Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #326 - Pentagon Report Shows World May Be Heading Toward Nuclear WAR w/Darren Beattie

Episode Date: July 9, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join former Trump presidential speech-writer and commentator Darren Beattie to analyze the recent report out of the Pentagon predicting a potential nuclear world war, Steve Bannon's bright outlook, BLM saying that the American flag is racist, the erupting scandal surrounding Tucker Carlson's unmasking by the NSA and leaking by journalists, and the extremely controversial sex-ed teacher who was forced to resign over teaching teens and young children extremely inappropriate adult topics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A new document from the Pentagon warns of, well, I don't want to say imminent, but we're moving closer to nuclear war with Russia and China, North Korea and Iran. And there's a lot of obvious reasons for it. We've talked quite a bit about this. 28 warplanes from China invading Taiwan's air defense zone. You've got Russia doing these military drills off the western, 300 miles west of Hawaii. And then we've also had many conversations about the fourth turning and Thucydides Trap, wondering if war is actually going to be coming here. But there are a lot of things we need to talk about to break down what's happening there and why we kind of have a problem.

You see, it seems like nationally we're more concerned with bickering about culture war issues than we are about paying attention to the food shortages that are affecting many different places in the country, the gasoline shortages in many local areas, the shortage of drivers. And I mean, well, that's pretty big as well as our foreign policy. But we get wrapped up in this stuff. And I think we're not necessarily innocent here on this show because we talk about stuff all the time.

But we're going to get into these very serious issues. We're also going to talk about some serious domestic issues too major cities that seem to be falling apart oakland is apparently in a state of emergency or some kind of crisis they called it because just it's just chaos you get this video of these people storming in a flash mob in an emin market just stealing everything so we're going to break down a lot of these topics go through the news and talk about a lot of this, but we have a really great guest with us today. We have a member of the Joe Biden administration, Darren Beattie. Great to be here. Yeah, so you're in the Biden administration, apparently.

How's that going? It's going well so far. I'm privileged to serve in the capacity of a member of the Committee for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad. So I deliver the best wishes from the entire biden team joe couldn't make it you're actually one of trump's speech writers i was former yeah yes so that that's that's what i'm like okay so how should we introduce you and you're like actually i'm in the biden administration we all started busting out laughing that's funny i wonder if wonder if, like, you went on any, like, left show, like Democrat podcast or whatever.

They'd be like, oh, that's really great. Oh, yes. Wow. It confused people on my Twitter bio, so I just took it out. They didn't get it? No. But it's true, though, right? Like, so, you know.

Technically, it would be true. So are you there until the next election or what? It's a three-year rolling term. Trump just, like, tacked you on to this administration? He did. Well, it's an important – it's actually an important role. And typically, it should be a bipartisan or at least nonpartisan role because it relates to preservation of special historical sites, including Holocaust sites and other important sites. So it's not really a politically charged rule.

And so in that sense, you know, in theory, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Is that national and internationally? Yes. I mean, does that include our statues? Oh, actually, that's a great question. And it could include statues abroad as well. Yeah, they're being desecrated, you know. Absolutely.

No, it's a horrible thing to see. Yeah, right on, man. Well, we were having some conversation about what it was like to be a Trump speechwriter, but we'll get into this in the show. We got Ian here. Oh, hello, everyone. Ian Crossland over here. Darren, you said, so you do these, what was the name of the organization that you do with

the genocide stuff? The Committee for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad. Is it, do you go to to different global genocide sites, like the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish Genocide, the Native American Genocide, or is it focused on one in particular? I think the overwhelming focus is on World War II stuff, just by the nature of how the commission itself was established, but it's not specific to the Holocaust.

There are other sites that they preserve and things like that. So it's a good group. And also it was just a nice thing for Trump to do as kind of a parting gift. A parting gift to you or to Biden. Maybe both. Right on. We got Lady President on the phone.

I'm also in the corner pushing buttons. I'm very excited for tonight's conversation. We have never had a Trump speechwriter on the show before. This is going to be great. There's so many jokes to be made about Trump speech. Yeah, I know. Right. All right, everybody. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.

Become a member, and you will get access to our exclusive members-only segments on the show. I'm actually not super sure I can scroll all the way down because one of the episodes we have would get us banned. Yep, yep, can't show it, can't show it. Because YouTube, one of the titles of the episodes is just like a bannable thing on YouTube. So we're not going to show it. But if you go to TimCast.com, scroll down, you'll see all these beautiful members-only podcasts. If you are a member, you can get access to these shows, and they're like half an hour to an hour long. Check it out.

Support our work. We're hiring tons and tons of people. Man, we just hired like two more people. It's absolutely crazy how many people are joining this team. We got a bunch of new content on the way, new shows, new journalism, and I've already gone through the new alpha for the new site. Now, I actually think I might be able to use some of the articles in videos. It's not publicly available because you'll see like lorem ipsum, you know, dollar stuff. But there's actually articles existing in the alpha. I'm so excited for this new site.

You guys are going to love it. It's revolutionary. We're going to change the game. So make sure you become a member. But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, hit the notification bell, which apparently doesn't do anything anyway. But hey, tap it. Why not?

And share the show with your friends. The most important thing you can do to support our work is just help spread the word. Let's jump into this first story. We're going to start off light. We're not going to just ease our way in with jokes about Trump and speeches and stuff. No, we're going to be very calm. And Pentagon document warns the world is moving closer to a nuclear war because Russia and China are developing new nuclear missiles, bombers, and submarines. Are you familiar with the fourth turning, Darren?

Yes. No, I'm good friends with Steve, a previous guest, and that's a topic of his as well. Right. So, yes. So there are fears that the crisis scenario. So for those that aren't familiar with the fourth turning, there's like four seasons. The one we're in now is supposed to be the crisis. And it may be a domestic crisis.

It may be international. But we've got the Pentagon, a report coming out right now saying there's increased potential for regional nuclear conflict with the country's main enemies, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. There's another big story that broke just in this past week, that satellite research shows China building 119 nuclear missile silos. Now, this could be a strategy for what they call like a whack-a-mole strategy, where China, the US did this in the 70s, they built a bunch of missile sites, and then crossed their fingers hoping that Russia would target the wrong ones. That may be what China's doing. But we also heard from China that Chinese state media said that if we want to investigate COVID, they want to just build more and more nukes and shivers down our spines. So I don't want to be overly pessimistic, but I don't know how you guys feel about it. Building the potential for something doesn't mean that you're heading towards that thing.

So I don't like the way they phrased the title that we're headed towards. It just sounds like arsenal building. Yeah, I mean, of course there's certainly a threat there, but I interpret these sorts of things as the Pentagon basically asking for a bigger budget. Yeah, I was thinking that. And you have to interpret it in the context of all this weird UFO stuff, which I think also fits into that category. And basically, I think the Pentagon and the broader national security apparatus, with the end of the war on terror effectively, with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, they need to rely on two major grifts.

And one of those grifts, I think, is a Cold War 2.0 with China. And this fits into that category. And the second grift, unfortunately, is the domestic war on us. Yeah, that's that's their next grip. And those are the two chief imprimaters of the national security apparatus right now is this Cold War 2.0 with China and this domestic war on terror, which by that effectively they mean the war on 70 plus million people who are Trump supporters or Trump adjacent or just generally fed up with our corrupt, dysfunctional and possibly illegitimate ruling class. That's a really good point, actually. So if you think about what's going on in every every uh world of the culture war or every faction you've got people who are on the right concerned about china very much so and so

of course they ham it up like oh oh man oh war war's coming and i've talked about it quite a bit right the only happens is you'll end up with republicans being like we need to make sure we have short up our defenses bigger budgets for the war machine to defend us. Now, does the left care about going to war with China? No. No. Well, for the most part. So what do they care about? The white supremacist terror threat.

You need to give us more money to increase our budgets because of these evil Trump groups. Here's my favorite one is the hat trick, the UFOs. Now, what happens if they can't get the culture war left or right? The crackpots are scared of aliens. Tell everybody aliens are out there give us more money right no i mean that's absolutely true i do think depends on what level of um how intricate we want to be i think ultimately there is a connection between the kind of the quote- woke ideology that animates the domestic war on terror and our broader geopolitical aims and strategies. I think there's actually an underlying congruence there that really needs to be explored

rather than just, oh, here's a bunch of woke stuff or culture war stuff that serves as a distraction or we just kind of tack it on to everything else. There is an element to that. But I think what's lost in that discussion is really the degree to which there is method to the madness and that the woke ideology itself is deeply integrated not only to our power structure domestically, but how we project power and affect our geopolitical aims overseas. Well, how does that work? Well, the short version for that is, so at revolver.news, my news site, one of our first really big stories was exploring this concept called the color revolution

and noting that there was a color revolution basically being affected domestically in the lead up to the election and this generated extreme controversy and everyone was apoplectic i think part of the reason for that is that they're up into that point there was all this talk about this kind of vague amorphous deep state, whereas the color revolution implicated a very specific faction of the deep state. And that specificity, I think, worried people. And just in a nutshell, a color revolution is basically, you're not going in like Iraq, sending troops, you're not blowing stuff up. You're basically using mobilized mobs that are mobilized by non-governmental organizations that you have in a target country. And they're ginned up by the street and protest against whatever target authoritarian you have. And in other places in China, for instance, you see the kind of color revolution

technique being employed in terms of exacerbating or weaponizing existing ethnic cleavages. So you have a lot of focus on the Uyghurs, for instance. In Myanmar, you have the focus on the Rohingyas and so forth. And so this use of ethnic cleavages and this mobilized protest force that you see domestically, that's very much a part of this color revolution method of achieving our geopolitical aims abroad. And I think generally it's become a part of how the United States exercises its power. And overwhelmingly, its power is still its soft power, notwithstanding all those talks about nukes and so forth. So you're saying it's happening here in the U.S.? We've definitely talked about that, and we've gone over a lot of the beats on what it is here in the U.S.

But if it is happening here, who's doing it? Well, I mean, I don't think we can attribute it to any one person. I think it's an institutional phenomenon, and it's difficult for people on the right to really grasp, is that the national security apparatus traditionally thought of as, okay, here's the last bastion of people who I think their political psychology inclines them to want to venerate just and well-functioning institutions of authority, whereas I think people on the left like to critique unjust institutions of authority. So it's very difficult to get people on the right who want to venerate just institutions of authority

to say, look, the entire national security apparatus, including the military itself at its highest levels, has become corrupted and infected and really weaponized against you. And that's very difficult. It's a difficult process psychologically for people on the right to understand. But it's happened across the board institutionally. That's why I've been saying abolish the police. I mean, for a long time, I was like, this is ridiculous. You know, these cops are out here trying to stop these riots. Well, then the DAs did nothing. Let most of the rioters go.

We can clearly see that even if the cop themselves, you know, are good people, they're funneling everyone into the same direction where the DAs then say, far left, go free, far left, go free. I conservative to prison with you, far left, go free. And so my view now is if you sit back while this machine is working, it's the house always wins. If it's a 51% victory for the casino

and a 49% chance for you, sure, you might win once or twice. But if you play long enough, the house always wins. If that pressure is applied right now through these progressive DAs in these big cities, then over time,

the ultra woke individuals, the rioters, the Antifa, the BLM, they're going to keep getting released and keep being emboldened. And anybody who opposes them is going to keep getting locked up or charged, like we're seeing with the with January 6th. No, absolutely. There's definitely a lot of truth to that. And, you know, part of the reason for this is that, you know, the left or whatever you want to call it, really the ruling class, has been far more effective in leveraging the infrastructure of power up to the DAs. This was something that George Soros identified a long time ago, that we want to basically buy up all the DAs, and he understood the implications of that. So really, you know, there's a lot to unpack in there in terms of just understanding the infrastructure of power, which I think is a tremendous weak point on the right. And you see that in the just profound asymmetry of power,

where like every single institution, including the military, is basically controlled by the left, or this basically controlled by the left or this new version of the left that we've seen, and basically the right has zero institutional power. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you do with an ultra-woke military? They're telling everybody to do these trainings. They're weeding out, quote-unquote, extremism.

We've talked to a lot of people on the show who, or I should say there are many friends of the show not necessarily on the show who have said they gave up their careers in military once they saw where things were going right well it's a real question because you have broad swaths of the country who are inclined toward patriotism and defending the country the people who are most patriotic toward

this country are the people most hated by the dominant institutions of the country. So how long is that type of dissonance sustainable? I think it's a lot more sustainable than we would think just because people are good at deluding themselves. But it's not ultimately sustainable. So let's – we'll get a little pessimistic I suppose then. We had Steve Bannon who was on the show recently, saying that we're going to win. We're going to win.

Once the moms see what the schools are doing to their kids, it's over. And I think that's cause for optimism. I think I'm also optimistic because I see the work that we're doing with, you know, TimCast.com, how we're growing and how we're continuing to reach more and more people, new people. I hear stories every day from people who are like, I had to,

I saw what was happening and I freaked out. But then there's some people, there's some high-profile people who said, we've already lost. The fight's already over. Because you've got to take a look at what's happening, right? These people are quitting their military careers. I don't know how many, but I've heard several anecdotes. And then you look at what they're saying about

weeding out the far-right extremists, effectively bringing the war on terror home. It sounds like they've gained a foothold in our law enforcement and national security apparatus to the point where they can now point the weapons of that machine at anyone who would oppose them. And that, of course, is those who like waving the American flag, for instance, or want to celebrate the Fourth of July. Once they gain enough power, and it seems like they're confident they have, they now say,

okay, all 75 million Trump supporters and anybody who supports them in any way, all the libertarians, you're fair game. We're coming after you now because we have the power. Right. Well, look, Steve is an ultimate, ultimate fighter, one of the toughest guys I know, a true force of nature. I've been privileged to know a lot of remarkable people and he's right up there at the top and so for him to say oh we're gonna lose it's it's inconceivable and it's true defeatism is no he said we're gonna win no no no no that's what i'm saying it's inconceivable for him to say right we're gonna lose and because i think defeatism is a type of weakness, and it is a disgusting

attitude to have. But I think there's the other side to defeatism, or what some call the black pill, and that is cope. And I think cope is also a form of defeatism. And it's just a very difficult thing to navigate, because you don't want to be defeatist but also you don't want to be delusional you want to be sober enough so that you're able to accurately assess how deep the rot goes in order to give a real solution rather than a fake solution because there's a huge market out there i'm telling you there's so huge market out there. I'm telling you, there's so much money out there for fake solutions. There's so much money out there for solutions that sound kind of good. But ultimately, if a smart person who knows what it means to play for keeps really does an

assessment of it, it's not going to cut it. It might sell some donor who says, oh, this is good. And he can tell his friends at whatever fundra know, whatever fundraiser, but it's so that's, that's really what's difficult. And I think the bottleneck is really, we have to start with the position of recognizing that the right or any opposition to the wokeness generally understood, there's no institutional power there. There's zero. And that was part of the problem with Trump is that he had the support of the people, or a lot of people, but he had not a single one of the country's dominant institutions. And I think one of the lessons from that presidency was actually the limit of populism is that if you

just have the people and you don't have any faction of the elite, the elite is not monolithic. It has different factions. We can get into that. But if you don't have at least one faction of the elite, you're not really going to get anywhere. And the populism cashes out ultimately as grift. If not actual grift, then functionally indistinguishable from grift. Yeah, you can only muster so many people to actually be involved in activism and politics. Because most people who voted for Trump probably just said, he's better than the other guy. Beep.

Right. And also people en masse are frankly easy to control in a mass media state. They're very easy to control and just very subtle things, very subtle changes. And if I could give an example from our recent reporting. So on 1-6. So up until recently, the conversation of 1 six is dominated on the people who are willing to oppose the establishment narrative. We're saying, oh, look, it's not such a big deal. Most of it were people just going into the building taking selfies. And then there was another component which said, oh, you know, there's some Antifa and whatnot. And there could

be some, you know, there's certainly truth to the first and probably some truth to the second. But when my news outlet revolver.news ran a piece, making the case that there could have been federal foreknowledge and even incitement, the media went absolutely insane, it became one of the biggest stories in the country, if not the biggest story. And the intense reaction for that was just you recalibrate the narrative just a little bit to get over that one thing that they don't want you to talk about, and they go nuts. And I think that's one example, but there are many such cases, as they say, of you just tweak the narrative a little bit, and to be off course a little bit is also just ultimately benign

and not effective so that just goes to show how easy it is for the masses to be misled given how uh refined the narratives have to be and how easy it is to obfuscate these narratives i agree i i i agree with you i want to pull up one of your tweets to talk about the demoralization and the normalization of extremist rhetoric that's shifting the narratives and the opinions in this country. So you have – actually, there are two tweets from you. The first you said, step one, feds did not infiltrate the very MAGA groups they blamed for 1-6. Step two, yeah, they did, but it's not a big deal. Step three, it's a good thing actually. And step four, people freaking out about it are the real problem right you then quoted that and said

the tucker nsa story went from step one to step four in less than 24 hours now i don't want to get completely into those stories we will in a second i want to bring this back to uh this story black lives matter utah chapter declares american flag a symbol of hatred. And the reason I brought up your tweets is that first we saw it was it was Mara Gay on MSNBC saying that she was disturbed seeing these American flags in the back of these trucks. What did everyone say? She didn't mean she was disturbed by the American flag. She was talking about the people who were flying it and that they were flying it, what they were saying about the country, and they had all of this inference that wasn't there, all this context they make up.

We're moving in this direction. The first step is, no, she didn't. Now they're saying, well, so what if they did? Now we're actually hearing Black Lives Matter Utah put out a Facebook post saying, those who fly the American flag are racists. So where are we at? The embassies are flying Black Lives Matter flags. You're seeing certain institutions flying pride flags equal to or even above

or Black Lives Matter flags equal to or above. And we're moving in this direction. In Evanston, Illinois, they canceled the 4th of July parade over COVID, but then had pride and Juneteenth celebrations as if COVID was totally irrelevant. So in the previous segment, you were talking about color revolutions. I'm looking at that formula you give step one and I'll, and I'll,

you know, put it in the context of the American flag. No, they're not saying they don't like the American flag. No, they're not criticizing the American flag. Step two. Okay.

Well they did, but who cares? It's just black lives matter. Utah. It's not even a big organization. Soon. We're going to get to the point where they're like actually they're making a good point aren't they we'll see it on msnbc there'll be some controversy around it and they'll say but they

make a good point i mean that flag was created by these racists and then step four they're going to be like how could these people defend racism that's where we'll end up no absolutely and it's a sign it's actually i take this as a point of, you have to give credit to the ruling ideology. They're always on the offensive. Right. They're always on the offensive. And this succession of steps simply illustrates that. They get what they want from the first step and they move on.

They're incredibly flexible and they end up getting what they want, even when they're proven wrong because the damage is already done. And we just have to kind of understand that, recognize that, and to the extent possible, reverse engineer it. And understanding what power is, how it's wielded, where it comes from, what its infrastructure is. That's something that needs to be just on everyone's minds who's interested in playing for keeps, which is a very rare quality these days. The pessimism in me comes from the fact that people on the right have no organizational power. I mean, like you mentioned, they control no major institutions. It's all the left.

Now, there is a potential light at the end of that tunnel in that you don't want to be a frog boiling in a pot. But what happens if you throw boiling water at a frog? That frog is going to be like, yo, they just threw boiling water at me. It's going to jump out of the way. Because the right has been so weak in this. There is the potential that this shocks regular people like throwing boiling water at a frog. Case in point, what Steve Bannon was saying, that these mothers are now all of a sudden getting smacked in the face by this extremism from these schools, this

critical race applied principles in schools where, you know, if you teach the kid little bits over the course of 10 years there's nothing a parent could do to fight back against that the kid has been indoctrinated but they're coming in in in half a year in one year and telling the kids your parents are liars they're evil they're oppressors and so now the mom says what'd you learn in school and the kid goes you're evil and they go what or with the zoom classes we have that story about the um the lady gets fired for you know explaining to kids how to take care of business on their own if you know what i mean pleasuring themselves something the kids probably should not be exposed to uh actually i'm going to say this six-year-olds should not be exposed to that you don't have an argument

high schoolers that was another part of the of the debate will youtube censor you for saying that no no no i mean but, we have to be very, very careful. So what people need to understand about all the censorship stuff is, do we just seed this ground and this ability to communicate just saying the, you know, just going full steam ahead? Or do we try and,

you know, use the networks to the best of our abilities to stay in the fight? I've been thinking a lot. It depends. So along with this metaphor, I'm thinking the culture war. If it's two armies lined up facing each other in battle, if you become demoralized and blackpilled, you're basically routing from the battle. You're giving up.

You're turning and you're running in the middle of combat. And you're leaving your allies open to being flanked by the people that you should have been engaged with on the other side. Now they're going to go and flank your friends. They're going to get destroyed. You're going to lose the battle. Alternately, there are times when you're realizing your army is losing the battle and you need an organized retreat.

That's different than a route. That's different than a black pill. And in cases like the education system, I think an organized retreat away from that system could be valuable. There have been so many prominent anti-establishment YouTubers who in the past several years just dropped to their knees and said there are five lights that it is particularly demoralizing to see because it is easier. I mean, look, man, you want to be an edgy YouTube channel.

You want to get all those followers. Yeah. Eight years ago. Now you've got the establishment machine saying be assimilated. Resistance is futile. And a bunch of these big channels went, you know what? It's just easier. Just easier.

Well, I mean, the Internet that I don't need to tell you, the Internet that existed six years ago is not the Internet we have today. It is a totally different phenomenon. So, yeah, and that's, I think, a major shift in how we need to kind of strategize about how to get the message out, how to wield he released a video of the entire Google C-suite the day after the election, the entire C-suite just literally crying and saying, we will never let this happen again. And I would like to talk about big tech because I do have some kind of different takes on that I think might be interesting to your audience about what it actually is. So this is, I guess, just... I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic. We try to keep a little bit of a balance

because we've been very pessimistic in the past. But hearing that google higher ups you know they're crying saying don't worry right i don't believe any of these people and they're like oh we're being fair no they're not we we we are absolutely in the resistance and i wonder i've said on this show before that this show is basically basically a pressure release valve for for the establishment like i mentioned with frogs boiling in a pot, if they nuke Steven Crowder and eliminate him off of YouTube completely, you're going to get millions of really angry people.

I mean, he's getting, what, like 50 million views per month. That's millions of people who are going to be, like, very angry that they're being silenced or not heard or that they can't express themselves. And that could be like throwing boiling water at a frog.

Right. So they keep channels like throwing boiling water at a frog. So they keep channels like his on the ropes. They keep channels like mine around so that the frogs are boiling. People still listen to this. They still feel like there's some semblance of a chance when in reality every major institution is already under control. And if they wanted to, they could just snap their fingers and wipe us off the internet. Right. And that's the two sides of the coin.

There's the black pill and there's there's the cope and uh so are you are you saying you're pessimistic there's the black pill there's the cope but there's that very thin edge of the coin of the hope uh and and i think that's that's the the line that we need to skate on but you have to be very creative and you have to come you have to think you know realistically about things you have to understand that now the the chessboard is international and i think one thing we need to understand is at the more um consolidation ideologically that exists within the domestic sphere um the more we lose moral authority to exert our power geopolitically. And the stage is an international one.

So the more the United States, or I call this new version of the United States, I've coined this term the globalist American empire, which has, you know, I think a convenient acronym. And this is basically the globalist American empire. The more it consolidates ideologically, in a domestic sense, the more it loses its prestige and its standing geopolitically. And this is what we were talking about off air about this concept of taboo arbitrage is that, you know, this is kind of why I take a more, I hate to use the word nuanced approach to China, but I think it's a good thing that there's a genuinely independent sphere of power that is separate from that of the globalist American empire that is certainly authoritarian, but we're authoritarian. They're a different type of authoritarian. There are things you cannot say in China. It's not a free speech state, but they censor different things. And I think as long as there's a place in the world

where you can say the things that I won't say because YouTube will get mad, as long as there's a place that you can say the things that I, you know, won't say because YouTube will get mad. As long as there's a place that you could say that, perhaps in China, as long as there's a place here where you can criticize Xi, that's a good thing. Those different taboos can be arbitraged out. And I think this general, you know, we have to get very creative. I've caused a lot of controversy on another show. You mentioned Jack Murphy, actually. It was on his show for saying, look, all this talk about, you know, big tech and everything.

People need to understand they're focusing so much on big tech being private companies. In the ultimate sense, they're not private companies. Our big tech apparatus is an extension of our national security state in the ultimate sense. That's just the reality. And so at the end of the day, they're not private companies in the sense that actually matters. And you see in China, they don't allow Google. They don't allow these other things. And frankly, that's to their credit. That's why they're still an independent society. And so I suggested, what if the Chinese were to set up a server farm on their territory,

a bunch of servers and say, this is going to be a free speech infrastructure for Americans who want to talk about things relevant to their own countries. Okay, we grant you, we're not going to let you talk about President Xi. We're not going to let you talk about President Xi. We're not going to let you talk about the Uyghurs. But we're going to let you talk about all the things that are actually relevant to your country, to your leadership, to your corrupt and illegitimate ruling class

that your big tech infrastructure won't allow. I think that would be an absolute winning chess move. It would be good for the people in the United States who are disenfranchised, who are targeted by their own government. And frankly, it would also be a good move for China. I think it would be a win-win. TikTok. Well, that's actually very interesting. That's a very interesting case because we know like this was TikTok was one of the basically the only big tech companies that the Trump administration went after.

Now, I'm not necessarily a fan of TikTok and I don't use it. My general disposition toward it is negative. But TikTok compared to Google, Facebook, all these others, TikTok is far less of a threat in terms of censoring our free speech. And in fact, in some ways, they're competitors. And so to go after TikTok first rather than Google, I think, is completely ineffectual. It was the wrong move and actually serves the interests of Facebook and Google insofar as TikTok is their competitor. And as far as censorship goes, TikTok is far less censorious than than Google or Facebook. And the censorship that actually does occur on TikTok is not coming from the Chinese. working in their troughs and safety teams who are censoring not due to Chinese sensitivities, but due to the same old crap in America.

Is Telegram, is that Russian? Telegram is Russia. It's created, I believe, by a Russian national called Pavel Durov, but it has a complicated relationship with the Russian government. It's not a, and so Durov is a Russian national, I believe, but he's not living in Russia. And so it's not as though he's simply kowtowing, doing what Russia wants, although he does hand over data. But, you know, all tech companies, basically all the major ones hand over data.

So that's not to single him out. The challenge with, you know, if China were to set up the server farm, allowing people to say whatever they want, you'll still get the U.S. intelligence apparatus using sock puppet accounts to manipulate people. That's basically where one person will operate 50 accounts to simulate public opinion. Oh, absolutely. And this is why I think that's such an interesting exercise. I say it not half-jokingly. There is a seriousness, but I I think that's such an interesting exercise. I say it not half jokingly. There is a serious.

But I think it's just such an interesting exercise because it's outside of the scope of what most people strategize and talk about when they think of the free speech problem. And it really goes to show like what you're saying, your your your response to that. It's in spirit, extremely accurate. And it underscores what I was saying is that big tech is an extension of our national security state. And people need to understand that the bottleneck to free speech infrastructure is not that, oh, Mark Zuckerberg just isn't, you know, just isn't liberal enough in terms of free speech, or, you know, these individual people aren't liberal enough in terms of free speech, or these individual people aren't open enough to free speech. They have to understand that if any robust free speech infrastructure

were to be created in the United States at scale, it would be targeted as a national security threat. That's what happened with TikTok. And they use the excuse that it's collecting data from american citizens which is empowering china right if china was up server farms that say whatever you want to say they're going to collect all the data the data thing is ridiculous frankly i would is it really such a big difference like oh you know google has all of my data but heaven forbid the chai comms have my data, as though Google is so much better. Or I would say I would rather have the Chinese government

have all of my information than any American journalist. And so people just don't have the proper perspective on these things. And this is why it's like, I understand in a geopolitical sense, China is a threat. But ultimately, the signaling power of being a China hawk has changed dramatically. A while ago, a couple of years ago, to say that China is the number one threat, the signaling value of that position is to say, come on, guys, do we really need war with Iran? China's the bigger. So it really had the effect of signaling that you weren't one of these nuts that was obsessed with war with Iran, or an even bigger nut who wanted war with Russia. To say China's

the big problem, basically, it has a first order meaning, it has a second order signaling meaning saying, I'm not one of those Russian nuts, I'm not one of those Russian nuts. I'm not one of those Iran nuts. But now I think it's taken on a very different type of significance. And you see that in the fact that all of these establishment filth, people like Nikki Haley, these neocon nutjobs, they're just China hawks like everyone else. Pompeo, even people underestimate the extent to which the Biden administration generally is China hawk. And so the signaling power has really changed. And now I think a lot of the China hawk stuff is simply a distraction,

simply a distraction from the fact that the real enemies of the American people are not any foreign country like China. The real enemies of the American people are the people who control America. Let's get into what you just said about I'd rather have the Chinese government than a journalist with my information and who the real enemies are because we got some updates. We got the story from Fox News. Glenn Greenwald, nsa had legal obligation to conceal tucker carlson's identity from intercepted communications i love this i love

the story because it follows those steps like you laid out right first they were like tucker's full of it nobody's spying on them then they said well okay you know maybe but not really we're at the point now where it's well so okay fine but it's not a big deal i mean he was trying to talk to putin so of course they were they weren't spying on him they're just spying on american journalists in general right they unmasked tucker carlson yep no it's remarkable and you mean there i think there there's still probably important details that we don't yet know we might never know but just the story as it's out now is remarkable. And I think it does represent a substantial escalation in our march toward this dystopian health state. Yes, we know you should expect that they're looking at, especially if you're communicating with Russian officials and so forth. which is just the logical extension of the fact that our national security state has become a political weapon. That's the whole domestic war on terror.

It's like the Soviet Union. Right, exactly. And it is strange, though, that this is the thing because you've had journalists like Megyn Kelly interview Putin and otherwise. She was probably spot on as well. Well, sure she was. But this idea that this is how they're going to embarrass Tucker, like I'm jealous of Tucker if the most embarrassing thing about him is that he was seeking an interview with putin and assuming like the nsa is looking at everything we're doing you know um uh well there are there are limits i suppose right so um if if information leaked that tucker carlson was going to meet with vladimir putin right people would start to

make assumptions about who may have been involved right perhaps the leak would have been substantially worse so i'll put it this way. Let's say that the NSA is spying on Tucker to an extreme degree. They know that he just went out and bought some flowers and chocolates for his wife, and they know the note he sent a note saying, please include this in the card when you send the flowers to my wife. I'm so sorry. We fought last night.

Please, let's never fight again. And then they're like, ooh, we got trouble at home. We can make him look like a bad husband. This leak is going to be a great smear. But when Tucker then says the NSA is spying on me, it puts them in a limited position. Because now if they come out and say, here's Tucker Carlson's web history, everyone's going to be like, whoa, the NSA is doing all that? Now it's kind of like, hey, the NSA incidentally picked up one of his emails. Right.

But if they actually were spying on him, this preemptive move from Tucker was brilliant. It stopped them from releasing the worst of the worst if they actually had it. Yeah. I mean, depending what the worst was. And, you know, they're in a position to do that. Ultimately, Google is in a position to do that just, you know, almost as much as the NSA itself. And the question is, that's an existential risk to the company. If, you know, as bad as Google has been, if they release the contents of people's Gmails or Gchats or something for political purposes, that I think is a severe risk to the company, just in economic sense, even in this environment. And so if they were to do that, they better make sure that it's a worthy target

and the right time and so forth. And so I think the Tucker story is yet to maybe play out in full, but absolutely I think it was the right move for him to go preemptive because the story at the present moment, think looks much worse for the nsa so they're looking to embarrass him with an interview with putin which isn't even embarrassing why wouldn't a major journalist of his stature be looking trying to do an interview with putin because maybe the story was something else there you go maybe the story was tucker carlson you know uh sent a lewd message to an intern or something.

And they had communications, maybe, and Tucker's like, that was a text message I sent. But then when he says this, the NSA is now named. If the story was hackers, how would they get the information? It must have been hackers. It must have been, you know, a breach. If Tucker didn't say anything, it could have been anyone. But he called it the NSA specifically, so it sounds like it was the NSA. And they were forced to hold

back. I don't know if that's true or not, but this story's not even embarrassing. Why would someone go to Tucker and say, hey, look, they're going to do this thing, unless either Tucker is clean as a whistle and they're full of it and they're desperate, or they got put on the spot and had to back down? I think there are a number of possibilities.

It's an interesting story. We're working on incomplete information. But insofar as the story is the NSA is spying on journalists and they're willing to leak things for political purposes, that's absolutely, I don't think that's a controversial statement. How deep is it? Do they subpoena Google to send them every voice because this is recording right now waiting to hear its own name that google and the amazon machine is listening do they just have complete access to all of this data at all times basically i mean anything that

isn't encrypted which is basically everything yeah and And the stuff that's encrypted, they have stored in some warehouse in the southwest, and they're just waiting until they have the computing power to get it. Right. Even if it's 10 years from now, they've got a bunch of interesting stuff. They're just waiting for the computer power to get it. But, yeah. This is my warning to the average person. These Amazon devices, we've got one in the room. How does it know when its name is said?

So the way these devices work is that an audio file of what you say is sent to a company that then transcodes the audio file into text, which the computer can then read and then ask questions and things like that. That means these devices have to be on and listening all the time it doesn't mean necessarily they're sending everything you say off to these companies but it might be the case they have in the past in the past that's how you say in the terms of service for a lot of these services that everything you say is sent to a company to be transcribed and that means that your phones were always listening. Right. But I think it would be absurd if it was constantly transmitting every word you said,

full audio files. I mean, that would be a hefty data transmission you'd probably notice. Right. So early on, what a lot of the phones did was they would make you say the word three times to get a pattern from your voice so that when you could say something. As for these home networks, you know what? We got an IT guy. We should probably track that and see if we're getting – we'll shut off all the data except for these devices and see what they do when they're isolated.

Dude, they're harvesting everything. Everything. Data is so cheap these days. Quantum computing has shifted the game. And it could be compressing, so it's hard to track. But the other thing about Tucker Carlson, too, is when he mentioned the sixth, and you mentioned this as well, the federal involvement,

the potential federal involvement, I guess, is there any evidence to back up that claim other than informants or potential informants? Well, I mean, there's a tremendous evidence, and it depends how much time we want to spend on this because my news organization revolver.news we have two major pieces on this topic the first piece was the subject that was

basically um the inspiration for the monologue the tucker's monologue which uh became the biggest story in the country and i went on and I said my piece there as well. So it depends in how much detail you want to go. Just to give the highlights for people listening who may not have heard this and are interested, I think one thing that generally perks people's attention is just something that nobody thought to remark upon. And that is that just we don't have to go all the way back to J. Edgar Hoover to detail the malfeasance of the FBI and other

organizations. For 1-6, you just need to go back a couple months to this so-called Michigan kidnapping plot, the Michigan plot. And in a nutshell, what this was, was this was a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, who was very draconian on COVID policies. But that plot also involved, many people don't know this, also involved a plot to storm the Michigan state capitol. The so-called mastermind of this plot was a member of a militia group called Three Percenters, which is one of the three major militia groups

imputed to 1-6. So you have the same plot, one of the same militia groups, and you have, of the 18 plotters, we now know that at least five were either undercover agents or informants. Five out of 18 is a hell of a ratio. And just as a cherry on top, the head of the Detroit FBI field office

who was in charge of this infiltration operation in Michigan, just days after the so-called plotters were arrested, FBI Director Wray promoted him to the D.C. field office where he went on to oversee the 1-6 investigation. Now, I'm not suggesting that that logically means 1-6 means anything.

I have my own argument about 1-6 that I can get into, but for people who have initial resistance just in terms of their sense that we don't do that, that's not the kind of thing we do. You don't need to go back to J. Edgar Hoover. You just need to go back a couple months prior to the so-called storm on the Capitol

and you see one of the same militia groups, the same plot, one of the same FBI agents associated with both events, and a federal infiltration ratio of 5 out of 18. And you're telling me that you had this and you didn't, and the explanation for the uniquely poor security on 1-6 is simply that this was an intelligence failure? Did you see that video of the men wearing all black, blackout gear, breaking into the Capitol? What's that all about?

Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of video that's suspicious. And even more suspicious, there's a lot of video that hasn't yet been released. But the facts are trickling in. We now know that the D.C. police had an undercover agent in the morning of 1-6. And so, first of all, the D.C. police was sufficiently concerned to put an informant on the ground in 1-6, and yet they had uniquely poor security at the Capitol. That seems incongruent. And furthermore, it seems to beggar belief that the D.C. police would have an informant on the ground, actually an undercover agent on the ground, not an informant, and the FBI wouldn't

have anyone. But that isn't even the argument that we get to in the piece it depends how interested you are how interested you think your audience is in in a real breakdown no okay so basically the structure of the first piece um is as follows it it gives the michigan kidnapping plot as to reinforce people's intuition. But then what it does is it looks at the charging documents related to the people actually indicted for major 1-6 related crimes, specifically people who belong to the major militia groups, which is the priority of the prosecution. And it notes there's something really weird here. You have one of the original prosecutors named Michael Sherwin. He said unabashedly, we're going at this

with a shock and awe standard of prosecution. That is the most severe standard imaginable. To give you a concrete sense of what that means, there's a guy called George Tanios who was at the Capitol. He was in the melee. He had bear spray on him. His friend came up to him and wanted to get the bear spray. He said, is it time? Should we spray some cops? He said, no, no, not yet.

For saying no, no, not yet, he's facing 60 years in prison. That's what shock and awe means. And just incidentally, the whole reason the bear spray was a big deal is that after basically Revolver.News exposed that Officer Sicknick was not bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher, they shifted the narrative to, oh, he was killed by bear spray. We did a very – Then they shifted it again yeah we did a very detailed comparative image analysis at revolver.news and said not only was he not killed by bear spray he wasn't even sprayed by bear spray and so that was the whole reason the bear spray was relevant to begin with so his friend comes up to him and says is it i i want

to get the bear spray he says no no not yet no, not yet. He's facing 60 years. What was Ashley Babbitt doing just before she got shot? Well, I mean, she was completely unarmed, and she did. But, like, the most granular view of what she was doing. We know she was in the building. What was she specifically doing in that moment just before being shot? Like, what led up? Like, what were the lead-up moments to her getting shot?

What was she doing? Well, it looked like she was trying to climb through the door. Like she was trying to climb through the door? She basically climbed through the door. But let me just finish. But she, like, reached through the window and was, like, pulling her body through? Yeah, she was trying to get through the door, and she was shot. And granted, it's probably not a good idea to try to get through the door,

but she was clearly unarmed, and there was no warning. I think that was very— Wasn't the door, like, solid material, good idea to try to get through the door, but she was clearly unarmed and there was no warning. I think that was – Wasn't the door like solid material, though? How would you get through that? I think the window was broken. So she was trying to get through the window? Yeah. I believe so based on the footage.

I'm not an expert on the Ashley Babbitt thing. So I want to stick with the things that I've spent many, many, many hours thinking about. The Ashley Babbitt thing I think is outrageous. I think it's wrong. I think we deserve to know what happened, but I'm not an expert in that. But just to finish, to structure the argument, the shock and awe standard that applies to Tanios, that's really severe. And so what the first revolver.news piece does is say, look, there's this incredibly severe standard applied to people like Tanios. And yet, when we look at the charging documents

of one, six people who are indicted, we see a lot of people referenced in here who seem to have done just as much, if not more than the people indicted who aren't indicted. And on that basis, we raise the possibility that it's very likely that in some of these cases, not all of these cases, in some of these cases, they are not being indicted as a result of a prior relationship with the federal government as an informant or undercover agent. What if I told you I had a lead on one of the names of these individuals, their full names, and probably a lot of their history too, their careers? Well, I think that would be interesting. I can't say anything yet, but I'm saying this right now on purpose because it's probably going to piss some people off, so hopefully they know. Well, that could be interesting because the second piece that we ran basically focused on one individual called Stuart Rhodes,

who's the head of the Oath Keepers militia. And I'm not in a position to say definitively he had some relation with the federal government, but I think it's clear that he's being protected from indictment for some reason. And we go through very detailed history of this guy. And this isn't his first rodeo. He's been all the way back at Bundy Ranch. He injects himself into these things. And seemingly everyone around him gets indicted but him.

And so there's an interesting history there. A lot of people have brought up Enrique Tarrio as well. Well, I mean, yes. Because he gets conspicuously arrested right before anything goes down and kicked out of the city. Right. No, I mean. I'm not saying any accusations. I'm saying this is part of, you know, people are bringing this up.

Well, what we know about him, and I encourage everyone, go revolver.news, read the piece on Rhodes. And it's, I think, quite interesting, quite persuasive. The case of Tarrio is interesting. We know for a fact that he was an informant previously. That doesn't mean that he was an informant at the time of 1-6 or he was an informant in relation to the events of 1-6, but we know, I believe it's been just simply reported by the media, not contested, that he had a history of being an FBI informant. And as you point out, I think a lot of people don't understand this, is that he basically flew into D.C., which is technically flying into Virginia.

He had gun paraphernalia, I believe, magazines. He drove into D.C. You're the leader of the Proud Boys, and you drive into D.C. You're asking for trouble. He drives into D.C. You're the leader of the Proud Boys and you drive into D.C. knowing you're asking for trouble. He drives into D.C. After admitting guilt online that he was the one who committed the crime on the church. Right. You drive into D.C.

Cops are waiting for him. They get him. And a judge says you can't be anywhere near D.C. the day before January 6th. To me, that seems like a very convenient reason for him not to be in 1-6. So all of the Proud Boys underlings, they're hitting with his charges. But the leader, wow, that's very convenient. You just can't be around. I'll tell you a story to help explain what might be happening. So during Occupy Wall Street street i'm heading down uh i remember

it was a couple weeks in you know so i i was uh stayed the night at some some house in in i think like uh somewhere in brooklyn i forgot what it's called redbrook or something anyway i get off the train i'm walking up and i see this guy from occupy wall street i recognize and he's on the street corner and i see him and i go, oh, hey, dude. When all of a sudden a bunch of cops just pop out of a car, grab him and throw him in the car, which is very close, like right next to him. And he starts yelling like, oh, come on, man. What's going on, dude? They throw him in the car.

I'm like, whoa, dude, just got arrested. So I briskly walk. You know, I'm not running or anything to the park. Walk up to some of the activists. I'm like, dude, so and so. I'm not going to say his name. Just got arrested. And they're like, yeah, we know. And I was like, you do? And they were like, yeah, yeah, everybody knows. And I was like, oh, like, did he, did he get a call or did

he text you? And they're like, no, he just got arrested right here. And I was like, what do you mean he got arrested right here? They're like, yeah, like 15 minutes ago. And I was like, dude, 10 minutes ago, I saw him on a corner get arrested. So here's what I think happened. They didn't arrest him. They pulled to the park, arrest him to debrief him. He's an informant. They drive around, drop him off a few minutes later after saying, what's going on? What's the plan for the day? He says, they're going to march here. They're going to march here and say, okay. They let him out right as I walk up and go, it's you. I know you because i was at the protest crap pull him back in get him out of here because now somebody knows that i see i had seen him nobody could explain how it was and then immediately

everybody went he's a cop no absolutely and i i think just to get back to this target thing really so if if the revolver dot news if the insinuation if if Stuart Rhodes, head of the Oath Keepers, is being protected as a result of a prior relationship with the federal government, possibly going back many years, and if it's the case that Tarrio was an informant in some capacity, I think the implications of that are quite profound because I do think the overwhelming majority of 1-6, people were around, they were basically let into the Capitol, it was basically benign. All of the remotely, quote-unquote, insurrection-y type stuff is really limited to these handful of people involved in these little militia groups. And even like a lot of the people who were involved there, I wouldn't even say that they were doing it,

but to the extent that there was any insurrection-y type stuff, it was extremely limited, and it was associated with these militia-type groups. And so if it turns out that the heads of the two major groups were in some capacity working with the government. I don't think it's a stretch or an exaggeration at all to say that 1-6, in effect, was orchestrated by the government or elements within the government. So a big component being that there were people who did serious or even worse things

than many of those indicted who have not been indicted or even named. Well, who are referenced in the charging documents but not indicted like by name the referenced well their reference in the case of uh stewart roads he's referenced as person one but we know that that's him and nobody how do you know it's that well i mean i don't even he doesn't dispute that it's very clear because they refer to person one as the leader of the Oath Keepers. That part isn't really a secret. There are some people. What people need to understand about this stuff is it's not like the movies. If somebody is an informant, they got friends.

If somebody is an informant and they've got a significant other, it's impossible to keep all information wrapped up. So these people who are unnamed, who have caused the questions to be raised, like who are these individuals, I've got some leads, I'll put it that way. I'll keep it very, very mild because it could be nothing. But I've had some conversations and there are some really interesting things pertaining to the intelligence agency service prior,

military service that I've heard about some of the people who for some reason committed some, you know, were supposedly again, these are leads. These are not like I've actually gone over any evidence. And I want to be very careful because it could literally just be people smack talking and not knowing anything. But it's like bar talk, bar talk around the water cooler about what these people may have been involved in. And so I'm investigating it right now. I'm saying these things on purpose so that you know anybody who's listening probably knows right well yeah it's it's and this is a new narrative and basically this is the i'm very happy that this is the new narrative about one six is that what did the federal government do what did they know when did know it? Were they involved in inciting this operation? Because they're certainly

using the false narrative of it as a pretext to effectuate this domestic war on terror. The possibility that they could have incited it and that they had informants at the highest levels of these militia groups that they're blaming as the boogeyman i think that's really remarkable it's it's impossible to exaggerate the significance of that given the significance that the government and media has attached to one six as this new 9-11 which is ridiculous right they call it one six right exactly and you know that's another thing I've got to say. It's this differential political psychology. Glenn Greenwald has been a big fan of my reporting

and Revolver News' reporting. He's been a supporter, and he's been a consistent, principled guy in terms of exposing the malfeasance and the just step-out-of-line behavior by the national security apparatus. And I think it comes more naturally. He's in some ways a person of the left, although I think it's a complicated term. But I do think it's important to emphasize this differential political psychology, that the left is just much better at thinking about these things because I think they're animated by a political psychology of wanting to critique unjust institutions of power. think in many cases they unwittingly exhibit themselves as instruments of those institutions

but they need to think of themselves as attacking those institutions whereas people on the right generally speaking as a matter of their political psychology want to think of themselves as venerating just institutions so it's a much different type of challenge to bring the right up to speed on look this this government that you're kind of disposed to venerate, this military that you're disposed to venerate, all these generals and so forth, these people are prosecuting a war against you. Right. It's a very difficult pill to swallow.

Yeah? Is it a black pill? Do you think that – I don't like using the word the right necessarily because that doesn't really mean much it's it doesn't define anything you know what do you think when you think the right anarcho-capitalists well that doesn't define conservatives libertarians not conservatives either right it's nebula it's a nebulous term so in terms of those who are opposing the fascistic i say fascistic not, not fascist, takeover in this country, it's hurting cats. It's a hard pill to swallow. The right effectively, functionally, is anyone who opposes the regime, opposes the globalist American empire.

Because even people like Greenwald, irrespective of the content of their ideology, all the nuances, it doesn't matter. The fact that they're challenging the regime, the globalist American empire, identifies them as the right functionally where it matters. You saw the same thing with Assange and so forth. He was left, but then he exposed Hillary Clinton and he was on the right. And so I think even though these terms are complicated, getting down to what they mean, ultimately, just understanding what they are functionally in terms of our kind of political situation. You know, Glenn Greenwald, basically, at this point is the right from the perspective of the regime, because the right is a term that has been demonized. And if they want to demonize people they just call them the right and they don't care about the niceties of what it actually means it's

the same thing frankly with the term white and you see this going back to the white hispanic george zimmerman white is just a term of uh disapprobation or even stronger than disapproval it's a term of contempt it's a term of hatred as it's used anything bad is white and um and i think the term the term right functions in the same way same thing with racist doesn't matter what racist means just matters that here's a word that's had tens of billions of dollars charged up to give this word emotional valence, and we're going to use it against people we don't like. I love this. I got called a reactionary by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is hilarious.

Reactionaries oppose the revolution. Sure, I guess. Are reformers reactionary? No, I think reformers are reformers. Like I've tweeted abolish the IRS, abolish the ATF, abolish the police. I'm like I wouldn't consider that reactionary. Reactionary, of course, people have made another reference. It's a reference to the French Revolution, those who oppose the revolution.

Right. So if they view someone who is even as like – I don't want to say these are radical positions because they're relatively – actually, no. It is kind of funny that people refer to me as milquetoast as sort of an inside joke when I'm like straight up like, yeah, get rid of the ATF, get rid of the IRS, like very libertarian, audit the Fed, perhaps even abolish the Fed. Actually, the Fed is really bad. And they're like, that's milquetoast. OK. All right. I think those are pretty strong positions.

But certainly not reactionary. But they have to say that because they want regular people who don't pay attention, don't do any research to fear what we say here. Right. Reactionary sounds bad, although you would think they would do better than that because it's even a semi even though I'm sure they use it in properly and not in its historical context. It's a fairly sophisticated word and it doesn't have the emotional charge that like racist does. And even racist, they've largely abandoned. They've gone to white supremacists so maybe maybe maybe you've been like good enough that they can't really get you with white supremacists yet although i would imagine you've been called that well this is funny

uh i had the daily beast just call me alt-right okay there you go but i just dm the guy's like i'm second generation mixed race and he's like oh and he took it out yeah he can't call me that dude like that's the weirdest thing the alt-right it's like okay yeah let me remind my grandparents who fought for civil rights and loving v virginia that they actually were all about white people so absurd absolutely insane so are we pessimistic we optimistic what are you saying what are we doing well i mean i i would say dispositionally we want to be optimistic because, as I was saying, to be demoralized is disgusting. But we also don't want to be creatures of cope because, as I say, I really do think cope is another form of pessimism. It's the other side to that coin.

And cope sells and that's why i think cope is very dangerous because cope sells because people don't want to imagine how bad things are they don't imagine want to imagine how difficult the road ahead is they're they want an easy fix they want to trust the plan you know they just want to kind of sit back and think that, okay, just by default, the good guys are going to win. But it's a very difficult thing. It's going to require extremely intelligent strategic thinking. It's going to require balls. And it's going to require resources.

And it's going to require understanding what it means to actually play for keeps, which you don't see on the right anywhere. What's the end game? What does defeat look like? Well, I think it looks a lot like what we see today. It's certainly in that trajectory. But what is it? I mean, to be honest, it's been bad with the lockdowns for a lot of people. Their lives have been destroyed.

Their savings are destroyed. Prices are going up. You will own nothing, and you will be happy. Is that defeat or is that incidental? Well, I certainly think that that looks like defeat. That's not a position you want to be in. You want to know what defeat is, just go to the airport and engage in domestic travel. That shows you what defeat looks like. I want to show you what defeat looks like because it's going to put a shock to the system of the average person. This is the clip that you should share with your friends and family. The New York Times did a profile on a controversial educator, Justine Ng Phant, suddenly being pilloried by parents.

A private school sex educator defends her methods. What was she doing? She was showing adult films to teenagers in high school to critically analyze gender and showing a video to six-year-olds on the nature of masturbation. This is what defeat looks like when

the New York Times sends a photographer out to take this photo. Look up at the sky. Look at this photo they took of her. Why was she being pilloried by parents? The story basically says that because of Zoom, because the classrooms are now being exposed, the parents saw what she was teaching their children and they were shocked and angered. And so they reached out to journalists saying, what is going on in our schools? She was forced to resign. Before Zoom and the lockdowns, she was doing this for years. And other schools say it's totally normal and there's nothing wrong with her curriculum.

The New York Times sent a photographer out to do a profile piece on her where they defend everything she did, teaching six-year-olds about self-gratification. Mixed feelings here. You want to talk about defeat? Talk about your kids, where there's this video of a choir singing, we're going to convert your children. I saw that.

That was great. I mean, at first I thought they were just being sarcastic. They were like, ha-ha, conservatives, we're going to scare you. But no, you actually listen to the lyrics. I was like, wow, it's straight serious. We're going to scare you. But no, like you actually listen to the lyrics. I was like, wow, it's straight serious. We're going to convert your kids so that you are forced to support us to support them. And I'm like, you will become an ally. It was crazy, crazy.

Well, yeah. Like once we have your kids, you will be forced to be an ally. That's what they're saying. What are they talking about? Converting them to what? To this weird ideology? Is this literally like it's like uh we want to what does that mean is when your child your child comes home and says i hate you i hate you i hate

you and you don't understand why i saw this really sad story it was a post on reddit from a guy who said i sent my daughter to college and she was a normal high school girl when she came back her head was shaven on the sides, dyed different colors. She had weird makeup on and she told me I was evil and disgusting and she hated me. And I don't understand what happened. That's the problem. And people think China is the bad guy. It's like that's the thing.

Could that be China? I think China in many ways is just unfortunate. I don't say this as admiring China. I say it as shame on us because we need to do better. But again, it's recognizing reality is China does not subscribe to this nonsense. China, in this respect, is a very serious country. And I could absolutely see Americans in the very near future, if not now, who want their children to have a serious education, send them to the best universities in China that won't give them the woke shit. Because you know what? If China is smart, the professors at their best universities are going to be the people who would normally be the best professors in America, but who would get canceled by American academia,

the people who want to study and say the things that you can't study and say in American academia. China, I think they should set up tenured chairs, at least five per major university, and invite the most controversial but serious American scholars, give them chairs there. And it's again, this is a win win. This is a win for them in terms of PR. And it's a win for the serious American scholars who want to be able to study without getting canceled in a serious environment. Who gets banned on social media? It is typically conservatives. You say something like learn to code, you're gone. Antifa can literally organize and tell people where to go to engage in

violence, and they're totally safe. I mean, I love it. When I was on Joe Rogan with Dorsey and Vijaya, when I was like, here's a literal tweet inciting violence that you clearly have seen because tons of responses were removed, but you didn't remove this one, and they're like, oh, about that.

And I think they only did it after the show. I was like, I'm not going to tell you. They wanted me to give them the URL. I wasn't going to do it. But that's who got banned. They told me we have to protect people who are at risk of suicide. That's why they have specific rules protecting the trans community. What is China banning? You see the story about what China's banning? China is banning the LGBTQ community. There you go. the guardian outrage over shutdown of lgbtq wechat accounts in china dozens of wechat accounts have been blocked and deleted without warning right china knows the risks of of of destroying the family no they know

the risks of destroying the family and they know the risks of the globalist American empire poison. That's why I say, thank God that they've banned Google, and they have not subjected themselves to the so-called open society. The open society means allowing Western NGOs in their country, allowing Western tech infrastructure to control the dissemination of information. They've refused those things. And for that reason, and that reason alone, they are a genuinely sovereign country. My position is really there are two and a half genuinely sovereign countries on this planet. There's the United States, the globalist American empire. There's China and Russia gets a half because it's more complicated. There are only two and a half genuinely sovereign countries, and the reason China's up there is because it completely bans

Western big tech infrastructure and bans Western NGOs. They know it. George Soros was trying to insinuate himself into China as far back as the 70s. They refused it. That is the second they stopped doing that is the second that China becomes effectively a part of the globalist American empire. But China sucks. China is authoritarian. They're awful. Right.

They're militant ethnostate. Yeah. Right. And, you know,. And they're awful. They're awful in a different way. And they're awful in a way that simply does not embrace the woke poison. I say that, and we're kind of awful too. And we're authoritarian too. But they are just not, they can be kind of maybe robotic and automated in some ways.

There is this sort of geopolitical autism that they exhibit. There's a lot that's unattractive about them. And in fact, you know, they have everything going for them, but the fact that nobody is attracted to them as a country. And that is ultimately a problem if you want to have global supremacy. There's simply nothing attractive. They don't have anything resembling the kind of soft power that America dominates in, and even Russia, to some extent, has. There's just no cool factor,

no attractive factor. That is an extreme limiting force. I don't think that is an insuperable problem. I think eventually they'll realize that, and they'll just hire people probably from the west to um to correct that but um but yeah they they suck they're authoritarian they're uninspiring but they do not have drag queen story hour they don't have drag queen story our concentration But they have concentration camps. Well, for Uyghurs.

And Falun Gong. Shutting down of Apple Daily and what they're doing to Hong Kong. Right. But then that's another thing that I think is ridiculous is that we're simply in no position to criticize that. And they themselves have said this, I think, with absolute justification. How can we, like we have just a phalanx of midwit conservative politicians, again, who love pointing their finger at China. I think China is bad. They're authoritarian. It's good to point a finger at them if you have it in the appropriate context. context but pointing fingers at china and ignoring the fact that a sitting president of the united states was de-platformed from our own communications infrastructure and point to china's uh censoring

apple daily and saying they're the authoritarians no but still bad is completely neither of it's good neither of it's good but we don't have the moral authority to criticize them. It's just two different types of authoritarianism. Well, the U.S. government doesn't, but we do. Sure, as long as you're pointing out both. And I think what matters is the context because I think in the political discourse, especially amongst politicians, conservative politicians, it's so much easier to point your finger at china one of uh a tweet i had a while back there was marcia blackburn who said oh i'm gonna score points i'm gonna show how tough i am against those chai comms here is uh winnie the pooh guess what in america we can tweet winnie the pooh whereas in china you can't because it's considered critical of she i said

oh that's great marcia now do george floyd right crickets it's the same it because it's considered critical of Xi. I said, oh, that's great, Marsha. Now do George Floyd. Right. Crickets. It's the same point. It's not that China is a free country. It's authoritarian. But in spirit, it's a more serious version of authoritarianism. It's not this weird, grotesque, drag queen authoritarianism that we've seen in the United States and so they're both authoritarian and this gets to this point of taboo arbitrage I pointed out is that thank God there's not a singular

authoritarian system I like the fact that there are things that you can say in China and you can get away with saying that would get you absolutely destroyed in the United States and I like that Chinese people can come to the United States and criticize their government.

I think the fact that these different authoritarian systems have different taboos is something that can and should be arbitraged, and that might be one of the few silver linings going forward to carve out a space of genuinely free and open discourse. Man, I think about, like, if I was president tomorrow to carve out a space of genuinely free and open discourse. Man. Yeah, think about, like, if I was president tomorrow and I really wanted to upend the deep state, like, repeal the CIA, like, do what Kennedy wanted to do, basically, you'd have to go to Russia to be safe.

If you were in the United States, man, they know where you live. I mean, that's the thing. Assange's mistake is he didn't go to Russia. Snowden did, and that's why Snowden is where he is and why Assange is where he is. And it's like not – that's an extension of what I was saying, that there's only two and a half real sovereign countries on this planet. Yeah. What about India?

I think to some extent, but they don't have that deep autonomy in the sense that China does. What are they missing exactly? Because they have nukes. They have a huge population. What are they missing exactly? Because they have nukes. They have a huge population. What are they missing? Is it infrastructure? Do they not have the farmland or something? Well, I think it gets to this open society idea.

They're far more integrated into the West in that basic information infrastructure sense. They don't ban Google, and therefore the U.S. basically has information dominance from that point of view. So maybe because it was a British colony for so long, they've established the secret infrastructure was already ready to go by the time now that they're independent. Yeah, I mean, certainly there's a different history, too, that impacts that. But it's not to say, like, I'm basically stipulating gradations of sovereignty. In a technical geopolitical sense, yes, they're sovereign. But I'm saying, ultimately, what does sovereign mean? If you're a sovereign country, you should be able to house edward snowden and i don't think india could do that regardless of uh if china is sovereign i mean

as bad as the u.s is it's much better than china i mean we've got we've got issues here that we're trying to work out we've got internal conflict the culture war and the domination by this new cult of this fringe moralist framework but china was welding people's doors shut during the outbreak they were instructing their citizens to buy up ppe from other countries to siphon it away while they were lying to the world to the world health organization they're uh you know uighur muslim, the conflict with Pakistan, Hong Kong, Taiwan. I mean, it's brutal and it's awful. Yeah, there's a lot of bad things. I think there's a lot of bad things with us.

Being an American, I'm far more concerned with our problems. And again, I think all of these things have to be understood contextually. Every country has problems. China is an authoritarian system. I think a lot of these things can be exaggerated through our media to feed into this Cold War 2.0 and also simply to distract because they want people pointing to China, pointing to the TICOMs, and they don't want people pointing fingers at the people who actually run our country and i think it you know i'm huge fan you know uh you know it's it's great that the truth about well

um save it for the after party yeah forget that sorry welcome to youtube welcome to america aren't we glad we aren't in china where you can't just talk about things freely? That's right. That's resonating. We literally can't. Welcome to America. Land of the free. Home of the brave.

Home of the alphabet. Yeah. In China, you can't criticize Xi Jinping on YouTube. Here's a big list of everything you can't say. Hey, here's a photo of Tiananmen Square. Everybody was sharing those on Twitter and laughing about it. And there are things you cannot say on YouTube because they will just delete you. Exactly. Because big tech, big tech is an extension of our national security apparatus. Which is an authoritarian regime. Right. Very similar in many ways. And that's why China is

smart not to allow American tech infrastructure. I think they would be smart to say, look, we're not doing business with any American tech companies that censor their own citizens. Would you say that the American security organization apparatus is like a subsidiary of big tech or that big tech is a subsidiary of that? And is it only because of who has the guns right now? I mean, these things can become complicated over time because ultimately institutions can kind of become self-operating, but also they're people. And you see a revolving door effect within Google. You see the phenomenon of people like Jared Cohen, the founder of Jigsaw.

He was a key figure in Hillary Clinton's State Department, in George Bush's State Department. He set up Jigsaw within Google, which is this powerful think tank within Google. And basically, they're tasked with developing AI capabilities to censor speech. And he, I think, personifies this example of this revolving door between the State Department and big tech to the point that is one the subsidiary of another. I think ultimately, it's more accurate to say that big tech is the subsidiary of the national security state, but it's actually an extension of. It's an extension of in the way that, say, you have all of these intel cutouts who aren't formally part of the intelligence community but do their work. And you see that in these NGOs and organizations that combat so-called disinformation.

That's a huge word you hear. And you have one of the few booming sectors of our economy now is like, quote, unquote, disinformation journalists. And you have them working for these NGOs like the Atlantic Council that's joined at the hip with all of these government-associated organizations. It used to be that the government would just do this kind of stuff, like Project Mockingbird and stuff like this. But now they use these cutouts, these NGOs like the Atlantic Council, and there are a million of them like that, and they employ these journalists who attack disinformation,

which is a term of art. It's an intelligence term, and they basically use that to envelop any narratives that counter regime agenda. They envelop those narratives into a national security context saying these are disinformation, and that invites this national security imprimatur. Once it becomes a national security issue, that means it's no longer an issue for discussion.

It's no longer a normal political debate within a deliberative democratic arena. It becomes this is national security, therefore shut up. And that's the work that this vocabulary like disinformation is doing. And this is being done chiefly through intel cutouts, not formally part of the government and i think you need to understand the big tech companies as much more robust um versions of this this ecology there's a there's a group that was uh through i think stanford and a few other ngos and they claimed that i was one of the biggest proponents of election disinformation on twitter a super spreader my there you go but my but my twitter is nonsensical garbage of, like, not even things that make sense.

Like, I tweeted a picture of a rabbit that had no hair. I constantly post, like, Twitter is just a playground of trolling. I literally have tweeted, like, I'm just ish posting on Twitter because people take things too seriously. And so you either have a lie, Tim Pool spreading disinformation because I post like memes and like weird trolly tweets about like Joe. But I tweeted once Joe Biden is the greatest president. His cognitive abilities and mental fortitude are shining bastion or like it's just trolly post nonsense. Or they they're so dumb that they genuinely believe those things are true. And I can't imagine that because then they would call me a Biden supporter.

But they must know that my Twitter, which maybe their argument is, well, see, he was trolling. It is disinformation, just like the Babylon Bee was misinformation. It had to be fact-checked. Right. I think – no, I totally see your point. But just to sort of maybe devil's advocate a little bit or just to show what their perspective is, I think from their perspective, from the disinformation commissar's perspective, and I think this isetics, just in terms of spreading information and the role of memes in mobilizing people politically, these are things that the national security apparatus takes very seriously. And they take it seriously in the sense that they recognize its importance. But because they're so serious in a literal sense, they can't be effective and they can't actually meme effectively. So the very fact that these memes, insofar as they're effective, have a kind of lighthearted, ironic, ambiguous character, that's a key to their effectiveness and it's something that the national security apparatus is extremely interested in and hasn't yet been able to emulate and so you see these pathetic people it's not even about memes like i literally posted a hairless rabbit eating cabbage or something like nonsense just it wasn't even it wasn't even political it was like i saw this funny picture i tweeted it i tweeted it. I tweeted, I'm scared the deer are going to eat my pawpaw.

Yeah. Like my Twitter is nothing serious, but it's not even overtly political trolling. Okay. Well, in that case, then they're probably just going after you because in other contexts you engage in political stuff. Right. But I do think it's important to understand the National Security Apparatus is is very very interested in these meme wars and frankly if i were them i would be because the only war that actually matters is the information war and i've i had a conversation recently kind of a funny one about the moon

landing and don't worry i'm not getting into moon conspiracies but i think there's a meta point that's important about the moon conspiracies and And that is, even if this whole conspiracy that, oh, we didn't actually get to the moon, deeper truth in it, even if it's false. And that truth is that the true source of America's power is not its scientific or engineering prowess or its nuclear weapons. It's its control of information distribution. It's its supremacy over propaganda and mass psychology. And so my take on the moon stuff, not that I take the conspiracy seriously, but I think it's a good vehicle to explore actual kind of important points, is that it's actually more remarkable of an achievement if it is fake because that exhibits our dominance in the psychological arena. And that's actually more impressive and more aligned with the true nature of America's power than the scientific achievement of putting people on on the moon, which was what happened in reality. Right. Let's go to super chats. If you haven't already smashed that like button, subscribe to this channel and go to TimCast.com where we're going. I don't I don't know what you're going to say, but whatever it was, we'll talk about it over at TimCast.com. And again, hit the like button, subscribe, share the video. Let's read. We got Baxter says, Hi, Tim and group. Why don't conservatives make the argument that big tech isn't adhering to Section 230? There's plenty of reasons they're breaking the law, as is. Either you are a platform or a publisher,

and they're acting like publishers, simple as. Platform versus publisher has literally nothing to do with Section 230. That is something, I guess, some conservative made up at some point because he didn't understand the law. It's that simple. Section 230 says, what is it, online digital services are exempt from, are not to be held liable for the speech of users, and they are entitled to moderate without having that held against them.

It has nothing to do with publisher or platform. Completely meaningless. Quick point about 230, if I may. And 230, like antitrust and everything else, people need to understand that these are tools of leverage. So the threat to use antitrust to destroy Google or whatever, or the threat to use 230 to destroy any tech platform. These are tools of leverage which work both ways. And the fact that the other side has all the institutional power maybe it was one thing under the trump presidency when it looked like he might move forward on it in

a in a competent way but actually people are most scared of the antitrust stuff not the 230 stuff but the antitrust stuff coming from eliz Elizabeth Warren. That's what actually freaked out the tech companies, because you have a threat that's backed by institutional power, and so these things are neutral leverage tools, and they're only meaningful insofar as there's institutional power backing it up, and the left could use it just as easily to threaten that we're going to use these tools against you if you don't censor more. So I think we need to use all the tools available to us to go after big tech.

But I do think it's an important point that's lost in this conversation. This is not specific to a free speech agenda these are leveraged tools that can be used by anyone and um and big tech was far more afraid of elizabeth warren than anybody on the right and probably for good reason all right we got christian jim gochi and he says tim you say people are weak but you have to realize that public schools made them that way in school you get punished for defending yourself. I mean, come on, what else was going to happen? I don't think the schools made them weak. I think their parents made them weak. I had parents who weren't weak. So when I went to school, I was a smart aleck, to put it mildly.

Teachers would say something and I'd be like, no, shut up. What are you going to do about it? No, seriously, what are you going to do about it? I don't understand this this this mentality among people where they're like i'll get in trouble what does that mean like what are you afraid of i don't understand i genuinely do not understand are they going to is your teacher gonna punch you in the face no okay are they gonna tie are they gonna hog tie you and leave you on the floor no are they gonna take your lunch no they're going to say mean words to you i don't care they would tell my parents and then my parents would strip me of privileges, and I'd have to sit in my room alone with no television. That would be my punishment.

But why do you... For disobeying authority. So what would happen if you left your room? I would then lose more privileges. And then what does that mean? I would have no social life. I'd have to sit in my room. I'd get all the...

Hold on. We've already concluded... Or I'd be thrown out of the house at the age of 16, 15. Congratulations. So leave. I don't want to leave. That's the point. Yes.

See? That's it. That's weakness. I had an incredibly valuable upbringing that I was utilizing. See, when I was 14, I was absolutely willing to go sleep in the alley. I was like, I don't care. I'll do what I want. I was like, I'm strong enough and confident enough in myself that if you tell me I can't

go out, I can go out anyway. And then what happens? I always tell this to my friend when I was like 14, I was like, you want to go skate? I can't, I'm grounded. What does that mean? It means I can't go outside. And I was like, what happens if you go outside? I'll get grounded even longer. No, no, we've already established you can physically go outside in this case. What does grounding you do if you can defy it? Well, my parents will just keep grounding me. Okay. we've established that when they ground you, nothing happens. You can still go outside. So what are you arguing? That was me when

I was a little kid. Now, by all means, I certainly respect good parents and think kids should honor and obey their parents. My point is more people are just more attached to the comfort and the luxury than the reality. That's the American way right now, it seems like.

It is. The American way used to be, I'm going to land this boat on a rock and then walk out into the woods and then cross my fingers. I mean, granted, these people were hard workers. They were looking for freedom, and they were willing to take that risk. Nobody's willing to take that risk anymore. Right. When there's another kind of related point, though,

is that the whole trope that people are more scared of being naked in front of an audience or being embarrassed in front of an audience than death. And that shows that in many people, a social death is more terrifying than a physical death. And that's why we're in this position where we'd rather literally have our entire country destroyed and the dreams of our posterity shattered rather than being called racist. That's the underlying meaning to that. And it's related to the fact that people are more terrified of being quote-unquote naked in in public or being shamed in public um than physical death we'd rather give up our entire country our history and our future than

being called racist and it's a contemptible thing but it is a feature of human nature that's leveraged by our corrupt ruling class. Yeah, once you get naked in public, that's not what I mean. But once you psychologically bare yourself, it's very freeing. I hope more people start doing that. It's actually very easy and very freeing. All right. Kyle Miller says, Tim, what are you going to do when the collectivists come to your house, take your chickens and redistribute them? How dare they?

You're assuming they will get to my house. You are assuming they will get to my chickens. And you are assuming they will be able to redistribute them. Let me just say when the collectivists come to my house, I have a right to self-defense if they're trying to attack my property. Now, within reason, of course course stealing chickens is not a death worthy trespass but we do have legal means of protecting the property they don't involve you know seriously physical harm and i think we'll be okay but let's just say they breach the perimeter and they're running i will release those chickens into the wild before i let people steal them maybe they'll

survive they got a rooster he's tough there's a lot he won't shut up i heard him wow he won't shut up now i've seen i've seen roosters and they i had rooster before's tough there's loud he won't shut up i heard him wow he won't shut up now i've seen i've seen roosters and they i had rooster before crow a couple times a day this guy crows literally for like 20 minutes straight and i'm like dude's gonna cough up a lung or something but uh yeah i don't i don't think that'll that'll happen so all right daniel morella says i would like to dedicate this super chat to a gie on WoW who passed away this week. She was only 28. I didn't know her very long,

but there were those who knew her for years. May the light be with you, Eerie, always. Internet video games bringing us together. That's right, man. I hung out with more Chinese people playing World of Warcraft than anywhere else. All right. Wolfgang Teideberg says, love the show.

One, is there a password change on your website? I'm a $10 member and appreciate what you do. And two, I mailed a letter to you on Sunday with a resume. With it, you are all awesome. There is. If you just try and log in on the website, there's a simple password reset function like any other website. Track Media Only says, power unused isn't power republicans had the power but never used it nor secured it then add many didn't so much uh fight back as kept saying if you cross

this line and kept moving the line back every time they crossed it then add many i'm not sure what you remember that right power is energy transfer it's like the the amount of energy transferred within a certain amount of time so if you're not using the energy if you're not transferring the energy then it's just potential energy storage and there is no power so that's a good point power unused is not power jackal says ten dollar member here are y'all gonna have a gaming tech news on your website upper echelon gamers on youtube does a really does really good work exposing the underbelly of gaming and would be a great guest yes we are we're actually developing a video game it looks very very fun and cool and i posted a little uh video of it so it's uh uh effectively a freedom tunes

video game because the freedom tunes does is the art style that we're using and so uh yeah yeah yeah it's going to be a fun game i'm not going to say too much about it, but it's been in the works for quite some time, and we will have our very own video game. Whoa, this is crazy. Thinking Out Loud says, Cali is shaking while watching you. Multiple earthquakes this afternoon, and most recently a 5.9 near the CA-Nevada border. Is it time for what, the San Andreas Fault to finally go?

Yes, finally do its job and kick California off into the ocean. It'll just break off and then go and then be its own country? I think they're saying it's going to slide down. So it'll be like off the west coast of Mexico one day. Perfect. I think that's what it is, down, not up. Bye. Yeah, great.

Good for them. That's if tectonic plates are real, which I don't know if they are. Okay, yeah. I think they're real. Theory, theory, theory. I'm pretty sure they're real. All right. Let's see what we got here.

Fubidoo says, love your work, Darren. Thanks for doing what you do. Tell Tim to get Adam Townsend on to talk. Would be a great conversation, I think. Townsend. Agree. Great guy. All right.

Peter Watkins says, talking about China, for some reason I can't post the symbols for communist bandit and 50 cent party in the chat again is that a thing i don't know i don't know don't i remember when that happened people were laughing about it communist bandit okay let's see we got jesse kime says tim a youtuber TechHut recently put out a video about a custom phone firmware called Load. They basically turn trackers off, but you can see track requests

in two weeks of use. He had 67,000. Doesn't Brave do that? The Brave browser shows you all of the attempts at tracking you and just piles them up and there's millions of them. Nevitz says, Hey Tim, I had wrote you a while back about if you would be consider publishing graphic novels i've been writing one for a while and would

love to see if you'd be interested in it yes um i don't know if we're at the position where we can actually accept pitches for graphic novels for the most part though so we got a lot on our plate but we want to get to that point where we absolutely will be publishing graphic novels and just have all kinds of media and have a lot of fun all right christopher noel says bioweapons and ai are the new nukes the power of nukes rests in the threat of use only ussr wanted to save cuba and capitalize on the pr what pr is china gaining from the what pr is China gaining from the threat of using its nukes? What is the U.S. gaining in PR for threatening

with nuke retaliation? More money? Fear among their populations? Black Rock Beacon says, everyone assumes that big tech censored footage from January 6th so they could gaslight us about how bad it was. Probably true. But very likely also to keep the identity state actors hidden.

The internet is too good at finding people. Oh yeah. Yeah, they will find everybody. Very true. Okay, let's see. We got... Yeah, yeah.

Okay, we'll scroll down to find some... A lot of things. A lot of superchats I can't say, you know. But hey, it is what it is. Too spicy. Thank you, guys. Okay.

Fuzzy Cottonball says, crap is being taught by racial equity teachers against real data and statistics. That's critical race applied principles. Crap is being taught by... Okay, I'm not going to say that. Can't read that. Welcome to communist YouTube. Where you can't speak out and you can to say that. Can't read that. Welcome to communist YouTube

where you can't speak out and you can't say things. That's pretty clever. Nathan O'Connell says, defeat to me looks like Mao's cultural revolution. Yep. There's different ways you can be defeated. One is by being captured and enslaved. One is by being murdered.

One is by winning and then installing a worse government yourself so zachary bendixon says remember when kellyanne conway quit as trump white house advisor for her family after daughter claudia pushed for emancipation because she hated her mom like you guys were talking about yep yeah she's got a bad dad that guy's's awful. I think he's a bad, bad guy. Who's that? Claudia Conway's dad, George. Just an awful, all around. Okay.

Let's see. We got a lot of stuff about Gina. Gina. Gina. Positive. Oh, it just jumped on us. No, the super jump. The super jump.

Yep. Now I've got to try and figure out where we are again. All right. So a lot of people... This is a bunch of comments. They're saying you're a Chai Com simp. Well, um... Okay.

All right. The Plague Doctor says, I'm old, about 65% to 70% 70 dead i've never looked up to anyone or had a hero until i found your channel now all of you are my heroes keep up the good work hey man really appreciate it that's rock and roll laura says ian is giving serious austin powers vibes yeah baby yeah baby hey hey potato masher says in the realistic standpoint ccp is the enemy straightforward as that is basically this guy's statement we also we also will need to confront the problem of tyranny

occurring at home before we confront the ccp if the country and its people choose to do so perhaps that is true that sounds like a fair analysis all right yuri bezmanov says please watch or re-watch yuri bezmanov xkgb he explains everything binge it also it could be china it also could just be us i think uh one of the memes of the show is that we we get super chat multiple super chats every single day for the past year of have you guys watched yuri bezmanov's video yet it's like yes we have probably they recommended it um a couple times a night. So we're looking at several hundred recommendations, plus all the emails we get.

Maybe about a thousand emails telling us to watch it. It's weird to me. I want to be completely honest, and I mean no disrespect to the people who are sending things in, but it's weird that people would assume we didn't know about that. I don't think we've ever really talked about it. We've talked about it a ton. It was Yuri Besmanov was a Russian KGB, ex-KGB, and he came out and did an hour-long interview

just basically explaining the long war propaganda. Talking about demoralization. And how it's like a 20-year process or something. Yeah. And that it got started in 2001 or something. I don't know. We're far along in the process. Let's see.

Pigpin says, Stock up on MREs and ammo if you have weapons people mres don't last that long i'm not a fan i mean they're they're great because you can just crack them open it's got the what's got like iron oxide powder or like the iron no i'm sorry it's got the iron powder and then you pour the water in you get iron oxide it heats up and it cooks your food sort of it warms your food but they don't they only last a couple years you want to get those food bins that last 30 years unless you're going to be traveling last a couple years. You want to get those food bins that last 30 years, unless you're going to be traveling for a couple years. Right, if you're getting wet, and they're lightweight,

and Marines are lightweight. Mason Wolfie says, Would like to hear your thoughts on the encroachment of SJW and woke ideology in the entertainment sphere, like D&D, video games, and TV shows. Also, Gen Con banned Gary Gygax's son. Isn't D&D getting rid of races? Oh, man.

They're getting rid of the bonuses that races would have given you. So being a half-orc, you would have plus to your strength. Being a dwarf, you have a stronger constitution. But now they're just all equal. You can have a really intelligent half-orc, a really brawny elf. It just doesn't make sense to me. So dwarves can be 6'5 archers

now and thin? You know they can, Tim. With big Scottish beards? 6'5? I don't know. I don't know, can't big scottish beards six five i don't know i don't know because that maybe would make you run faster which dwarves are slower because they're shorter no no they got rid of those yeah they're basically they're getting rid of the the versatility or the diversity of of race which is like racist in and of itself it's very i went to uh thailand and i was at chinese new year celebration and I could see over everyone's head. Like I myself am part Asian.

I don't think it's racist to point out that I have I am slightly taller because the average height in these countries is lower. Sometimes reality bypasses racism. I love discussing the genetic differences of humans and whatever races or species or whatever we are. All right. let's see commander 232 says as someone who served in the army during the obama administration i have no faith in the heads at the pentagon i say this with a heavy heart because it's what i fought to prevent but these fools need to realize that if they continue to push at the current rate there will be bloodshed i'm not so convinced you know there was there was a viral video where it was a dad talking about masks and lockdowns and stuff and his kids and he was like you are pushing regular

people to the limit you do not want to see what will happen if you do and i'm like this guy's not gonna do anything like it's it's at the time i'm like wow look at these guys they're mad now i'm very much just like oh come on you know it's been it's been a year you didn't do anything, it's been a year. You didn't do anything. It's all talk. Look what's happened with this unmentionable disease and the reaction to the disease. People haven't done anything. And so I think another, just to throw in another controversial take in there, I think the whole Second Amendment thing is overblown and largely a cope. I think all that matters is the information war. People can kind of cling to the Second Amendment, to use the controversial Obama phrase, and in some contexts it's useful, like localized anarchy.

That's definitely useful, home defense. But in any kind of larger political context, it is a cope. And you see that with how far people can be pushed. And really all that matters, what matters is the mind. What matters is organizational capacity, command of language, control of the infrastructure of communication. It's all that matters. And our people being fed. Everything else is a cope all right brian

knowles says tim i see your argument about china being worse welding doors shut still the u.s destroyed many americans lives shuttered business stores arrested churchgoers unconstitutional lockdowns beatings and solitary for one six you know yeah the u.s government has a lot of really really awful bad things um if i say that china is bad because they're doing these things they're authoritarian and they suck doesn't mean the u.s is good we complain about the u.s and joe biden and and the federal government all the time so what do you do man geez just a bunch of authoritarians around every corner who just want to lie cheat and steal and a bunch of lazy people who let them do it bummer kf says if i was a billionaire i would use all my money to post

memes on billboards on highways all across the country you don't need to be a billionaire for that it's actually really cheap people don't realize that billboards don't cost that much money yeah they're not very uh they don't give you much of a return on on expenditure relative to like a youtube banner or something like that right yeah advertising no it's probably more effective if it's so controversial that they have to take it down, but then they do news reports on it. Yeah, that's what Ryan Holiday did.

Sort of. You know the story with Ryan Holiday? No. He bought a billboard. He was working on the Tucker Max guy's book, I think. Actually, it was a movie, I think. So he bought a billboard. That's a blast from the past.

He's from my alma mater. So he buys a billboard. Then he a blast from the past. He's from my alma mater. So he buys a billboard. Then he goes and vandalizes it himself. Interesting. Then the next day calls a radio station saying, hey, this billboard's been vandalized. What happened? And it became a news story like, oh, geez, you know, feminists are mad. And then I guess he organized the protests so that they would protest and come and complain about the movie to generate press for the movie. It was brilliant

s morrow says voldemort is evidence the feds are controlling big techs that's right we can't say he who must not be named on youtube even to this day otherwise we will get insta banned yep there is there is a name you can't say tucker carlson's grandson says stewart rose was a frequent guest on the alex jones show leading up to one six like weekly is alex jones an asset of the national security state i don't know about all that don't think so question i don't know dev says hi tim a month ago you said you were looking for people to hire i have experience on of tv production at a cable access station and experience as a video editor and animator do you by any chance have any job openings?

We have a whole bunch, but we're in, it's very difficult. We're expanding. I got all these spinning plates, and so we're inundated with all these resumes, and we're trying to go through them, but you're always welcome to submit to jobs

at timcast.com. I think we're going to be at like 25 employees in the next week or next two weeks. It's a spike. Yeah, we we're going to be at like 25 employees in the next week or next two weeks. It's a spike. Yeah, we're probably going to be at 50 within a year or even six months.

Just growing, growing, growing like crazy because the more people sign up, the more budget we have to hire more people so we just keep going. I love it.

I'm not going to buy a Ferrari. I'm just going to hire people. The more people sign up, the more shows we do, the more content we produce. That's all it really is. Taking over. All right. Tony 420 Tokbowl says, sign up the more shows we do the more content we produce it's all really is taking over all right tony 420 tokbowl says hey tim i do hvac and our supply house told me today that it's going to be

18 weeks until we can get flex duct which we use all the time great reset oh crazy wow km says tim i'm a 16 year old who is sick of rules what are three items I should take with me when I leave my parents thanks I'm advanced I wouldn't I wouldn't leave I know I made the point about defying your parents like with grounding but my point wasn't to leave your family my point was that understanding what the consequences are of other people. Let me try and simplify this. When your school is saying things about all these stupid rules and they're trying to make, and people say they're making people weak. I say, no, I think the parents are making them weak by not teaching them to stand up for what they believe in, to stand firm. A child shouldn't want to leave their family.

The kid should want to go to their parents for support so i'll say this if you really want to leave you need to talk to your parents because that shouldn't be happening but i think we got a lot of bad parents that's just that's just the reality you can't just send your kids off to a government institution to be educated and think that they're going to become good people because you're having strangers teach your kids christopher says quit telling kids to disrespect their parents people like you are the exact reason why quick kids are going to come home and tell their parents they hate them i'm not saying to disrespect their parents i'm saying a parent telling you you're grounded doesn't do anything

it's literally meaningless is ineffective parenting in my opinion you should like this doesn't make sense i am i think about it like the kid needing to go to the dad and be like here's the problem i'm having i need help and the dad being like i got you the kid coming back and saying i got into trouble this happened dad being like okay let's figure it out yeah but when the problem is like i don't want to do homework or go to class and they're like well you have to that's not what my dad said he said okay then don't yeah that was a little different for me right no you gotta conform bro or you're gonna get in trouble you're going to become a deadbeat on waste on society, so do what they tell you. Exactly my point.

That's not teaching your children strength. They taught me strength in other ways, but man, they made me bad. They really impressed authority upon me. I was like seven years old, and I was like, I don't want to go to school. My dad goes, okay, I'll go to school. And I went, what? Are you lucky? And he was like, don't go.

And I was like, what do you mean? He's like, yeah, go ahead. Stay home. And I was like, went are you lucky and he was like don't go and i was like what do you mean like yeah go ahead stay home and i was like what are you doing that's beast and he's like if you don't want to be there and i was like oh and i grabbed my backpack and i walked out the door and went to school he was like hey i told you not to go don't look at me but i couldn't i was complaining it was brilliant i was complaining but i knew i had to to do it and so he was like okay fine don't what happens like what was your discipline like growing up i would say it's entirely reasonable fairly lax did you get grounded a lot no no i was very self-directed autodidact oh nice yeah

yeah that's basically what i did i didn't want to be in school. Alright, let's see. Zach Robinson says, Tim, have you seen Dr. Shiva's lawsuit on our government working directly with Twitter to censor people? His lawsuit is one of the few that was seeded and not written in crayon. I would love to see you pick his mind on his grassroots movement slash lawsuit. Interesting!

That's not written in crayon. That's a good one. That's good. I'm glad. A lot of these lawsuits are written in korean unfortunately j to the to j to the on says tim pool is savage assuming they can get to my house cox shotgun i'm so proud we have a very long path to get to this house yeah we're surrounded by wilderness part of that wilderness is owned by apparently some guy who's very much like get off my property and then there's state property and then there's a really really long path regardless of where you're coming from and we've got security because we're not crazy people that's it yeah so no i don't think they'd make it all right let's see we got aaron fre says, shout out to Ian for going Persian with the Harry V-neck.

I am speechless. Like the book from Michael Knowles. I believe you can get that book on. Number one. Yeah. Hit number one on Amazon. Michael Knowles. Didn't Michael say something that like if it made it to number one, it would be because

of us? Yes, he did. I get all the credit. Legally binding. We'll be looking for that royalty uh royalty check we'll be in touch let's just we should send a gag invoice to the daily wire like some obscene number 60 grand crazy crazy residual yeah all right nicholas canada says please have different throw on your show You need a guy to talk about anarchist ideas. Bro, we have Michael Malice on all the time. And Luke.

Luke Rutkowski. I read a chapter in Michael Malice's book for the audio book. Yeah, Proudhon, I think his name is. Michael Malice's book. Yeah, it was a collection of anarchist essays. His handbook. Yep. That's a good one.

404 Droid says graph Graphene Oxide, Ian? You like it? That's when the oxidation of graphene, when you have carbon and oxygen, it kind of is found in its natural state. You'll find it as graphene oxide. So it's the impure. Yeah, it's like the rusted version.

Scary Perry says, Great show, but one more show without Luke, and I'm going to puke. No, no. Luke and puke don't rhyme. don't close enough luke puke his name's not liuk liuk liuk right it's not puke elisha uh elisha z del val says yo tim have you have you tried having peter schiff on i feel like the bitcoin debate between you and him would be fire,

plus Ian could learn more about the Fed. I believe that's in the works. I just don't know. I think he's a busy guy. He's a very busy gentleman. Sorry, guys. We're working on it, though. Yeah, there's a lot of people we're working on.

Oh, my gosh. You just got to whittle him down and be like, come on the show. Dirt. All right. All right, let's see what we got here. Dave Laro says, Tim, youtube is your parent now you're always saying i might be in trouble now oh absolutely you but but i'll tell you this instead of just walking away from youtube facebook or whatever i'm like okay i'll just use the

existing platforms to build my own thing right i'll make timcast.com until we can't so how about this go to timcast.com become a member we're gonna have a bonus segment coming up and we're gonna be saying things that we aren't allowed to say on YouTube, which is why Darren had to stop himself short of saying, I don't have no idea what he was going to say. But also you can smash the Like button, subscribe to this channel. You can follow us at TimCastIRL on Facebook and Instagram. You can follow me at TimCast.

Did you want to shout out your website or anything else? Yeah, I'll shout out my website, Revolver.News. Go to the exclusives. You can read our very detailed reports on possible federal foreknowledge in 1.6. The story that basically shaped the national narrative. So everyone, go to revolver.news.

Read those stories and share them. Also, I'm on Twitter at DarrenJBeattie. Yeah, you can follow me also at iancrossland.net and at iancrossland on social media. And, you can follow me also at IanCrossland.net and at Ian Crossland on social media. And you guys may follow me on Twitter at Sour Patch Lids as I attempt to have more

followers than Sour Patch Kids, and I am getting closer, so thank you all for helping. We will see you all over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.