay now we have your life-saving emergency medical treatment and what's your race? Hold on a second. But why wouldn't private insurance adopt woke categories? That's the – right? Like if corporations are going in the direction of – so I think a lot of times, rightly so,

I think in some ways American conservatives or Americans in general are worried about public tyranny. And that's important. But there's also the possibility about public tyranny, and that's important. But there's also the possibility of private tyranny, whether it's corporate or what have you. And I think in any other marketplace you might be able to say, well, people can shop around, and if the insurance company decides that they want to discriminate against white people, they can find a different insurance company. But in a country where your access to health insurance is tied basically directly to your employment 90-something percent of the time. That's just not realistic.

So I agree. I also, though, I would say this. Another reason that I agree that the solutions in Europe can't work here is, A, the United States is a gigantic country, so implementing one federal health care system for every state seems like an impossible-to-win battle. Also, we are the fattest country in the world. We are unbelievably unhealthy. I don't think that's true, though.

What, did Mexico overtake us recently? Maybe. I don't think we're the fattest. They got aspartame, and Coca-Cola went deep into South America in the last, like, 15 years. You've seen a large explosion of obesity. Oh, yes. So the United States is no longer the fattest country. But I know, yeah, that was a surprise. Oh, dude, so the United States is no longer the fastest country. But I know, yeah, that was a surprise.

Oh, dude, we're not even in the top ten. Really? Oh, well, you know what? That's a misconception. That's a misconception I'm glad to have shattered. That said, it's not as if we have a healthy population, per se. Nauru, Tonga, Samoa, Kuwait, St. Kitts and Nevis. They're tiny countries.

Yeah, St. Lucia, Kiribati, Palau, Micronesia, and Tuvalu. Thanks for calling that out. This sounds like per capita they're doing the measurements by. America is a fat country, though. Yeah, correct. Oh, wait. Yeah, so yes. So America is a fat country.

I'm actually glad you called that out because I don't want to spread any misinformation. But at the same time, we are a very unhealthy country. We basically eat garbage, and people see the time to take care of themselves as being when they're at the hospital. And really it should be when you're going to get something to eat. This is what I'm talking about. The sugar industry is so involved in our government. It's disgusting. Michelle Obama had this let's move campaign when they first got into office. It was about let's kick sugar out of our diet. The sugar industry was about in the beginning. And then so the sugar industry got involved. Hey, Michelle, let's make this an exercise campaign instead.

So she did. I didn't know that. Sugar industry is still involved. It's like having big heroin or big cocaine in your government. And I wonder how connected the insurance companies and the sugar companies are making you sick and then making you pay to get healthy again. Bro, we do have big heroin in government. The doctors are giving out opioids like crazy. It's creating a pandemic.

It's destroying this country. It is like that like that man that's the other thing too like when you when you see how our health care system is being used in these unbelievably corrupt ways you also see like maybe this isn't just a question of public versus private it's also um i think it's just a massive issue with with virtue as well i think we can get into this at some point but no matter what kind of system you have if people are just looking to screw each other over and get one up on the next guy, nothing is going to work. So that brings me back to we were talking about moral frameworks, religion, and things like that. Yeah, if people have no shared value system, they don't care about anybody. So I'll throw it to Luke.

So our good friend Luke, who is coming back soon, he has a video. And I think it's called Just Keep Going, You've Got Nothing to Lose, where he basically says, you know, New York City, this transit system, millions of people ride the subways every day and they never talk to each other. And so one day he decided to just go and start talking to people and asking them questions. And then, you know, it gets a little conspiratorial or whatever. But it's a good message in the beginning. It's a good message. We stand next to our neighbors every single day and we never talk. That's true.

We don't care. We don't care to communicate with them, to learn about their day. When we had smaller communities, we had things bonding us together. But we also had a very shared moral framework. People would meet at church. That's where the communications would happen. That's where ideas were shared. We society we lost those things we lost the town center we lost the church as the place for communication and now people all of a sudden have no idea who lives next door to

them that's how it is in new york city many people don't even know who lives right above them i saw a funny meme and it was like on the door and it said like next to the apartment number. And it was like this, this apartment's favorite shoes. And it was bricks. And I was like, do you know the name of the person who lives next to you? I know a lot of people in New York. I used to hang out a lot of different apartments. People never knew who their neighbors were. Oh, it's some guy. He's like a tech guy or something. I don't know his name. We have no connection. And that means when push comes to shove, when a crisis hits, people are just every man for themselves.

So I live in New York. I live in Manhattan. And we do know, I think my wife and I know the people on our floor. You think you know? No, no. We know them. My wife better than I do, actually. But upstairs and downstairs, we don't. Yeah, I mean, this is

why I wrote this book, basically. I have this son. He's four years old now. He was two when I started writing it. And I guess I'm just worried about the kind of man our civilization will chisel out of him. And I think a lot of it has to do with a wrong account of freedom. I think we define freedom, and this is a product of, I think, maybe past 300, 400 years. I'll blame the Enlightenment as a Catholic who's bitter about the Enlightenment.

I'm glad there's another one. But this idea that freedom just means having the maximal amount of choice, and there's no difference whether you use your freedom for good or freedom for evil. In this country, the founding generation did understand that they distinguished between liberty and license. Yes.

So that true freedom in the kind of classical tradition, Christian tradition, true freedom meant doing what you ought to do. Yeah, exactly. And it entailed accepting limits. It entailed duty. It entailed sacrifice.. It entailed duty. It entailed sacrifice.

Responsibility. Responsibility. The freedom to do the right thing, basically. And, you know, when you don't – in the book I have a chapter on Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian dissident. He obviously was exiled in the United States after winning the Nobel Prize for Literature. He blew the – kind of he exposed much of the world to what was happening in the Gulag system. And he comes to the United States, he's asked to give an address,

a commencement address at Harvard, and everyone thinks he'll just condemn the Soviet Union. Of course he hated the Soviet Union. Of course he hated the communist regime. But he spent most of his time criticizing the West and what he saw as it's, that the West had also somehow gone wrong,

that it had been deformed. And specifically, he picked on this idea of that you mentioned that we're all just out to just to get ahead and one one one one up each other. Right. That's that's also less than worthy of people, he said. Right. And it breeds its own kinds of tyrannies, often private tyrannies. And there's a certain kind of libertarian today where you say, well, actual freedom of speech where it matters, which means like exposing power as a journalist, is dying. But it's dying at the hands of private institutions. And they'll say, well, that's the end of the debate.

There are private actors. Big tech can do whatever you want to do. If you want to build your own platform, go ahead. That's, you know, okay, yeah. Within a narrow libertarian framework, sure. But in terms of is that good for society? I had a conversation with some Trump supporters a couple years ago at one of Mike Cernovich's events. He does these Night for Freedom things, and this was in D.C. And I was talking to these guys,

and I said that I oppose the use of physical and coercive force against people to take from them. I think that it has to be free exchange, either through a market or through cooperation. And one of the guys said, wait, wait, wait, coercive force? And I was like, yeah, yeah, yeah, coercive force or manipulative force.

And they were like, elaborate on that. And I said, like defrauding someone, tricking someone into giving up their possessions in exchange for something else. And these three guys were basically like, no, no, no, no, no. Like, we disagree with you. If I convince someone of their own free will

to give me something that was their choice and that's the way it should be and i said so you think that like powerful institutions can say whatever they want and if it convinces people to act a certain way or give up something that's fine coercion to to enforce something is fine and they were like for the most part and i was like just like how the mainstream media lies to us every single day to get people to vote for people who extract from our economy and destroy our country. And then they were like, yeah, no, that's really bad. And I'm like, right. I don't know how we get past that. I believe in free speech. And there's a very serious challenge then when you have basically the entirety of the corporate press lying every single day in every possible way. Donald Trump cleared a protest for a photo op. And when

conservatives came out and said, I think it was Molly Hemingway, the Federalist, there was already a plan to clear the protest to put up secure fencing. It was incidental that Trump came out afterwards. They said fake news. The Federalist is liars and fake news. We, the media, dictate what is true and what happens when the independent IG report just comes out. Oh, all that reporting was correct. The conservatives were right the whole time. The mainstream media exists solely to lie to people. Now, to me, that is fraud, but they have a right to free speech. And so therein lies a very, very serious challenge. When you start to recognize what the left has already been doing, exploiting our values and our goodwill to destroy a system that ensures people have a right to speak freely.

They call it the paradox of intolerance. They put out this meme where they say, you must not tolerate intolerance. Otherwise, intolerance will wipe you out. But the funny thing is, they're the ones intolerant. They're the ones banning conservatives and anti-establishment actors from the Internet. Meanwhile, they're the ones who get away with whatever they want. And it's the conservatives who keep letting them do it. Of course, they push back and say, you shouldn't do this. But we still sit here and say, look, I understand basically the entirety. Every single media organization was lying about

everything Trump did almost all the time. Five years of Donald Trump is a Russian spy. And we just say, but our principles dictate that we allow them to say it. It's interesting. I believe also Karl Popper, who they're quoting in The Tolerance of Intolerance. Yeah. He was also a critic, a heavy critic of communism as well. But, of course, that's not going to be something that makes its way into a little viral comic. But I think there's a few things. He wrote a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies.

And I've always wanted to write a book called The Closed Society and Its Friends. It's hilarious. Favor some closeness. Yeah. No, I hear you. And I'm not necessarily endorsing him. I just think it's funny that they leave this out. I will say this, though. So, Tim, there's I mean, there's a few things here. You mentioned these media outlets and you're right. It's really complicated because on the one hand, they do have freedom of speech. On the other hand, they are saying things that we know to be lies. Not necessarily to come down one way or the other here, but I would ask myself the question, are these people who would be comfortable silencing me? Now, I'm not saying someone's rights are based on whether or not

they would give you the same right. Your enemies still have rights. But I think we should at least entertain this discussion of something being done. So, for example, if you lie about and smear a teenage boy because he's wearing the wrong kind of hat and it fits your narrative, then there is good reason for there to be legal penalty because you've attempted to destroy somebody's life with bad information. And your job as a journalistic outlet is to spread the truth yes and nick sandman um but and i also want to say this you were sort of talking about freedom a moment ago and the fact that freedom is really in uh antiquity in the classical tradition the freedom to do the right thing and with that comes this robust understanding that freedom and rights

are very much duty based. The reason I have a right to own a gun is because I have a duty to protect myself. And therefore, you're not able to prevent me from doing the things that I have a duty to do. And it's similar with the freedom of speech. I have a duty to speak truth when necessary. But if I'm prevented by do it from doing that, I don't think it matters whether it's the government preventing me or a giant corporation. My right has been violated. It's a very, very serious ethical conundrum. We don't want to take away the right of free speech because we know that they would gladly use that power against us. In which case, 100 percent, you're entering war.

Right. So think about it this way. I have a right to keep in bare arms to defend myself and defend the free state. If they start using their right to bear arms to aggress against me, I have a right to defend myself. You're entering open conflict. If I have a right to free speech to express and defend a free state and they start using speech to suppress and oppress, you're entering conflict. But we don't take away people's rights. We just enter that conflict and try and combat those ideas. The challenge becomes when you are losing.

Two points. I would say, first of all, I mean, one of my big battles within conservatism, and I famously picked a fight with David French a couple of years ago, but one of my big battles within conservatism is this tendency to say, you know, if we use power, God forbid, they'll use it against us. And I always say, they are using it against us, right? And no movement, there's no movement that should, that should say, our goal is to not use power. But why are you then a political movement? You are in politics to exercise power towards some

substantive vision of what is a good society? What do I want to do? If I just come in and say, we're here because we don't want to use power that's obviously an invitation that sounds like basically every republican yeah with every opportunity they didn't do it yeah well some do so it's it's an interesting paradox because you have the left which is entirely power-based i mean that's how they analyze everything and it seems to be all they want and then on the right you have people who just don't want to go anywhere near any kind of political power because they view it as inherently corrupting. And it's true that that power does corrupt, so you have to be careful with it. And we don't want to ignore that.

But you're also right that they're using this against us, and we have to do something to defend ourselves. And, look, the point of having a political movement is wanting to change something about society, and political power is the vehicle for doing that. And then on the speech point I would say just – because I'm not as pre-speech absolutist, actually, that there is a kind of retconning going on where people look at the founding and they impose basically a post-war consensus on speech and they retcon it into the founding era. The founding era, the founders would have been appalled by the idea that there was a free speech right to teach kids about transgenderism. It just would not have – because they had a sense of obscenity, right? Yes, that's absolutely right.

You had obscenity laws in the United States. You had them in the colonies before there was a republic. There were common law obscenities, and then we had federal obscenity laws in the United States. You had them in the colonies before there was a republic. There were common law obscenities. And then we had federal obscenity laws after the republic. So the founders were not these kinds of Reason magazine libertarians. We had blasphemy laws. Into the 19th century, you had blasphemy upheld as a kind of common law charge. So if you're not a free speech absolutist, then you think, OK, yeah, but the libertarian vision you have is literally a kind of a 50-, 60-year-old fantasy. It does not have even roots in the founding.

I think we made tremendous improvements in terms of free speech and expanding the ability to speak. I think a lot of obscenity laws were dumb, but I would say a lot. I think the issue is the system itself is now being exploited. Free speech for me, but not for thee. They'll put the communist red salute in a children's cartoon on Nickelodeon with a drag performance, but then if you tell a journalist,

learn to code as a joke, they ban you. So quite literally, there is no free speech in this world for those who are anti-establishment or conservative or even just not woke. But the woke have all the free speech in the world while claiming free speech is bad. It makes me think about a bunch of people hanging out in public space and then talking. And then one guy, Johnny, starts to make a lot of noise and be disruptive. And then everyone's like, stop, stop, stop. And then a couple minutes go by and he does it again and again. And then you're like, do that again.

We're going to throw you out by force. And he's like, but I have the right to do this. Well, I don't agree with that. I mean, what's happening is a conservative will go on to Twitter and make a comment about transgenderism and get instantly banned for simply having an opinion. Not even directly. Look at not just an opinion for stating facts. Well, literally stating facts.

Zuby said, OK, dude, Zuby, the rapper talking to someone on Twitter, responded with, OK, dude, not a genderism, just quite literally as a passive. OK, whatever, dude. Got got suspension for it. with okay dude not a genderism just quite literally as a passive okay whatever dude got got a suspension for it the the the amount of speech that exists on the in the cultural right according to the whims of the cultural left is zero it's shut your mouth you don't get any free speech but thank you for extending us that opportunity that's what i'm saying so the second part of what i was saying is like, then the government, so eventually you throw Johnny out, he comes back,

he's like, the government comes in and says, you can't stop him from being disruptive. And that's what it feels like, this government forcing of us to listen to this bizarre, I don't know what you want to call it, a twisting of faith or a twisting of morality. How are they forcing us to listen to them? Like you can't say – you can't tell a transgender man that he's a woman on Twitter.

That's a corporation. That's not the government. Well – Corporations do not – But that it's seeping into the government is what I guess the point is. Well, sure, sure. I mean – You're right.

It is a corporation, which is a form of government, unfortunately. But, I mean, I think the way to deal with that is, first of all, reform this law, Section 230, which, you know, we at the New York Post, if I publish libel in, Congress enacted a law called the Communication Decency Act of 1996 where it gave these platforms. At the time, they were like Internet bulletin boards. They were completely nascent. So no one had any idea they would become so big. kind of violent threats, truly kind of prurient content, child pornography or what have you, and nevertheless not be subject to a traditional publisher's liability. That's the provision that Twitter and Facebook use where they act like publishers, but if you publish libel on their website, they cannot be held civilly liable.

The law actually extends rather uniquely to literally any web service. So interestingly, I think you actually have an argument for not being able to sue the New York Times. I'd love the New York Times to just cite Section 230 as a legal defense because it would probably work. 230 just says an online web service. It doesn't define social media or anything. And so there's no distinction between publisher or platform, none whatsoever. There's interesting conundrums in that regard then, because I brought this up with Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses the 230 shield where they say, you can't sue us for what a Wikipedia article

says about you because it was written by users, not us. However, the published page on Wikipedia was not written by users. It is an amalgam of a bunch of different comments from a bunch of different people, but then formatted and published by Wikipedia with a banner that reads, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Considering that they have now claimed publisher of this article, and you don't see the user's name or picture or the link, I think Wikipedia is the biggest grounds for a lawsuit in terms of libel. article and you don't see the user's name or picture or the link that's i think wikipedia is the biggest grounds for a lawsuit in terms of libel and the clearest case is to me is twitter

though because twitter has now it has its own editorial voice somehow where if you look at the trending material some like hack has written something like people are talking about governor desantis banning the teaching about racism, obviously, and in this kind of completely New York Times-y, stupid, live framing. But that is no longer just like a neutral platform. It has its own worldview. Yes, yes. So then, OK, then you should be sued. You could sue Twitter for what they write.

So when, for instance, Twitter said that James O'Keefe was operating multiple accounts, James O'Keefe sues Twitter saying that was a false statement of fact. Oh, sure. No, but I'm saying that the fact that they act like that, the fact that they have their own editorial voice just makes it clear that they're no longer any kind of a just a Web service. They're a publisher. Well, let me. And therefore, they should be subject to liability. I think the bigger problem is Times v. Sullivan, the higher. Well, I should say it's Times v. Sullivan as well as Section 230. For those who aren't familiar, Times v. Sullivan created the actual malice standard in defamation suits. So there has to be a reckless disregard for the truth

or you had to know you were lying, which is actual malice. I think what's happening now that needs to be challenged, what separates Twitter deciding what is allowed to exist on their platform in terms of other people writing things and the New York Times

deciding what's allowed on their platform and choosing what appears on the front page Twitter through algorithms and through their rules will remove and shadow ban conservatives for the most part there are leftists who get banned for sure but it's a tendency towards banning conservatives and it's a very strong tendency. So what's the difference

between that and the New York Times saying we're only going to allow this to appear on the front page? Money? Is that really it? No, no, I mean this seriously. If Twitter says, okay, Saurabh, you tweeted, learn to code, and Ian tweeted, happy pride. I'm going to ban you. Hey, guess what? The only thing that appears on the front, you know, on the newsfeed for everybody is exactly what Ian said, and I banned everybody else. So it's this really fascinating thing where they're like, I didn't choose to put his writing on the front page. I just asked 1 million people to write their opinion and banned all of the opinions I didn't like.

So quite literally exactly what I wanted appeared on the front page. Whereas the New York Times says we have 30. I mean, the New York Times probably has thousands of contributors who all write articles. And then they say, we looked at all of them and we've decided this is the one that will go on the front page. What's the difference? The New York Times is a corporation paid that person. All right, here's what I'm saying. Here's what I'll do. I'll create the Tim cast a community user board where I'll ask people

to contribute to writing whatever wild and cockamamie garbage they want. And we'll put it on the front page. Statement of fact, boom, sue me. I'm protected by section two 30. I think the difference is that the New York Times has a human choosing it and curating it, whereas the Twitter has an algorithm doing it. So they're kind of like hiding behind an algorithm. So Twitter, I could argue that I'm willing to bet New York Times has filters for their contributions that come in, that stupid things get thrown in the trash and spam folder, right? Okay, well, there you go.

I'm sure the New York Times has an email account and a Gmail account, and their spam filter is an algorithm that sorts out what doesn't get to go on the front page. I think it's arbitrary. If a human does it, or if an algorithm does it that you built, that a human built, if a human built the algorithm to pick it for you, or if you pick it, it doesn't really matter. It shouldn't matter. Another possibility is to treat them, and this is just as Clarence Thomas voiced this possibility, to treat them like common carriers, right? Like they're like airlines or telephone providers or what have you, where you, you know, as a user, you know, you have to use it because that's how people communicate now. And so, you know, an airline, blessedly, cannot say, well, because of your worldview, Seamus,

your terrible views as a Catholic, like we're not going to sell you an airline ticket. They can't do that. And so, likewise, a common carrier social media company shouldn't be able to do that either. So one of the things that happens, interestingly, on Twitter is that a Twitter account that Twitter is – we'll write something libelous. Twitter as an organization is protected by Section 230, but Twitter as an organization is the only one who knows that account belongs to. So what's happened in the past is that there will be an account called like, you know, Ian is dumb, and they'll say, you know,

Ian wants, punched a goat, right? That's the go-to thing for absurd statements. And then when Ian says, I'm going to sue this person for libel twitter says we will not turn over the records of this user so ian has to sue twitter first to figure out who defamed him in the first place and then twitter blocks it and files a bunch of billion with their billion dollar corporation legal apparatus shutting your lawsuit down and then you'll never figure out who actually defamed you, and you can't sue them anyway. We've got a very, very serious problem. The mainstream press has been pumping out trash lies. I'm sure the corporations love a confused and demoralized

population. We have no reasonable means to actually do journalism and stop misinformation when big tech corporations shield defamation, and CNN is propped up by YouTube and the minister of misinformation, Brian Stelter himself, is given preferential access on his content. I mean, I think we need a regulatory. We need a regulatory. This is a... And then, I mean, to go to your point, Tim, about the press,

I mean, I'm so, so embarrassed for my profession. You know, we in in February 2020, we ran an opinion column in The Post by the China scholar Steve Mosher, where he speculated he wasn't he didn't definitively say, but he speculated that the that the virus could be manmade in origin. Oh, no. And and, you know, obviously, it didn't take much at the time. It should have been so obvious. The epicenter of the pandemic happens to be where the Chinese have the only lab capable of handling coronavirus. BSL-4.

Yeah, this was the only one. And so that's all he said. And Facebook banned our, you know, article. And the New York Post is the oldest continuously daily kind of published newspaper in this country, founded by Alexander Hamilton. NewsGuard says you're fake news now. Oh, yeah.

Of course. No, it gets even worse. We were talking about this on the after show the other day. Francis Boyle, he's the author of the American implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention known as the, I believe, the Biological Weapons and Terrorism Act of 1989 it passed

unanimously and it's basically the rules for what kind of meddling with different germs is legal what's biological warfare what isn't and at the beginning of the pandemic he said that he believed that the coronavirus was a bioweapon that's how he defined it and he's the person who wrote the legislation that is the law of the land of the united states and he is referred to as a conspiracy theorist which is insane to me just heard a crazy uh new conspiracy theorist from the sage duncan trussell on joe rogan's uh 1666 podcast just recently that what if some crazy eco-terrorist went to wuhan and released it right next to theolab to make us think that it came from the biolab. It just keeps getting deeper.

It's just a much simpler explanation to say it was released from the lab. At this point, I would say, now that we're learning that early on scientists believe it may have been engineered, that kind of changes everything. Because we didn't know that and Fauci wasn't telling us that. He wasn't to a forthright... I think Brett Weinstein mentioned that when they were studying the structure of the actual virus that they were saying it looks like it's been tampered with. We have a bipartisan elite that so benefits from the relationship with China, is so bound up with the idea that opening up China was a good idea,

even though it decimated the middle class in this country, even though it empowered this vicious, horrible totalitarian regime. But they're so wedded to this idea that I think it just cannot be acceptable to them that this was a lab leak issue. So it just embarrasses our entire... Again, a bipartisan elite, It's not just Democrats. It's kind of the uniparty of the Bushes and the Clintons and the Obamas and Goldman Sachs and blah, blah, blah. We have a decayed system right now.

And I think – I find it fascinating that conservatives still refer to what Antifa does as rioting. And I'm like when the moment conservatives had a riot it was called an insurrection yeah it was like the first conservative riot and when you know decades or plus right it was an insurrection and even now consider still like antifa riots i'm like i don't know maybe we maybe that's insurrection yeah maybe after a year of burning down buildings and throwing bricks at people and beating cops and challenging the authority, subverting it and infiltrating institutions, you can call it subversion at least, insurrection, whatever. But it's so state-backed, right? It's like the mayors of these blue cities and governors would – blue states and blue cities would kind of wink at them.

Which almost makes it more of an insurrection, right? Like when you're flying their flag at one of your embassies, it's almost like it was an insurrection and they won. I mean, people have been thoroughly intimidated. You know when people talk about the militant wing of Hezbollah and the social welfare wing, it's kind of like that. And at some point it's like it's the militant wing of the woke establishment. No, of the left of the Democratic Party.

We created a system that was very forgiving, that offer up a lot of goodwill. And our enemies exploit that. And so good people of principle, like I mentioned with free speech, will say, I know they lie about us every single day to destroy true freedom and liberty. And we will continue to afford them the right to use these things while they strip us of those same rights. So how did it get here? Obviously, we had a system of free speech for 200 years leading up to now. And militantly, they would crack down. In World War II, they had put people in internment camps.

In the 1800s, they would... I mean, I don't know. People were locked up under Wilson or attempted to be locked up for protesting World War I. Yeah, we had an office of censorship. Silence accelerates victory was the slogan of the World War II office of censorship. And you've got to wonder, at some point, were they right? Like, is unbridled free speech, is it opening us up to being manipulated from outside powers? It seems like if you go too far in either direction, then you're setting yourself up for disaster.

I'm going to let you in on a sad truth, Ian. Liberalism is a luxury of those not in conflict. I've talked about this for years, that, for instance, feminism, as we know, intersectional feminism and critical race theory, is only able to exist because we live in this beautiful, protected bubble that no one can invade. If we were actually dealing with international conflict and we were facing civilian attrition,

people were dying and being killed and cities were being bombed, you better believe they would lock down free speech and go nuts arresting random people. Abraham Lincoln, what did he try to do? There's the legend that he issued an arrest warrant or wanted to for a Supreme Court justice. War. You don't have the luxury. The people who are willing to get aggressive and violate principles are the ones who, in many instances, end up winning. And that's horrifying. So we want to maintain our principles. We want to believe in freedom. But now what we're starting to see in the U.S. is a lot of people, and this is the crazy thing, not even the U.S. I was in the U.K.

and some British conservative activists told me that they used to be classically liberal and now they're fascists. And I'm like, get out of here. You're not really a fascist. And they would tell me, no, but they're full on authoritarians. They think that the only way to combat the incursion of Marxism and these insane ideologies and this moral corruption within society is by force to ensure the protection of your values. And you know what? The United States did it in World War II. So these leftists want to talk about, here are the U-boats storming Normandy. Those are the real anti-fascists. Guess what? They really do mean it. They were technically anti-fascist in a sense. The anti-fascists by name back then

were communists. But the Americans had an office of censorship. We put people in concentration camps, internment camps, whatever you want to call them. We literally said, hey, you look a certain way, so we're going to lock you up. The United States violated the rights of so many people to win that war. And the same thing happened in the Civil War. But you know what? Not a single person, I think, would say the U.S. was the bad guy. The North were the bad guys in the Civil War. Not a single. Well, I should say not a single person, obviously.

There's the war of northern aggression. There are all this way. I'll put it this way. In modern society, the average person would say the North were the good guys. And then when you bring up all of the rights that were violated, say we did. We had to be done. Then you say 1945 internment camps for the Japanese and the suspension of freedom of speech. And they would say, well, you know, the Nazis were bad. We did. We had to be done then you say 1945 internment camps for the japanese and the suspension of freedom of speech and they would say well you know the nazis were bad we did we had to be done that's scary to me because it's it's the reality of war well i think you can get more nuanced though

and say well yeah the north were the good guys and the allies were the good guys in world war ii but war crimes were committed and we should condemn those so for example the for example the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki were horrific war crimes. Sherman's March to the Sea just burning down civilian homes and making warfare on innocent people was unbelievably horrific. Was that the first iteration of Scorched Earth, I think, the March to the Sea? I don't think so. I'm not entirely certain. I remember hearing that, but I don't. It's been going on for thousands of years.

Yeah, very old principle. The Romans would do it. Yeah, salt air. That's right. I mean, I want to go back to, you said something, liberalism is a luxury for when there isn't war

or when there isn't violence. I would also say liberalism itself has been a tremendous force for violence itself, right? In the sense that, first of all, I mean, especially in Europe, liberalism, the rise of liberalism, the French Revolution, right, in the sense that, first of all, I mean, especially in Europe, liberalism, the rise of liberalism, the French Revolution, right, is a classically liberal

revolution. No, no, no. Leftism doesn't quite come into the picture, not certainly not like an economic Marxian left. In the late 18th century, these were liberals. They were bourgeois liberals who want to unseat kind of traditional authority, specifically the church. And that meant guillotining priests, raping nuns, stripping altars and putting up like the goddess of reason instead of the virgin or the cross. Changing the calendar. So liberalism has come to power it's because it's been nearly two three hundred years um it's got this glow of a sepia tone that it's this kind of gentlemanly powdered wig people who just wanted like rational discussion but it itself was as an intrusive force

in the world and i mean a lot of people weren't prepared to say, well, here's an ideology that wants to divorce the individual from political community, from tradition, from local places, and just wants to have the kind of just a rights exercising rational individual alone on his own. To bring that world about involved tremendous violence. And it continues to be, as my friend Patrick Deneen argues in wonderful book, Why Liberalism Failed, it's not the case that we face a battle between individualism and statism or a tension between those two. The two grow in tandem because the more you kind of individualize the person, remove him from these traditions that guided us over centuries and kind of gave you a sense of what the good life is, the more you remove him economically and make him atomized, the more he has to rely on the state to enforce his rights, to protect him. So those two forces go in tandem.

They're not oppositional forces. Individualism and statism are friends. I think there's truth in that. Yeah, I think excesses of individualism end up leading to authoritarianism and collectivism. And part of why I invoked the left when you were talking about the French Revolution is because this is something I've said on this show many times before, but it's part of why Catholicism and leftism cannot be reconciled because the intellectual origins and foundings of leftism come from this time period. We get the terms left and right from the French Revolution, and the purpose of the left since its inception has been to oppose traditionalism, to

oppose specifically Catholicism in the church. The left side of the National Assembly. Yeah, yes. So pulling up Sherman's March to the Sea, one of the most horrifying things, the end of slavery, what was a contributing factor, one of the contributing factors that led to the eventual surrender of the Confederates and ultimately to the Reconstruction era and the abolition of slavery. It was when, wow, Major General William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army began to march from Atlanta, burning down and destroying industry, infrastructure, and civilian property. The operation broke the back of the Confederacy and helped lead to its eventual surrender.

Sherman's decision to operate deep within enemy territory without supply lines is considered to be one of the major campaigns of the war and is considered by some historians to be an early example of modern total war. What did they do? They destroyed civilian property. They wiped out people who didn't want to be involved. But you know what the reality of war was?

The food they make goes to our enemy. And if we want to end slavery, this was one of the tactics used and it worked. I don't know. It's really horrifying, isn't it? It is horrifying, but also I think there could be a better way because every other developed nation ended slavery without committing similar war crimes. I mean, I'm on the side of the North here, but other countries, mostly, I believe the United States is the only developed country that ended slavery through a civil war. We're going through some kind of new iteration, fourth or fifth generational warfare with what's happening in this country.

And I think it's fair to say that those who believe in freedom and liberty or classical liberalism, these ideas have probably already lost. I know a lot of people say that. And I think James Lindsay said something to that effect. There are people like Michael Malice who are much more optimistic and say there's no way we can possibly lose. Malice says that? Yeah, he's very much like, look how stupid these people are. How could anyone be blackpilled on this? These people are horribly dumb, and he's got a good point.

I like Michael Malice a lot. Dumb people win all the time. Wasps are really dumb too, and lots of them can easily kill a person and carry on and do it again. So what we end up seeing now is, I'll say it again, our embassies flying the flags of Black Lives Matter. And, of course, the rainbow flag, the sacred liturgical item you have to carry. Praise be to Isaac Newton for that one. Yeah, that one very much is the centerpiece in many ways of the modern religion that they have. I mean, if you question any of their views on, quote, unquote, sexual freedom, that's it.

That really is the group you're not allowed to speak out against. And reality. Yeah. It forces you to – this is the most totalitarian aspect of it. It forces you to say that something that you know is not true, right? The fact that there are two sexes yes and gender has this kind of embodied component that you cannot overcome just by willing it or with surgical mutilation but you have to say that you know there are first of all that there are 135 or however many genders infinite possibly infinite i mean and it's an it's entirely concrete right

sex is entirely concrete. There are two possible roles that a person can have, and your subjective sense of self-expression doesn't change that at all. We talked about this in the last show we did, and I think it was on the after show segment, but part of my belief here is that this is just the inevitable outgrowth of a contraceptive culture because once people lose sight of the sexual act as being procreative, it becomes about pleasure and self-expression.

Absolutely. Once people lose sight of the sexual act as being procreative, it becomes about pleasure and self-expression. Absolutely. And so it's not a question of what am I doing to contribute or create. It's a question of how am I expressing myself here. And then you become entirely detached from reality and you create millions of different expressions that in no way, shape, or form map onto the act which is occurring. I think we're referencing. I agree. But I think a lot of it is just remnants or an outbreak from deconstruction when words become meaningless. And I think that the goal is basically that nothing means anything.

Ibram X. Kendi was asked to define what racism was, and he said, racism is when institutions have racist policy. And it's like, what? It's the word to define the word. Yeah, what are you talking about? So when it comes to gender as well, men and women become entirely meaningless. And that's why there's a meme where you ask someone to define the word woman. Yes. And they can't.

Now, scientifically, it's very simple. It's an adult human female. Exactly. But then... It's complicated. Yeah, no. I mean, if you look up any academic journal, it says this in modern mainstream culture. It is a ban worthy offense to assert something like this, let alone the Zuby said, OK, dude.

This is the point I was making earlier with these violations of people's ability to express themselves. It's not as if it's my opinion versus your opinion. And the conservative opinion just happens to not be allowed on Twitter. It's not a conservative opinion that there is such a thing as a woman and that women are different from men. Like, this is a fact. The fact that a woman is an adult human female is a fact, and yet you're banned for stating it.

It's not as if this is one person's opinion versus another person's opinion. These are concrete realities. Well, they were. But when you have a group of people who are dominating our cultural institutions, who are in every major corporation and advertising network, and are making the rules for social media, then you get governors and politicians locking you down so you can't go and talk to people. They wouldn't let people go to church.

The only way to get your news was through social media, which has filtered out even fact-based news articles we know to be true from the likes of the New York Post. So the only opinion and news you're getting is the one they deemed you're allowed to get. Exactly. Dr. Fauci, he is the science.

Yes. You cannot debunk me. I am science. I tweeted again last night and felt guilty that I was using Twitter and not mine. Why do I keep using Twitter? I like Twitter. I like the idea of Twitter. It's functional. It's big. But why? Why do we keep using it?

It has name recognition. It's unfortunate, but it's the place where other people are going to hear you. And they did everything they could. I know why we used Twitter, because when Parler attempted to launch, the massive companies got together and said, we're not going to allow that. That's why we're using Twitter. They got there like the next day.

But Ian, you've got to have fun with it, right? So the other day I tweeted, imagine not thinking the Foo Fighters are the greatest band of all time. And everyone, no, come on, the Foo Fighters? Everybody was like, Tim, what's wrong with you? How dare you? Do you actually believe that? I think I liked that tweet, actually. I posted a month ago,

what is the greatest band of all time and why is it Radiohead? The point is, I just know that these are things that people get riled up about. Like, your favorite band is of course Europe, and your music is better than everyone else's. Most people have fun with it and they post things like, no, my favorite band is this. But it was funny just how

people just erupt, and I'm like, that's what twitter is for see michael malice has it right in that regard however i don't completely agree with him when he points out someone being dumb on twitter and i'm like dude a zombie horde can wipe out a civilization in every movie we've seen it okay maybe not really but if you get these like... No, but barbarians can overcome Rome. Yes. Yeah, seriously. Or the French Revolution can happen. Look, look, look.

Anybody who's played like OG Warcraft, you just spam from the barracks a bunch of knights or grunts, and then just keep sending them nonstop and overwhelm your opponent. That's how Zerg became a verb. Basically, the Zerg are from Starcraft. It's this alien-like lizard. Have you seen Battler? What's the Starship Troopers where they fight the bugs? That's how Zerg became a verb. Basically, the Zerg are from StarCraft. It's this alien-like lizard. What's the Starship Troopers where they fight the bugs? That's the Zerg. They would just make massive amount of Zerglings

and then rush the opponent. They're like really weak. Oh, I'm being Zerg'd. I famously have a very kind of quick-to-block trigger finger. So I just... I deal with the Zerg the way the starship troopers i'm like but what i'm what we mean by this is if you have 10 million really dumb people and they show up

with bricks and torches the cops are going to leave the mayors are going to give them what they want and the sane rational people who don't do that lose everything yeah well i mean the police did get defunded. Political violence in this country worked, which is what made that when they turned it into a kind of a 9-11, they call it 1-6. What made their response to that so outrageous is that they had spent the summer making it clear that political violence gets you results. Yeah. If you want to defund the police. Very good point. You know, burn down entire

neighborhoods working class neighborhoods but conservatives aren't willing to be insane lunatics who want to hurt people unfortunately or moderates yeah is it true to have this extreme sect of people that are kind of twisting out of their mind and everyone else is like in shock i want you guys to imagine a moderate riot they're like some of this but not too much no i want you guys to imagine a moderate riot. They're like, some of this, but not too much. No, I want you to imagine this. I want you to imagine like Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin angrily marching in their nice fine suits with torches. No, and Jordan Peterson. If you think I'm not going to burn your store down, you're absolutely wrong, man. I've got this brick for a reason.

It's going through your window. I agree. That's a pretty good impression. Thank you. But could you imagine Dave Rubin like marching with a bunch of angry people to cause violence? It's never, ever going to happen. And you know what? These companies and these mayors and these Democrats know they have zero to worry about from people who challenge their orthodoxy.

Yeah, I don't want a government of reactionaries. I don't know if they think that there's nothing to worry about, though, because they're working very hard to ensure that people get censored you always see these op-eds written about large youtube celebrities who have larger platforms at this point than these media conglomerates do or some of their you know uh favorite properties on their um on their networks have and you almost always get the feeling that this is because they want these social media platforms to step in and start silencing creators who the media deems as problematic because, again, they're competition. But that said, yeah, I think they really are afraid. They wouldn't be trying to censor us otherwise.

No, I disagree. I think of it like this. If the people on January 6th, they engage in that behavior, the FBI goes full force against them. But when you completely demoralize and cripple an entire army, what do you then do? You humiliate them and you start to torture and demean and be right. When China had POWs, I can't remember when this was. I don't know if it was like the Korean War, Vietnam or whatever. They would absolutely use manipulative tactics and

try and demoralize and break them down. So censorship is basically like, look, after you've wiped out their Navy, you storm the beaches. So, yeah, we've lost our Navy in this regard. We have no defense for our figurative shores. And the censorship is just them continuing the onslaught as we were treating. We're running back. The line is broken and they're still chasing us. They call that a route. Exactly.

I think part of the censorship regime, I think Oliver Bateman made this point in a great American greatness essay where he said it's not really about not letting the rabble access information or that's not solely about that. It's also for the elites themselves to create a bubble in which they're they don't hear from what the majority, you know, normal people think. Right. Normal people, normal people don't want stupid wars in the Middle East. They don't want socialism, but they also don't want like a kind of predatory capitalism. And they don't want their kids being taught like – they want their kids to learn about the Napoleonic Wars and Homer and poetry and not to just sort of endlessly solipsistically meditate on their own race and gender. So normality, like sane politics are possible if you just minimally listen, I think, still to ordinary Americans. But elites, by censorship, they actually just block themselves off. And I think that's very dangerous because you can't have a superpower whose elites don't actually know what the F is going on in reality.

Well, that's why we're not going to be for much longer. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. An elite that's this stupid. I mean, sometimes I'm like, look, the Chinese in some sense deserve to inherit the 21st century.

I hate their regime. It's a monstrous regime. It puts a million people in camps, whatever. But, you know, they don't have an intelligence agency that does its recruiting

by being like, I am a, you know, I have anxiety disorder and I work for the CIA. Like, you just kind of imagine the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party or inside the Kremlin, like looking at the Americans. You're like, they must be laughing. If someone I can imagine someone going to I guess there's no name for the Chinese intelligence. It's called Beijing.

But imagine, you know, there's a Chinese national going to the Beijing and saying, I've got anxiety disorder. I'm gender non-binary and they're like interesting right this way they put them in a room and they put a pry bar in front of it and weld the door shut and walk away like they did to all the people who got sick they do not tolerate anything that could be a threat to their system they literally killed their own citizens for it

it's just not a serious power I think a power whose central intelligence agency is obsessed with you know the gender identity issues of of the agents it's just partly like the way our government's set up right now is if you want to contact and communicate with like a representative you can't you can contact their office and like leave a message for their aid or something but there's no way to like talk to you know ran paul right now if I needed to. If we had internet video where

as your job as a congressman is to sit down and listen to 20, 30 YouTube videos a day, one minute clips, or 120 of them a day, two hours, you sit there and you listen to people's suggestions and complaints, I could see that. Yeah, but it's still limited.

It's very limited because you can only get 60 people or 100 people. Right, if you're like a mind meld type thing. I don't know, man. I but it's still limited. It's very limited because you can only get 60 people or 100 people. If you're like a mind meld type thing. I don't know, man. I think it's impossible. I mean the media is supposed to do that for the representatives. The media is supposed to reflect public opinion in part. But instead what they've done is to think of themselves as mediators between what power wants to do and the stupid rabble that doesn't know what's good for them. And the media's job is sort of to massage the messages of power

to the people rather than reflect it to power and hold power accountable. The root of the word mediator is media. What? Yeah. The mainstream media, the fourth estate, used to be that they were considered to be almost a co-equal branch of government.

They would challenge the power and regulate it such that the people had an opportunity to challenge the corrupt. Not anymore. We kind of do. Like, this show is an example of it. Because we could have people on the show that have an opportunity to express, like, unknown opinions. And then people like Rand Paul will hear it. Because people, they watch it. It's true.

And I think one of the most important things we're doing is over at TimCast.com because I was talking about this in an earlier video today. Brian Stelter, he was on C-SPAN, and people were calling up C-SPAN, and it was hilarious. They were like, you are the worst disinformation outlet. CNN is trash. You're liars. One guy called him the minister of misinformation and said, at this point, if you do the opposite of what CNN says, you'll probably be better off. So I tell people we can't just be doing shows where we complain about it. It's a good thing to spread awareness, but you have to do more than that. You have to create stuff. So that's why I wanted to, I reduced by 50% the

amount of segments I was producing every day because I wanted to make the vlog happen. I need more time to do that. I need more time to look through job applications and expand the business. Now we have a vlog, which the ninth, I believe it's the ninth episode coming up tomorrow morning. And here's what I always tell people. We're not, we're not there yet. We're, we're building it. It's hard. We do not have the resources of these massive corporations or the privileges that YouTube grants them. But in that skate park, when a dude shows up on his BMX and grinds the grind bar and it's his big deal, he has a Gadsden flag right there. That means some little kid who watches that YouTube video is going to see the Gadsden flag. And he's not going to know too much about it. But then one day when he's in school

and his teacher says some stupid critical race BS about the Gadsden flag being racist, he's going to go, what? No, the Castle guys have one of those. They're not racists. They have people of all different types over there. Is my teacher lying to me? Yeah, we need to produce culture, talk about what we're for and make things. So instead of just complaining with the media lying all the time, what are we going to do? Well, we've got some people coming out.

We're going to hire to do journalism. And of course, we're not the only ones doing it, but more people need to. We need something comparable. If the fourth estate has been destroyed, we must rebuild. Hopefully, considering we're facing conflict, they'll try and come and shut us down. They'll try and stop us. We have to be very, very careful about what we talk about when we do it on channels like YouTube. But once we get the website up and running, we get a bunch of journalists.

We can say whatever we want. Yeah. Within reason, obviously. Yeah. I tend to agree with what you're saying here. I believe conservatives need to put more emphasis on creating culture. This is part of why I do Freedom Tunes. I like to do these little animated shorts that are promoting these values.

I really just make them because I want to make something funny. But because my values are conservative and Catholic, they'll come through in the content. But the problem is conservatives generally scoff at media. It's strange. They'll lament the fact that they don't have enough representation in media, but when someone says they're going into media, they tend to laugh at them, and they definitely won't let their children pursue a career in media. But the reality is the way the left has gotten their morality across is by very passively asserting it in the background of the things that they create or in the foreground but not in an overt heavy-handed way so they'll just have characters in their films agree with certain lifestyle choices that other characters have made without beating you over the head with the fact

that the producer thinks that that's an okay thing to do they'll have characters talk about how they have casual sex and but it won't be a driving part of the plot of the film. They'll have characters discuss abortion in a way that isn't condemning it or homosexuality. They don't sit there like conservatives do and say, here's what we believe about X, Y, and Z. They just show you those things happening and say that those things are normal.

And if conservatives want to have any shot at winning the culture war, they need to do the same thing with the media they create. There's this tape from the Nixon tapes, and he's talking to some of his advisors um you can find this online and he's like turning to i can't remember who it is but he's like you see on the tv they're making the working man look stupid like an oaf and the or the urban homosexual they're making him look cool no i don't i don't think it's i don I think it's true. Fathers are always depicted as complete idiots.

Absolutely. The Real Housewives, if you watch that show, which you probably do. Do you? No, I'm just kidding. I have been lately a little bit as a social experiment, but they're alcoholics. I mean, they're pretty much all alcoholics. I came downstairs and I saw Seamus. He had a TV. Stop, Tim. You promised. It's subversive because they're all alcoholics,

most of them, but they don't talk about it really. They just laugh and joke about it, and they have funny music going on as she's taking her fifth shot. And you know what the point of those shows are? It's to have your average person watch it and say, well, I'm not that bad, so I really don't need to improve myself. Hold on. You know what?

We talk about when everything went bad and everyone says Harambe is a joke, but maybe we used to have TV shows that were family-friendly, wholesome shows about moral messages, about improving yourself and being better. We had superheroes. Yeah, and then all of a sudden it became about dysfunction. Something happened. Whose fault is it? Is it the boomers?

Can we blame them? Are they the ones? It's easy to blame someone else for our problems, right? There are ways also to portray dysfunction and even portray dysfunction in a comical way that doesn't glamorize it. Like Looney Tunes. Coyote's obviously an idiot. Like animation is great for that.

Okay, maybe I went too far. His devices keep failing. Yeah, it's not his fault. It's Acme's fault. But he is dumb for not just going to Acme and being like, hey, guys. I want a refund. Can I get another? Is there a different company?

Why is he still choosing this brand? They must have phenomenal customer service because none of their products work. Acme's like, if you want to build your own dynamites, go ahead. You want to build your own Acme? I'm pretty sure. Oh, my gosh. Was Wile E. Coyote in Roadrunner a cautionary tale about monopolies? Yes.

What happens when corporations take over? There's Acme. Does that stand for something? There's actually a Family Guy joke where he's going to get a refund and his wife's yelling at him he was like he's in the store and he's like look it didn't work i paid for this and like nothing he ever bought worked well to be fair also roadrunner had magic powers like when wiley would draw the fake tunnel on the wall and the runner would actually run through it and then he wouldn't maybe roadrunner was part of his imagination and he was tripping was that like the 50s or

the 60s cautionary tale for not taking your medication not taking your medication also not allowing large corporations to dominate an entire market okay what if the market what if they are giant cartoonish magnets and rockets and what if there was a law that said if you are diagnosed with a mental illness, you couldn't vote? That's dangerous. Yeah, because also dissent is so frequently pathologized even now. If you disagree with homosexual lifestyle, you're a homophobe. You have a phobia.

You're a transphobia. Or if you're a critic of Islam, you're not a – An Islamophobe. You're an Islamophobe. Yeah. We were talking about this. No one gets to vote. Nobody. Nobody.

No votes. I'm fine with that. Only one person gets to vote this time. Nobody. No votes. I'm fine with that. It's gone. Only one person gets to vote this time. Pope Francis. It's the robot. What if we just had a lottery every year and one person who's like a handful, maybe like 12 people. Denmark-y. I think it was.

That's what it's called. I think it was Buckley who said he would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book than the committee at Harvard. Than the oligarchy. I mean, the problem is it would be like, it would be like John, you know, Anderson, Bill Aardvark.

And it's like, people be changing their names, bro. Yeah. I'd call myself. Oh yeah. Then a hundred random names in the phone book, Tim.

All right. Problem solved. Then everyone's trying to get in the phone book. Yeah. Yeah. There's no phone book anymore. They're not real. Actually, they might no phone book anymore. They're not real. Actually, they might still exist.

White pages. They're online. They're online. Do you guys think there's a peaceful, like, I don't know if there's a solution is the right word, but transition kind of? Because it seems like our free speech has gone so far out of whack that we're allowing things that maybe shouldn't be allowed. Ah, that's not what I want to say.

Well, no. What is what you want to say? You said it, then you're like, ah! What is wrong with... I'm going to be Emperor Palpatine here and say, good. I want to say this, though. I think there is something... Let the hate flow through you.

There is something really interesting to be said about this, though, because you just said something and went, oh, I don't want to say that. I mean, you're exploring your thoughts here. And when you make a public statement, you're sort of connected to it for the rest of your life. Even if two seconds later, you disagree with what you just said. It's a very strange phenomenon. I mean, I understand the necessity to be responsible when you're speaking in front of thousands of people. I'm not discounting that. But at the same time, this conversation is occurring live. And in the

back of our minds, there's this question of, am I going to say the right thing? Am I going to trip up? Am I going to be irresponsible? It's something you can't remove from the equation no matter how hard you try. I think that's really interesting. It's not examined enough when people watch live shows that have other people talking. That's why I'm fundamentally a writer. I write because you can refine, edit. Yeah, exactly.

These formats I only do when I'm promoting a book. Exactly. And we spend our entire lives practicing conversation totally in private. And the skill sets for a private conversation don't necessarily map onto a public conversation because you don't know how your audience is going to understand you the way you do the person sitting across from you will. Yeah, that's true. I try and make a fool of myself that way so that other people don't get hit by it because

you're right. I want to get out ahead of that. So then do we adopt authoritarian classical liberalism where what we do is anybody who's using free speech to advocate for anti-liberalist values is figuratively crushed. The dissent is removed. Only the communists. But that's sort of – that's what brought us here. I got to say real quick.

That's like a James Lindsay movie. The point is the left is literally advocating for that, not tolerating intolerance, saying we're very tolerant of everyone except for those who oppose us. But then you see like last year when they were burning buildings and things and nothing happened. Like there wasn't a federal National Guard response. Like did we let it go too far? Did we let this idea of freedom – No, no, no. There a federal National Guard response. Did we let it go too far? Did we let the idea of freedom? No, no, no. There was a National Guard response.

But it wasn't very much, and it didn't stop the riots. It wasn't a National Guard response as in they went and started arresting people. It was actually that the National Guard showed up, stood around, and then they still rioted anyway. Yeah. So what do we do? Do we crack down on rioting and give up? Absolutely. Of course, yeah.

I mean, rioting is illegal, and so it just means a matter. But the way that it was... I think not. I mean, Kamala Harris raised money to get them out of jail, and they did, and their charges were dropped.

No, no, no. I'm saying that it's not being enforced, or it's being selectively enforced. So that just goes to show that none of these categories is neutral. All right, here's what you do. So my long-term solution is taking – I got an idea.

You were about to say what the universe is. Yeah, I was going to say something really sinister, but no, go ahead. No, no, no. Say it, say it, say it. No, I think I've become a kind of – not a big government conservative, but a conservative who believes that we do need government to mediate between these different actors in society and to authoritatively guide people to virtue. So your friends in Britain who call themselves fascists, that's horrible because fascism is more kind of raw exercise of power and tyrannical.

Not friends of mine. In fascism, I was covering a rally. Sorry, sorry. Yeah, the sort of the people you met at the rally. But I think a government that authoritatively guides people to

to be a little bit more virtuous through policy and so forth. That's just what the purpose of government is. You know, we're one way or another we're guided to some morality. Yeah, I certainly want to do it. And I have the solution. It's really obvious. It's been in front of us the whole time what's that you see

these these these leftists have been infiltrating our cultural institutions and our government the right just needs to all start showing up to antifa meetings and then gain positions of authority within antifa infiltrate and then when all of these different local antifa chapters are run by maga conservatives then that's it. No more Antifa. No more rioting. Boom. Done.

Reverse infiltration. I think with what you're saying, I hear you. And I don't ultimately think that that's big government. There are different approaches to it. Some would involve more government involvement than others. And I also just want to echo what you said about fascism. It's very unfortunate. It's just this strange totalitarian Marxism LARPing about fascism. It's very unfortunate. It's just this strange totalitarian

Marxism LARPing as traditionalism. Ultimately, I believe that a country as large as the United States, especially with a government as big as ours, is fundamentally impossible. I don't think it's going to last in the long run. I think the kind of social and cultural decay we're seeing is probably going to continue. Ideally, we would have states with much more autonomy to implement the kind of, I think in those individual states, virtue-based governing strategies, because what you try to implement now in a place like Georgia probably isn't going to fly somewhere like California. But the problem is the nation is so tightly interlinked because of how massive our federal government is that everyone is invested in what's going on in states

that they might not even visit in their lifetimes. So I would say we really need to roll back the power of federal government. And so in that way, I'm very anti-big government. They won't leave you alone in your, like, red state readout because that's the nature of the ideology. I also think that's true. The game is a federal game, and it'll be played on that field. Do you think so?

I think it's possible that at some point the federal government will become incredibly weakened. I don't see it happening in the immediate future. And maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, because I agree with you that if you have the federal government, especially with the power that it has, people on the

left are never going to be able to tolerate the existence of a right-wing society. They just won't. And even if you have the federal government, especially with the power that it has, people on the left are never going to be able to tolerate the existence of a right wing society. They just won't. And even if you have it. So it's complicated. I mean, there is something about unvirtuous people who are living on virtuous lifestyles where they cannot tolerate the existence of people whose existence challenges their conscience fundamentally. So I hear you there. But I also I don't want to slide into this thinking where, where we reject any and all use of power, but I just don't see a lot of these right wing strategies working effectively at the federal level in terms of development of virtue among the populace. So look, you have to have you have to have private exhortation to virtue,

people have to, you know, family family matters and so on and so forth. But at the bottom line is I think we're in a really, really bad state. We're in a kind of dystopia. It feels – I mean there's a kind of Twitter joke and we laugh about it, but it kind of feels real. It's like eat the cicadas. Eat the bugs. Live in the pods. Look at the porn.

Live in your pod and have like your food delivered by drone and increasingly your face masks so that you don't have any, but this is, this is the stuff of like Blade Runner movies

or whatever and it's becoming real. So to me, that takes dramatic action but the good thing is, you know, you, precisely because

of the nature of power, of power as it exists now, if you infiltrate it, you can very quickly reshape society, I think, because the law is a teacher. What the law approves, what it authorites people will. And you'd be surprised. I really believe this. You'd be surprised how quickly people will change their minds and then they will forget that a week earlier they held the contrary opinion. So as power shifts, they're like, oh, yeah, I've always been here. So for me, what that means is for conservatives, they often say, well, we don't have the culture with us.

What does that mean? Like the vast middle of people go this way and that. What really matters is if you can capture the elite as an elite in your positions of power, you can very quickly shift the ship of state as it were. I think that's interesting. I'm definitely going to really strongly consider that. My point has more or less been that I think the United States government is just too gigantic and this is too large a country to be governed under one main governing body. I mean you seem to be saying something different, and I do really want to consider that, so I'm open-minded here.

What would you think? I would ask, well, no, I guess my point is when you have 50 states, and initially when the United States was set up, it wasn't intended to be a country where you have this monolithic federal government running this gigantic country. It was more or less smaller states governing themselves, and then the federal government could come in and regulate trade or dictate a common currency, solve other disputes,

ensure that the Constitution is being held to. But now it's as if people almost go directly to the federal government whenever they want a law changed instead of looking at how they can implement change on the local level. And I fear that it becomes an impossibility for $330 million to be guaranteed by the same. We have a national economy. We have an international economy. And therefore, localism doesn't really work.

It's just the nature of the thing. And I think, you know, certainly the kind of Hamiltonian strand of the founding is not quite, as you describe it, it's more like energy in the executive is constantly that's true so um yeah i mean they were not all of one mind i'm always open to the idea of subsidiarity yes in catholic social teaching which is that problems should be solved at the level appropriate to them so if a family can solve a problem then the local municipality shouldn't interfere and if a local municipality can solve a problem then like the state shouldn't interfere but i think we're at a point where all the crises we're facing unfortunately can't be solved at the level of family local municipal it has to go

yeah that's interesting a global or national problem so i hear what you're saying yeah in this idea behind subsidiarity you know it goes as far as to state that the most local possible authority should be the one to solve it. But then we have that conflicting with solidarity as well. I think over the past hundred years, we have moved so much away from subsidiarity. And maybe that's what's created this problem where it's as if nothing can be solved at the local level. I have to consider that more strongly as well. What would be an example you think of like some some way the federal government could could could shift or change policy to to enact what you're talking about, like a like a psychological shift in the in the world? I mean, so like we I think we should promote people forming families and having children. And so I would do what the Poles and the Hungarians are doing,

which is if you have four children or more, you're exempt from income tax for the rest of your life, or you get a cash subsidy even, or you get a loan for a van so you'll be able to carry your... But that means that conservatives have to believe that it's good for people to form families and have children. And for the government to spend in tax. The Heritage Foundation types and the entire apparatus of the conservative movement is created to give lip service to these kinds of things,

but then push policies that deracinate people, that work really well for Goldman Sachs and basically financiers, big corporations. And they'll say, they'll be alarmed. They'll be like, oh, if we do a certain kind of policy where moms stay home more, then moms won't enter the workforce. Heaven forfend. I know. You saw the conservative Twitter account, right? That was Heritage.

Yeah, they were like, oh, no. There's nothing there I account, right? That was Heritage. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They were like, oh, no. There's nothing there I would disagree with, by the way. We should jump over to Super Chats. So if you haven't already, give us a good little like. It's very simple. If you think CNN deserves more views than us, then don't press the like button. Don't share the video.

Then we can all just sit here and be grateful that CNN is as big and as powerful and privileged as they are. Because, you know, YouTube puts them on the front page they're the authoritative source isn't that funny i mean think about it for two seconds cnn was lying to us for years about russia and and youtube will still put them on the front page as the authoritative source so in all serious seriousness if you think that's a problem you can uh share this show uh you can become a at TimCast.com and just know that your membership is going to go towards hiring more journalists and reporters and working on building up this newsroom as well as a bunch of other shows. Of course, we do have the Paranormal Show we've been working on and a bunch of other fun stuff. But let's read some of your super chats. Here, Jason McNeil says, Maxim Bernier, the only political leader against lockdowns in Canada, has been arrested in Canada, getting more worrisome as time goes on. When they started locking down the country, these states, it was it was despotism.

It was it was an act of authoritarianism. And still, you know, most people just sit back and say, well, you know, I won't violate my principles. So what ends up happening is these Democrat governors keep doing it. They're not going to stop. All right. We got Bryce Blosser says, hoping we will have a better governor next year in Virginia. In the meantime, check out Glender Farm dot com for small family farm, small family farm, American prime beef for patriots. Free shipping. Hey, that's cool.

Maybe we'll go and check that out. That's awesome. Glender Farm. Chris H. says, I'm happy that you seem to have fixed your internet issues. It is deeply disappointing trying to listen to your stream live at 2 a.m. in Germany with connection issues. Apologies for that. So apparently the lightning strike fried one of the boxes. Yes.

That's why all the internets were having problems. The router was on fire. That's wild. I don't like boxes. Yes. That's why all the internets were having problems. The router was on fire. That's wild. So the lightning strike hit the cable. That's so weird. I don't know. We're kind of elevated. It was like some lightning strike fried the line that went into the box and it only

damaged some of it, but they had to replace the line. That's cool though, you know. Lightning. Bug HQ says, A NC steel machining place was hit by a cyber attack today. Is steel the new target? Shout out to JJ, the best stepdad I could hope for, for my daughter. Don't eat the bugs, guys.

They're for the lizards. I should know. So we're trying to get, we're trying to do live events. There's a couple hurdles we have to overcome. One of them is structural, but we just had some guys be like, Look, we don't think you can do steel because the prices are way too high to like open up the building and make it better and so i don't know they're like you have to double up lumber it's cheaper but still ridiculously expensive so they went after the food the oil and now the steel yeah building equipment would all right one eye gaming says ian a few days ago

you said you were worried about who russia would side with if war broke out between America and China. Yes. Russia will either side against China or stay neutral. China claims Russian cities and competing with Russia in arms sales. Well, remember how staying neutral worked for the Russians in World War II. I guess technically they sided with the Germans and then they got invaded by the Germans. So I don't know if they're going to make that same mistake again with China. Right on.

First, Last says, can I still be a Christian without going to church and liking the Pope? Is reading the Bible, hearing people like JP and Cliff Nectal from YouTube, ask Cliff a good way for spirituality and one with God? This is a really, really good question. I'm sure Saurabh has an answer for this as well. I would say that Jesus Christ came to earth and he died for your sins and came back from the dead he founded a church and through that church he has delineated clear rules for the ways a person must go about getting to heaven and one thing that we're bound

to do is attend mass every sunday and so well you spoke about the Pope and you also spoke about Christianity without referencing Catholicism. I assume you're probably asking a question about Catholicism because of that invocation of the Pope. And I would say one of the requirements to be considered a practicing Catholic is to observe all the necessary holy days, which would include the Sunday obligation to attend mass. So I would say you should do it. And I'm not sure if you're in an area which is particularly locked down or if you've been to a Catholic mass before, but I would recommend going to your first if you haven't and talking to the priest there and asking him some of these same questions. And furthermore, if you can, try to find a TLM, a traditional Latin mass, because I promise if you do, that priest will have solid answers for you. I got a question for you guys about Jesus.

Do you think that he was the meat body of Jesus or the spirit that inhabited his body? He was both. This is actually interesting. Isn't it Arianism that he was? He was a creation of God the Father. Yeah, exactly. And various Gnostic movements in late antiquity which basically said that what you are is this divine spark that happens to be trapped in a kind of fleshly apparatus that's bad. And you see it, by the way, echoed in modern transgenderism, right? I talked about that last time I showed you.

The idea that I'm just the kind of mental material. That's my real self and this body it means nothing therefore i can do everything with it um orthodox historic christianity always made a point of saying that that jesus christ was fully man and had a soul true god and true man but also had a body he was you know he his mother bore him to term just like any other person and and therefore it's a kind of it resists those Gnostic tendencies. So Christianity, especially in its Catholic iteration, is incredibly concerned with matter too. It's not just this kind of airy-fairy spirit.

The spirit is important, but we're human beings. We're embodied, and the fact that Jesus is fully man, fully God, therefore gives us a bodily claim on heaven, not just the spiritual one. Yeah, that's very, that's, that's, I mean, I couldn't have said it better myself. And I'll just add this. This is part of why it's so important that Christ rose from the dead body and soul. It wasn't a metaphorical resurrection. He literally came back. And as Catholics, we believe in a resurrection of the dead, which means that we believe at the end of time, everyone will be resurrected and given a body.

Don't you think that someone just robbed his grave and took his body? Well, no, because there were eyewitness accounts of him being alive after the crucifixion, after he'd already been buried. Let's, uh... This is good. Good stuff. I'll fight you naked, says, thanks, Tim. I bought physical gold, crypto, and survival food. I'm not a financial advisor. Lydia, thanks for taking the time to read my article, but mine takes six six minutes to read and someone with a following stole my title and wrote some woke sympathetic bs interesting i love you i fight you naked i'll fight you naked i like that name

all right actually is it okay if before the next super chat i ask sorb a question this this might this might take a little too long and so if it's an after show discussion i'd still be really interested in that. One thing we were discussing was the fact that people who live really in virtuous lifestyles, and I think it's especially linked to unchastity, have this incapability of tolerating virtuous societies. And so I'm curious about how that maps onto any social change that conservatives might attempt to implement at the federal level, like you were discussing? Is it possible? Are those people just ungovernable at the federal level, I guess? What is to be done about it?

I mean, look, I have to go to sort of basics, which is that St. Thomas, in the treatise on law, relying on Aristotle's ethics, says that exhortations to virtue aren't enough. So the certain kind of, you know, there's a kind of Christian that says, just privately do your thing. Yeah. Evangelize the culture. That's not enough because the ruler who wants to lead his people to virtue needs to have the ability to use authority use authority right and kind of lovingly use authority so i think um the the first thing i would want to see from is just a society that makes it a little bit easier yeah to to start a family to have a family and not to sort of be bombarded with um

you know let's say pornography right i mean 100 as you know with you, you know, let's say pornography, right? 100%. As you know, nine out of ten boys will see hardcore porn before hitting puberty. That's the University of New Hampshire study. That's a really bizarre society. Yeah. So I just want some of the sort of the worst of it at least curved, and I just give space for people to because we we are human beings we're relational animals we thrive in families we uh you know we we seek union with with one other person um all this stuff has been so distorted yeah that's the problem and as goes

as they say you know as goes sex so goes the family so goes the society and we've allowed our sexual attitudes to be completely distorted by pornography. Yeah, that's a really good answer. I'm glad I asked. All right. Lost in my head. 6063 says, freedom tunes brightens my day. Oh, thank you.

Tim, keep up the good work. You too, Lydia. More DMT, Ian. Okay. Also, can you shout out my... No, no, Ian, no. Yes, yes, let's go. My GoFundMe, help us build an off-grid community.

I lost my job to COVID and China after spending a long time building towards this goal. Sounds cool. That is very cool. Alright. Mavro St. John's has a follow-up to a super chat about World of Warcraft earlier this week. It's honestly funny to think about left and right as alliance and horde. They hate each other so much they can't see the things

they share in common. Very obviously the horde is the left and the alliance is the right. That's why I like Thrall, because there are people on the left that shake the shackles of slavery of mind. Yeah, the Horde is the left, for sure. The Alliance is the right. Thrall was like this orcish shaman

that was like, just transcended orcism and became unified with the humans and the elves and just realized there was a greater purpose to fight the demons, really, I guess you would say, or protect the other living organisms from the demons. All right. Cooler in Texas.

First time super chats. Tim, I know a little HVAC and am a professional Lids at Sim. Oh, wonderful. You should hire me so I can escape California. I don't think we need anybody for HVAC, but send an email to jobs at timCast.com if you're interested. All right.

Samuel Eddy says, live in the cabin, eat the venison, harvest the fields, and buy the guns. Yes. Dude, liberals read that and they're like, how horrible. Yeah, we should make a shirt that says that. Yeah. And then we'll make, we have an eat the bugs graphic. It's a cornucopia with bugs bursting from it.

And I'm trying to figure out what the right thing to do with it is. It's hard. I don't know if a shirt makes sense. Maybe we should make the shirt anyway. It's, you know. All right.

OMG Puppy says rods from God. If you are in orbit and drop something it just orbits there next to you. If one ton rod hits at eight kilometers per second orbital speed

kinetic energy equals five tons of TNT. For nuclear size explosion you need 100 times that speed. If one ton rod hits at eight kilometers per second orbital speed, kinetic energy equals five tons of TNT. For nuclear-sized explosion, you need 100 times that speed. But what if you shoot it down and then that would hyper-accelerate the speed, I would think. I don't know. Rather than just drop it.

Yeah. Perhaps. They just lightly tap it. Yeah. And then it starts accelerating faster and faster and faster. Just a little tap. Cackling Kamala says, I worked at a liquor store

in the 90s and paid 20 bucks a month for insurance and better coverage than I do now. Conservatives think we can get back to that. I'm not so sure.

There's a funny joke I saw. It's find a woman who enjoys laughing as much as Kamala Harris loves laughing when you ask her about human traffickers smuggling children.

Yeah. Any questions she can't answer. Hillary Clinton too, though. What's up with that? Dude, that's so true. Did you ever see that Placeboing music video of Hillary Clinton's laugh remixed? It's perfect. It's just called Hillary is Evil. You all need to look it up. Seamus, Seamus, ask me what my favorite color is.

What's your favorite color, Tim? Oh my goodness. That's how I color, Tim? Oh, my goodness. That's how I envisioned all of these interviews with Kamala. My favorite was when, I can't remember who it was, like a PBS woman was asking her a serious question, and then she just sits there with her mouth open, smiling, just like her eyes all wide, like, what are you doing? Because she laughs at the answer, and the journalist kept pressing,

like, I want an answer. She laughs. What's the answer? And then she's just like, eh. So I think the question was about the fact that she had condemned Biden as a sexual harassment. A racist and a racist, yeah. And then she was like, well, what do you think now that you're his running mate? And she just said, ah.

She says, it was a debate. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, man. You said the man was a racist who hates black people. She's like, it was a debate. It was a debate. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, man. You said the man was a rapist who hates black people. It was a debate. It was a debate. You make things up when you're debating people. That's exactly it, though.

That's how horrible the discourse is where it's considered like a legitimate and fair debate tactic to call someone a rapist and a racist. Those are just accusations we throw around. Those are just words. There was also recently Kamala was asked about going down to the border. And she's like, I'm not going to go to Europe either. I was like, what? What are you talking about? That wasn't even remotely analogous to the question.

Shouldn't you go to Europe? Yeah, also. As my friend in the United States. You think you'd be traveling, but even so, it's not analogous. There's a border crisis. All right. Derek Lozano says, great show tonight, guys. I'm a 30-year-old father of three, and I'm also the mailman for my neighborhood.

I've tried to get to know all of my customers over this past year. Talk to your neighbors. People are hurting. That's awesome. That's right. Yeah, it's great. I like that. I like that.

Right on. Michael Johnson says, hey, Tim and company, big fan of the show. Did you hear the RCMP just arrested Maxim Bernier in Manitoba? He's one of the only Canadian politicians who has spoken out against the harsh lockdowns we have up here. Viva Frey posted about it. He's great. I love him. Man, Canada. Who'd have thought they'd go full fascist? Crazy, man. I know. I could have predicted that. I mean, Canada's had hate speech laws

which have made quoting scripture an offense. I will say that my entire Bible study full of lovely, sweet Canadian ladies is literally all ready to move to the U.S., like Florida and Vermont. Yeah, I've talked to other Canadians too who are like, I am done with this country. I'm like, good for you. We've got, okay, Corlex.

He says, hey, Tim, I have been watching your videos and show for a full year now. I'm happy for you. Luke was one of my favorite people on here, and I miss him. However, Seamus is a great replacement. I listen every day since August. Well, I have really good news. We are evicting Seamus, and Luke is coming back. That's right. Also, to be fair,

I wouldn't see myself as a replacement. Me being on here has had nothing to do with Luke being gone. It's not as if Luke left. They're like, Seamus, come on. I've just been here working with Tim on some projects, and when I'm here, we like to do the show together. Yeah, I was voicing Dr. Fauci. Yeah, he was voicing Dr. Fauci. We've been working on a card game and some other really exciting stuff. Video game.

Yeah, and a video game. We probably need more devs if we really want to get the video game. What I'm looking for, honestly, is more help creating the sprites. So if there are animators we could find who'd be willing to help, who could emulate my style decently, that would be a massive help, and it would allow us to get the game done pretty quickly, I think. At least more quickly than on our current trajectory. Have we talked about what the game was about yet? Not yet.

I don't know how much we should tease. It's going to be real. How about just a little bit? Chris and I were playing earlier today, and we were playing the multiplayer mode he's been putting together, and it was so much fun. It looks awesome. It's really great. I mean, I'm really happy with how it's shaped out. Let's not say the name, but I'll give a basic description without going into details.

You just, all right? Does that work? I don't know. You just, all right? Does that work? I don't know. You know what? I shouldn't say anything? I think we should be really careful about this. All I will say is this. When the idea was first described to me, I thought it was very interesting.

I was like, yeah, this is something I would definitely want to collaborate on and supply my style to. And as I have been helping to develop these sprites and seeing how the game is shaping up, I'm very pleased. It's going to be amazing. If animators get in touch with you, what's the best way for them to get in touch with you? That's a good question. So since it's for this game, I don't have an email address created for soliciting workers. They usually reach out other ways. If someone's interested in working on this game as an animator, can we just have them send an email to jobs at TimCast?

Yeah, put a title or whatever. Put video game animators. Put like video game animator in the subject line. Send an email to jobs at Timcast and video game developer needing help. Yeah. All right. Let's see. We've got I can't read Cyrillic, so I'll just try and pronounce it as if it's not Cyrillic.

That's a long name. Abraham. Eric. Ha ha. That's a that's not even an A. I can't read Cyrillic. Hey, Karl Popper was amazing, man. His criterion of empirical falsifiability is the foundation of modern science.

Real science, not the trust of science macabre. I look him up now. Saurabh, how do you feel about that? I think he was a midwit. Oh, my gosh, dude. All right. Not in my cup of tea. Okay my gosh, dude. All right. Not in my cup of tea. Okay.

But fair enough. I mean, he was an important thinker. Alpha Twitch, he says, hey, Tim, I'm buzzed. So here's an anime recommendation. Watch Vivi the

Fluorite Eyes song. All right. Diego Salazar says, careful how you decide what is decent and what's not. Times change and society oscillates like a pendulum. One side makes more force towards them. The more extreme it will be when it goes I think about the Aztecs, and they would, instead of kill their opponents in battle,

knock them unconscious to drag them back to Tequitico and cut their chests open. And people still thought that was horrible in the Aztecs. A lot of them still thought it was. So maybe there is moral absolutism. I don't know. Yeah, for sure. There's an objective moral order. The fact that you're interiorly aware that something's wrong

suggests there is an objective moral order, which means that there is decency and indecency in any given age and across time and across civilization. Amen. Seamus. Yes. You ready for this one? I am.

Murray Ferry says third super chat attempt. Anyone know if Seamus is single asking for a friend? She's 23 Catholic and single. That's very sweet. I am single. Oh, look at that. Seamus just basically said, I would like to meet this one. And if they would like to contact you, do you have an email?

Jobs. I don you have an email? Jobs at 10. I don't have an email set up for soliciting girls. I would like to apply for a job being Seamus' wife. I'm a 45 year old man looking for work. Mad Cow says it was not an insurrection or riot.

It was a peaceful protest, just to be clear. Not being sarcastic, I think we should start referring to January 6th as a mostly peaceful protest. Yes. Oh, I looked up the definition of insurrection. It was basically, yes, what Antifa did last year was an insurrection. Right. The definition of insurrection is a violent uprising against

an authority or government. Check, check, check. Okay, because it was against the authority, then yeah, it was insurrect. Oh, no. The Couch says, Hey Tim, long time listener. First Super Chat. Wanted to see if anyone saw

the cringeworthy segment they did with Jeffrey Toobin. How does someone get caught doing what he did and keep their job? Who is that guy? There's like a story. It's like he said boobs on CNN

so they banned him. Yeah, I can't remember who this was. They were like, I went on CNN and said boobs and they kicked me off but Jeffrey Toobin gets caught, you know, sounds like a bunch of boobs. Toobin it on camera in front of his coworkers. Toobin his own

horn. That was our headline at the post for that. So Toob is a verb, right? Yeah, Toobin it. Toobin is when you're on a work call with a bunch of other colleagues and they're watching through your webcam. Guys, there are good 23-year-old Catholic girls watching.

All right, all right. All right, let's see what we got here. Name and Fame says, Please read. I've super chatted this on multiple videos. Beef is not bad for the environment. Look up eating less meat won't save the planet. Here's why.

By what I've learned, he debunks all the climate arguments and links sources. So why won't they let us eat beef? They're rude. Why is Joe Biden like, come on, man. He doesn't like the Poe boys. He doesn't like the Poe boys. It's like some dude got bit by one of those ticks that makes you allergic to beef.

You hear about that? Yeah. A friend of mine claims that that happened. Why am I saying claims? We all make fun of him. We're like, that's not true. You're lying. But he got bit by this tick a while ago, and he is allergic to basically everything.

He can't eat meat anymore. Yeah, so it's like the origin story for a villain. It's this guy. He's a griller. He's just all day flipping burgers and smiling and waving. He's really good at it. Everyone loves him, and then one day the tick bites him, and then he's like, no. And then he takes the burger, and he bites it, and he swells up.

If I can't have it, no one can! And then he starts an organization called PETA. That's hilarious. No one should be allowed to have beef. Well, here's the thing. I'm actually a person for the ethical treatment of animals because I think it's perfectly ethical to eat them.

There's nothing wrong with that. That's a good point. I am treating them ethically by consuming them. I believe it is perfectly ethical. We have dominion over them as humans. The perfectly ethical treatment of animals. Yeah. Or PETA.

PETOA. PETA. I guess the of can fall off. Leave it out. People eating the animals. Yeah. That works. Tasty animals.

People eating tasty animals. All right. All right. Insert name here says, Tim, don't play their game calling the rioters as they want. Antifa protesters, if they're burning buildings, attacking people, police fed, they are insurrectionists, same as politicians

aiding and cheering them on. Agreed. Literally. That's a problem I had with Trump referring to the left. As soon as he said it, I felt like he started... The radical left! The radical left. He started to play their game. It felt like he like he became a pawn in the game like he fell for it there is no left there is no right it's all like just i agree it's i disagree no i mean there's there's there's simplification of saying the left

and the right to it for a colloquial reason but the actual core of the definitions make little sense outside of tribal signifiers like what is what does left mean what has left me well again this is going back to my and this is the definition i usually use just in in it's it's very broad and it may be a little imperfect but just uh the purpose of the left is to oppose the catholic church and its goals and generally what about democrat voters who are like catholic like joe biden no i mean like you can't but like you cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate if there's a pro-life candidate available as a Catholic. So when people say

that they're... They're pro-life Democrats. That is true. There was a huge revolt. Most Americans do not agree with the radical left. The radical left on abortion. No, I agree that it's amorphous, but I also don't want to fall into this trap of saying it doesn't mean anything because it is a very helpful term for identifying

your enemies. Don't you think as a Catholic that if there was someone that espoused all that actually exuded all the virtues except they were pro-choice that they would be a better candidate than someone that's just rife with sin but was pro-life? No, because I don't know how you could exude all the virtues and be pro-choice if I'm being entirely honest.

Well, like six of the seven virtues or whatever. That's not enough! Dude, hold on. But if you haven't figured out, like, don't kill babies, I don't know how much good the other virtues are doing you. Seems basic. But I didn't steal anything. Yeah, exactly. I didn't steal.

I wasn't lustful. I wasn't, you know. But you did murder someone. All right, let's see. We got Josie Pussycat says, Hey, Tim, I replied to one of your tweets with, Let's burn her at the stake. It was obviously a joke, and Twitter suspended me.

Thanks, Tim. Hey, don't blame me. Thanks a lot, Tim. It's obviously a joke and Twitter suspended me. Thanks, Tim. They don't blame me. Thanks a lot, Tim. It's all Tim's fault. It is, yes. Wait, what is this? Napalm Boner Fart. Great name, by the way.

It's like a Napoleon thing. Yes. Napalm. Says, from the Daily Mail, AOC's grandmother came out in support of Donald Trump. Says he sent aid, but Puerto Rico's government did not use the aid. Oh my. Really? Matt Walsh sent aid to AOC's

oil as well. That was really pathetic if AOC did not take it. I just thought it would have been so amazing if she was like, oh no, you owned the libs. Thanks for helping the poor people of Puerto Rico. And then it could have been like, you know what she could have done? She could have said, alright, I'm going to take this

money and you know what I'm going to do? We're going to use what we need to for the repairs and donate all of the rest to another GoFundMe. And the left is going to prove we can raise more money than the right to help the people of Puerto Rico. Oh, now we're talking. How amazing that would have been. And then you get all the conservatives being like, come on, guys. We got to raise money for the people whose lives were destroyed by the hurricane than the left. And then the left and the right raise like $10 million each.

And then the poor people of Puerto Rico have their homes fixed. I like Matt Walsh, and we're friends on Twitter. But I have to say I agreed with the – she's a great account, Amy Torres. I don't know if you guys follow her. No. But she said, you know, like, oh, wow, you really owned her by raising, you know, whatever, like tens of thousands. But AOC should have turned it into a woke off or a politics off or whatever. At some point, I think people need to stop taking it as seriously or at least find a little levity and joy in life. And the other, you know, people that you think maybe aren't your friends maybe are.

I think that concept of joy as you're talking about it is is suprem is white supremacy i could feel it ben macklin says i'd love to see carl from in range tv on the show he has a firearms and cyber security background and made the news a while back for putting firearms content on him adult hub to show that he that that the info will exist somewhere. I remember that. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Sounds cool, dude.

Sounds like a cool dude for sure. Crandall Logan says, do the Fauci voice of you diving out the window. Was that ad libbed? Or did you tell me? I think I might. I'd have to double check the footage, which people can see if they donate at patreon.com slash freedom tube. I just went like this.

I went droplet. Pulled the mic away from him. Droplets. Droplets. You don't need to wear 12 masks if you've been vaccinated 300 times. That's a joke. Obviously, YouTube's already like, I'm going to push the button. Don't push it.

No, it's like the CDC says you do need You know the meme where it's like, I don't know what the guy is, but he's like holding his hand and the beams are coming out of it. He's like, must ban channel. He made joke. Dr. Fauci. I almost bought you a Fauci bobblehead,

dude. I can't bring myself to spend money on it. Oh, you gotta do it. Inches away. I i may still i'm so excited for him to disappear our national life all right all right we got uh mr toad says those that are anti-colonial and want decolonization of institutions are the same people that want globalization open borders and call themselves citizens of the world they want a globally homogenous identity they want to colonize the planet. Isn't that funny how that works? Absolutely.

That's right. And they want to basically turn Africa into a place where contraceptives, LGBT ideology. Bingo. That is the most kind of ideological. In fact, Pope Francis has called that ideological colonialism. Yeah, that's right. He did. Wouldn't that result in the birth rate dropping dramatically in Africa?

Yeah. They're fine with that. They're misanthropists. Didn't Henry Kissinger make a bunch of in the birth rate dropping dramatically in Africa? Yeah. Yeah, they're fine with that. They're misanthropists, dude. Didn't Henry Kissinger make a bunch of really insane comments about the population of Africa? I'm sure he did. Yeah, and the Gates, well, I guess they're not a couple anymore, but they spend a lot of money on ensuring that there are fewer black babies born. Isn't that a little weird? Yeah.

Isn't that a little weird? Yeah, I mean, but this is another thing. The left, for as vague as these terms have become, the left is generally misanthropic. They don't want more people. And it's often disguised as environmentalism. Yep. All right, let's see.

Call me. Okay. Rondo says, thanks for all you do. Bought some Ethereum because of you. No regrets. If the stock market crashes, what would be the best thing to do? I cannot give anyone any advice. I don't know i got a bunch of chickens we're getting a rooster tomorrow so i i posted that one of our chickens is transgender and it's true that it's

not even i'm not even joking it's a normal thing that happens when there's no rooster i think one in ten thousand they say hens will start appearing like a rooster and crowing and acting like a rooster. But a lot of people informed me that alpha hens who become like roosters are way more aggressive and could actually end up killing one of the other hens. So you need a rooster. They're like, you need to get a rooster

otherwise that alpha hen will seriously injure. So we got to bring a dude in to kind of level things out. The scientists call them Karens. I knew. It's a really interesting thing because we had to call the fire department. It came out. It's like 3 in the morning.

And then all of a sudden I hear a, and I'm like, what was that? And I look over and there's this chicken. And she's just like staring at me. And I'm like staring back at her like, what's going on? And then nothing happens. I turn around and then I – again. And then I turn around and there she is. But there's like other chickens and I'm like, was that – was that her?

And then all of a sudden she's just looking me in the eye and she goes – and I'm like, oh, what are you doing? You're not a rooster? And so then I looked into it. Today in the storm, she was – Oh, wow. And so I tweeted about it and people were like you need to get a rooster because if she starts doing that she might actually kill it's a crazy dynamic that they're like you need to bring a man in you need to bring in the male rooster it seems like uh it seems like

like phallogocentric white supremacist patriarchal oriented science came up with that or nature no no but i but i was reading a lot it said if you introduce a rooster into the pecking order she'll stop doing that and revert back to being oh that's awesome yeah i guess they say like sometimes the hen will be nominated to be their protector and like we'll take on the the job of a rooster kind of looks but in the meanwhile you're gonna refer to this hen with the the right pronouns yeah well the the thing is this this chicken's name has always been rota Beaks, Bobby Beaks, but now we say Robert.

But she hasn't formally requested a change in pronouns. I'm glad you can stay on Twitter. I'm not going to assume chicken's gender. But, you know, these things happen. So tomorrow, again, if you haven't already, go to youtube.com slash castcastle and subscribe because we'll have a video up tomorrow.

It's FPS cicada hunting where I have this little like – it's like a Nerf gun basically. And it fires salt, which knocks cicadas out of the air. It doesn't actually hurt them. It's kind of a weird thing. I'm like worried about hurting cicadas that I literally hunt to feed the chickens. But it really doesn't. You like bop them and then they just kind of flutter down and then you pick them up and give them to the chickens. It stuns them.

Chickens eat them. Yeah. Yeah. I'm like – does that matter though it's chicken food it's like there's both oh the cicadas are basically gone now i don't know if you guys have noticed interesting maybe the rain no no no no no uh the the noise has levels has dropped dramatically and the cicadas that we're seeing are tiny they're yeah they said a quarter of the size they only came out for about two weeks is what i was going to be being told they come out for about two weeks is what I was being told. They come out for about two weeks every 17 years.

People were saying four to six. Oh, okay. But yeah, we had it. It was really bad for like one week. And these massive cicadas were everywhere. Dude, it was nuts in West Virginia. Did you see the guy posted a picture on Twitter of a cicada with a white puff coming out of its butt? I think it was the butt fungus.

It was the fungus fungus, bro. Fungus fungus. I'm worried about it. It's crazy. It's like a methamphetamine in their system. It's a sign of divine disfavor for the Biodiversity Administration. It's green, yes. That's right.

Jonathan Duggar says, AC is blue and thus the left, the Alliance. Horde is red and thus the right. That's not true. If you take a look at World of Warcraft, it's very obviously divided between left and right. Think about it. The Horde, for those that aren't familiar with World of Warcraft, there's two alliances. There's two factions. One is called the Alliance. One is called the Horde. The Alliance is like the realms of men, dwarves, and elves, essentially. It's a complicated Warcraft history. But basically, they're like beautiful castles and European

art styles. And then you look at the Horde, and it is a bunch of marginalized and disaffected communities who have lost their homes, who band together. And it's also, the craziest thing about it is how overtly racist World of Warcraft is. For instance, trolls all have Jamaican accents. And they practice some kind of voodoo magic. The pandas have the Asian accent. Yeah magic the pandas have like the asian accent yeah the pandas really race do kung fu it's like super racist i i only played the like

the first warcraft which was a is like a dos based game oh yeah and it was only humans and orcs and that was it it was it kept it simple i preferred that the orcs were fleeing like their homeland which had been attacked or taken over by like the burning legion or something and they're going to take take over the earth yep or our domain as a rough refugees daniel mickle says i watched the quarterings live stream about 20 minutes ago someone said they won a contest you offered and didn't get the skateboard prize yet uh that was probably a long time ago adam was running those skateboard prize contests so i'm not sure exactly what happened with all that. That was last year. Yeah, that was last year. There was

one skateboard that was supposed to go overseas. That took us a lot of trouble to get it going to the right place. So that might have been it. Everything else was done there. I wasn't I don't know. I guess maybe something fell apart. Apologies if that's the case.

Alright, we'll just read this last one here. Actually, wait. What's this? Okay. Yeah. We'll do one more. BH says abolish the federal government and make each state its own country. Yeah.

Done. Like Europe. All right, everybody. That's sort of what I was voicing my opinion in favor of earlier. It's Friday night. We got some cold pizza in the fridge. Oh, yum. I got some Hearthstone to play.

So make sure you follow us on Facebook and Instagram at TimCastIRL. If you're on Facebook, you can like the page and then help share our videos to get more people to watch. But I got to tell you, I am so incredibly excited for the launch of this newsroom because at a certain point, it just can't be me doing YouTube videos. It's got to be more than that. And that means we need articles to be written. We need real investigative reporting. And we need to start building a business that will survive long after I have departed this world. And I got to say, I was very much inspired by Breitbart.

Breitbart.com. Andrew Breitbart was one of the most – I was thinking about this. James O'Keefe. Why is he such a fighter? Why is he the tip of the spear? You know, why is he working harder than anybody else to challenge the corrupt? And I'm like, well, one of his big inspirations was Andrew Breitbart. And then I look at, I started thinking about where all these other conservatives and not even conservatives, but, you know, anti-woke personalities to start producing content and try and grow a business and just fight and fight and fight.

And then I was like, man, Andrew Breitbart really did that. He made all these different sites. They're called Breitbart.com. They exist today. They've been extremely influential. They helped get a president elected. And I'm like, we've got to build something so that, you know, rest in peace, Andrew Breitbart.

Long after I departed the world and, you know, there's something else that will be powerful and big and will help shine a light in the darkness. Are you telling us you're going to go to Mars? Yes. That's what I'm departed the world and there's something else that will be powerful and big and will help shine a light in the darkness. Are you telling us you're going to go to Mars? Yes. That's what I'm hearing. You were chosen. Elon called me and he was like,

Tim, we have to go to Mars. He's like, Starlink didn't work, but you know it will. We have to go to Mars, Tim. Martian colonization. It's the only way. And I'm like, yes. Anyway, so follow us on Facebook and Instagram. Look, really not big fans of them,

but we put up clips, different clips, smaller clips. And you can share them because they're nice little snippets from the show and help people learn about the show. And then go to TimCast.com, become a member. Can't wait for this newsroom to launch. And we'll start having articles being put out there. We're going to do guest op-eds. We're going to have journalists in the field and like the Middle East and stuff. And we're going to pay well.

We are going to make sure journalists who are doing real journalism are compensated. Why? I want to create market pressure for these news organizations that produce garbage out of New York City to have those journalists be like, it is not worth my time to write listicles about Brad Pitt's junk when I can actually get paid the same rate for one article about, say, Middle Eastern conflict. Incentivize something better through the market. Build something better. We're doing it. So, again, you can follow me personally at Timcast.

And do you want to mention anything, Saurabh? Sure. Saurabh Amari. At Saurabh Amari. S-O-H-R-A-B-A-H-M like Mary A-R-I. And the book is The Unbroken Thread. That's really great. I'm Ian Crossland and when you hate,

if you guys want to support the channel, of course subscribe to the channel. Hit the bell button next to it and you'll see it'll say with your notifications, none, personalized, and all. Make sure you set it to all. That way you're going to get notified, hopefully, when the videos go up. So thanks for coming. See you next time. Yeah, thank you guys for watching.

I'm Seamus Coghlan of Freedom Tunes. Check Freedom Tunes out, youtube.com slash Freedom Tunes. We upload a cartoon once a week, usually twice a week. I think you guys will really enjoy them. Do we got the next one coming out next week? There should.

Oh my goodness. No, that one is in the works. Tim and I improv. We mentioned this in the last show. We improv the video and it was really pretty good. I'm thinking maybe next week or the week after yeah that's that's what i'm trying to figure out because we we sat here and riffed for how long maybe like 10 20 minutes 20 minutes

yeah and so there's a lot of material to pull out of it i'm trying to get the best but i'm not sure how long it's gonna make it a two-parter give it a cliffhanger it's gotta be it's it's gotta be one two-parter it's like it's like it's one continuous, but we kept throwing jokes at it. Yes. Yeah. Looking forward to it. Yeah, me too. Super good.

Yeah, yeah. I'm Sarpatch Lids. You guys can follow me on Twitter. I want to say as you're going into this weekend that you guys need to notice that the left always projects when they talk about normalizing things. Yeah. That's what they've been doing all along. They have control of all our TV, all our movies all our theater, everything that's entertaining

to us and they make all of their ideas normal, we need to do that too you guys should follow me on Twitter, Sarah Patchlitz thanks for hanging out everybody, become a member at TimCast.com and go to YouTube.com slash CastCastle and check out the vlog tomorrow at 9am where

it's just silly fun and I take, we mount a GoPro on this little Nerf gun and I go around hunting cicadas. And thanks for hanging out. We'll see y'all next time.