Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #479 - US Cancels ICBM Test Launch Amid Warnings Of Nuclear War w/Maajid Nawaz

Episode Date: March 3, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia join commentator and author Maajid Nawaz to discuss America's choice not to test missiles in an effort to de-escalate tensions with Russia, the Ukrainian journalist who turned out to be a WEF activist, and the modern propaganda warfare we can see taking place on Twitter and other social media platforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States is canceling a routine intercontinental ballistic missile test because they're actually concerned about escalation of nuclear war. I think this shows the U.S. is taking it seriously, and I think it's good news. I think it shows that there is an interest in preventing it. Right now we're hearing that Russia is, well, their foreign minister has said World War III will be nuclear. It will be devastating, effectively telling NATO, if you interfere in Ukraine with what's going on, you're going to start World War III will be nuclear. It will be devastating, effectively telling NATO, if you interfere in Ukraine with what's going on, you're going to start World War III. It's

going to be nuclear. And I think the one thing we should all be focusing on is whatever we can to make sure something like that doesn't happen. I don't believe in mutually assured destruction, though, and we'll get into that. I do think a nuclear war would be devastating, but I don't think it would be like the movies. So I will just stress it is good news is happening. We have a bunch of really crazy news, though, coming out of what's happening with Ukraine. EA Sports is going to be removing Russian teams from video games. The Iron Man is banning Russian and Belarusian athletes. It's just civilians.

They're talking about shutting. There was a call, I guess, someone in Ukraine wants Russia to be cut off from the Internet. You know, everybody needs to calm down a little bit. Certainly, I think Russia's invasion is wrong. a call i guess uh someone in ukraine wants russia to be cut off from the internet you know everybody needs to calm down a little bit certainly i think russia's invasion is wrong they're the aggressors but let's try and de-escalate things that's why i wanted to leave with this story about the u.s canceling this minute man 3 icbm test because i think it's i think it's a good gesture so far it's just a test i don't think it's it means means a whole lot, but I want to have some good news. I don't want to just be like the apocalypse, the world is ending. So we're going to talk about this.

And then we got something that I think is absolutely fascinating. Chile has passed an anti-discrimination bill for employment where you cannot discriminate against someone who has altered their genetic material or have been mutated. Now that is strange. and I think it'll be interesting to talk about, especially in the context of the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum, and just a lot of what's been going on with these strange international dealings. Joining us to discuss all of this is Majid Nawaz. Hey, it's Majid. Majid.

So who are you? What are you doing? Good to be here. I'm here to have a great conversation with all you guys. I am based in the UK. For your viewers and listeners, I have a... Up until recently, I used to have a show in the UK on the largest commercial radio group. That ended in some controversy, and I'll be setting up soon my own show

to stand on my own feet and hopefully broadcast again from the uk with just a quieter studio actually looking forward to it you should come on my show when we're ready yeah yeah yeah absolutely you were on lbc right i was yeah what was london broadcasting is leading britain's conversation oh no i'm way off yeah it started no you're right it started as london London's, I think it was London's biggest conversation back in the old days. But then it very soon went national and then obviously via online broadcast went global. And it was, we had a, I had a weekend show. It was doing quite well.

But my views on opposing mandates, COVID mandates, I call them. And calling out Klaus Schwab. Yeah, yeah. They led to some difficulties and controversy that'll be interesting to talk about so we'll definitely get into that i think that uh absolutely has a role to play in um it plays a role in in the conflict you were mentioning something that we'll get into that this journalist who is saying world war three has started and calling on boris johnson to to start you know trigger no-fly zone you said that she was a young

global leader for the world economic forum yeah mean, do you want me to... We can pull that up, actually. We'll pull it up. Just as a preview, I'll mention that. So we'll get into all that stuff. That was in Poland. Yes, in Warsaw. It's a crazy, crazy story.

I didn't know that you brought it up. So this is going to be a fascinating conversation. And so thanks for coming. We also have Love Doctor. Is that what you want me to say? Love Doctor Coughlin, as they call me, the host of Shimcast IRL. You better introduce me as the Love Doctor. I'm like, what? We talked about this before. I'm Love Doctor C Is that what you want me to say? Love Doctor Coghlan, as they call me, host of Shimcast IRL. You better introduce me as the Love Doctor. I'm like, what?

We talked about this before. I'm Love Doctor Coghlan. People ask advice from me. You were going to give me a show on your network. Oh, yeah, that's right. I support it. Tim has a very selective memory here. Yeah, sure.

But I am Seamus Coghlan, Love Doctor Coghlan, host of Shimcast, creator of Freedom Tunes. I'm wearing a suit because it is Ash Wednesday and I was at Mass. And as you know, when I wear a suit, I take Ash Wednesday and I was at Mass. And as you know, when I wear a suit, I take over the show. That's true. So this is Shimcast. I'm very glad you guys,

Seamus and Majid, you guys Majid. Is it Majid or Majid? Both work. One is, Majid is the Urdu pronunciation and Majid is the Arabic pronunciation. What was the first word?

Majid and Majid. Is the what pronunciation, the O-2? Urdu. Urdu. Yeah, which is the language in Pakistan. And Hindi and Hindi

is the same language, but different script. Do you have a preference? Majid works because that's, yeah, in the UK, that's pretty much from school age. Okay. I'm glad you're here. You know, it's Ash Wednesday, like you said, and I'm big on like bringing Islam and Christianity together. Maybe we'll do that today.

Sure. Or at least work towards it. We're going to fix that, man. You think we're going to convert all of them to Christianity? It's one step at a time, baby. The journey is the destination. We're going to fix that, man. You think we're going to convert all of them to Christianity? It's one step at a time, baby. The journey is the destination. We'll solve that one. It's like 50 years later

and there's like some kids in school and they're like, well, the unification happened when Seamus Coghlan and Richard Noir had a conversation.

All truths have been revealed. We got Lydia Breslin. Yes, I'm also here very excited for, I think this is our first guest from the UK. Hopefully we'll bring more. But I've been on before with the Tim that's right paul show that was before this show right yeah yeah so i still i still happen to that show so that's i still do it um i just don't do

interviews how many shows do you have man well i have three youtube channels yeah and um so two of them are very similar it's like me monologuing. But the YouTube.com slash Timcast is talking about the biggest story of the day or whatever. And then YouTube.com slash Timcast News is kind of like morning news and then some culture thing I've been talking about. What did I come with you on? The Tim Pool, my original YouTube channel. Right. So I interviewed you on there. Oh, gee.

And basically what happens is I decided to move interviews to a different format. Yeah. Because it was like it didn't work if people like listening to just like me straight talking about news yeah very different from a conversation so we kind of split them off yeah but uh yeah yeah i interviewed you out and i'm pretty sure it was california i can't remember i remember meeting you we were in a room somewhere you had a little thing recording i think it was london man i think so but there's a while back though it was a few years ago is it still online? Oh, yeah.

You can probably find it. Right on. Yeah, you were talking about the regressive left. Yeah, that was early days, man, before that phrase became popularized. Somebody was like, you got to talk to Majid. He coined the term, regressive left. Yeah, you know what? It was before.

So I had this chat with Sam Harris, and it eventually became this book that he and I co-authored together, Islam and the Future of Tolerance. And I used it in that conversation with him, and the phrase blew up. But actually, it had already been used in my autobiography, Radical, which I think was 2012. I was very upset with the left because they had adopted this kind of relative approach to morality that I found was… Seeds of tyranny. Yeah, precisely. Well, we'll get into that too. So before we get started, head over to TimCast. Yeah, precisely. Well, we'll get into that too. So before we get started,

head over to timcast.com, become a member, help support our work. We're going to have an absolutely fascinating members-only segment. So if you go to timcast.com, you will get access to segments

from the Timcast IRL podcast, which go up around 11 p.m. Monday through Thursday. We didn't have one yesterday because it was a State of the Union and, you know, Lauren got drunk. It was great.

On air? Yeah. What was that? On air. Yeah. We were drinking every time Biden did something, you know, like predictable. She was just drinking the whole time. She was just drinking the whole time. But it was funny when Biden said we got to secure our borders. She just yells, based, laughing.

Like, I can't believe Biden would say that. It was fun. But we went long and we didn't have a member segment. We're going to have one tonight. It's going to be really fascinating. So you're not, don't miss it. As a member, you're helping keep all of our journalists employed and you're helping us expand the website and things have been going pretty well. Thanks to all of you who are supporting our work. So don't forget to also smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show wherever you can and take the URL posted on Facebook, Twitter, whatever you can do if you want to help out, spread the word. And then let's get into this first story,

which I think is it's, it's small, but I think we got some good news here. The wall street journal reports us cancels ICBM test, a test launch amid Ukraine tensions. The move follows Putin's threat to increase readiness of Russia's nuclear forces. They say the Biden administration has canceled a routine test launch of an Air Force Minuteman 3 missile to avoid escalating nuclear tensions with Russia, U.S. officials said Wednesday. The Air Force had planned to conduct the test launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the early hours of Thursday, March 3rd. And Wednesday, however, the administration decided to postpone the test launch amid tensions

with Kremlin over Ukraine. So the news that was coming out is that the foreign minister in Russia said World War III will be nuclear. It will be devastating. Basically, some have called it a thin, thinly veiled threat to NATO. You screw with us, we drop bombs. Others have said it's kind of just a truth that it will come to nuclear war and that he's not trying to say, you know, we'll blow you up. But I see this as maybe not the most important or impactful thing in the world. But I think it shows the U.S. is not willing to push to push to bring us to that conflict, if even for just something as small as a routine test. Right. So. But what do you what do you think?

Do you think there's a real prospect for uh escalation outside of ukraine well there is there is a danger of escalation if you look to what some of the politicians are are pushing there you you look at some of the voices and how they've been talking about this war and it's worrying i don't think it's going to happen but i do worry about some of these voices it's interesting if you notice a pattern right the same voices that wanted to uh to impose covid mandates on everybody else to protect themselves are the same voices that would want to send our sons and relatives to war to protect themselves yep well i'll tell you i got a i got some applications for the army for everybody who's in favor of u.s intervention by all means sign on up and head on over and they won't appreciate

of course they'd rather we go they don't want to go they'd rather we go and and and serve their aims and their purposes we're still i think they'd rather your children go exactly horrifying yeah and that's how it's always been though you know every you're still fighting age though tim me uh i'm 35 i'm gonna be 36 in seven days still fighting age i suppose? I'm 35 I'm going to be 36 in 7 days I suppose He's going to start walking around with a cane I will brag My resting heart rate? 48

Alright well you just got drafted buddy Good job I've been I got this health app Blood pressure has improved dramatically I've been exercising You're a super soldier is what you're saying i'm just like i don't want to fight in the war but i would be the best soldier i wouldn't by

myself this is i'm just it's like i feel like it's a great accomplishment for myself to be getting healthy you know i feel like everybody should do that absolutely i'm just gonna brag about it well if the military is watching i'm just in horrible shape there's no shameless shameless feet are so flat that means as feet ever. Yeah, exactly. I mean, I can say that's good news. I'm happy they're doing this because it is good to deescalate. But some of the rhetoric, I mean, we had the mayor of London talk about, look, you know, if there is a nuclear attack on London, we're ready. That kind of rhetoric is just unnecessary, I think, considering what's going on and what's going on is worrying.

I mean, look, Putin invaded a country, right? Nobody can countenance or condone the invasion of any country. I just find it strange that the voices that some of the voices that till this day don't accept it was wrong to invade Iraq or Afghanistan are now condemning Putin's invasion of a foreign country. I seem to think that as we're invading Iraq right now. It's a constant invasion. Well, we're still there. Yeah. We're occupying and invading that country on a daily basis by being there. It's not like it happened in the past.

It's happening right now. The thing is what I find amazing with this, and I think it's really interesting that I believe we're in... George Orwell in 1984 split the world up into four different blocks, right? Oceania, which was landing strip one, which is the UK, and then America and its sphere of influence, which includes what we call the five eyes. So Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Anglo-Saxon sphere.

The other block that Orwell used in 1984 was East Asia, and that just considered China in that area. And then he had Eurasia, right? Eurasia was Russia and Europe. And then there was the disputed territory, which if you think about today, it's very accurate. It was the Muslim majority lands that are the subject of the whims of the other three

and still disputed, right? So if you look at how Orwell divided the world, it's so curious to me today that when you look at these blocks emerging if you look at how Orwell divided the world, it's so curious to me today that when you look at these blocks emerging and you look at the current conflict, you can see a Eurasia, the Russian sphere of influence emerging. You can see post-Brexit Oceania emerging,

which is the Anglo-Saxon world. And you can see China already there with East Asia. And you can see that they are all fighting over the resources in the Middle East. It's very curious to see how accurate Orwell's vision of the world was. I wonder if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, like Jules Verne would draw the submarine in 1820

or whenever, well before they ever created them, and then, you know, art becomes reality. Yeah, very primitive submarines prior to that, actually. Yeah, very primitive ones. In fact, there were plans for submarines drawn up as early as, like, the late 1500s. Oh, interesting. Yeah. Da Vinci, for instance, would pen helicopters.

He would draw those well before they were ever invented. I wonder if Orwell created a fantasy realm that is now being created. Yeah, he got the date wrong. Yeah, sure did. 1984. We're in 2022. However, I do think it was more than a coincidence. He saw it coming.

The man served in wars abroad. He kind of had quite a strong grip on on world affairs but he was a man looking through a keyhole trying to see the entirety of a ballroom yeah and so if you look at brave new world i think we're seeing elements of that absolutely fahrenheit 451 prophetic and a v for vendetta even i mean there's a film yeah uh graphic and graphic yeah that's right yeah so uh graphic novel is very very different i've not read it but it was very different. But where I was going with this, though, is that we are unaware of how we are perceived in Oceania.

I'm going to use that phrase to refer to the Anglo-Saxon world today, just to continue with Orwell's kind of point there. We're unaware how we're perceived. So when we condemn, and we should condemn, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, what we don't realize is that the vast majority of the rest of the world the vast majority of humanity are laughing at us because we're still in iraq this we talked about earlier how valuable it is to know what the world is like before the internet if you know what the world is like before the invasion

of iraq you know that it's not normal and it's the bastardization of truth and justice and honesty and leadership and we've completely lost any moral high ground to talk about this and it's the bastardization of truth and justice and honesty and leadership and we've completely lost any moral high ground to talk about this and that's part of the problem that you know the media is whipping up such a frenzy over this and then i remember just two years ago i went on a five-day hunger strike because of the we guard genocide in china i remember that and the purpose was to get a hundred thousand signatures on a a petition because there's a parliamentary petition if you get a hundred thousand signatures on a petition because there's a parliamentary petition. If you get 100,000 signatures on that petition,

you force a debate in Parliament. Now, we got that 100,000 within five days, and then it went to Parliament, and then they voted unanimously on the fact that there was a genocide in China, but it was only a symbolic vote, which is why it got through. It would not have got through if it wasn't a symbolic vote. So you've got these talking heads, like the Mayor london and others like certain politicians warhawks

who are talking about the need to impose a no-fly zone over ukraine which would mean that we shoot down russian jets which is an act of war right so these idiots don't realize that you end up declaring war on russia if you do that those same voices were not only quiet about the genocide in China, the Uyghur genocide, but resisted any effort to hold China accountable for it. Yeah, exactly. Well, we had the Olympics there, and we still sent our athletes over. And what were you mentioning earlier, Tim, with the Russians, that we were pulling their athletes? Or can you refresh my mind? Yeah, so several organizations have banned Russian and Belarusianarusian athletes from competing like iron man did it yeah and uh there's a there's

a couple others triathlons the spirit of the olympics is that even if you're at war you send your best athletes you let them pass through your territory unhindered and then they all compete because it's the spirit of human competition is beyond warfare i just find it so out of touch and then there are these calls look again i'm gonna to have to reemphasize every time I say something on this topic. But again, Putin should not have gone into Ukraine. But he's not Hitler. And there are these people saying he's the new Hitler when you've got an active genocide going on in China. And the worst part of this is when you talk about Hitler and Nazism in Ukraine in 2014, there was a change of regime that we in the West

encouraged, the Maidan uprising that Putin would call a coup. Now, whatever word you want to use, there was regime change that we, we meaning our intelligence agencies, backed with full throttle, wholeheartedly, we backed that regime change because the government in Ukraine was pro-Russia. It pulled out of the affiliation with the EU. And we didn't like that. We wanted it to be pro-West. So we backed that regime changing. Who did we bring to power?

Nazis. Actual Nazis. You think Zelensky? No, no. He's not a Nazi. He's Jewish. But you've got this thing called the Azov Brigade. Yeah.

The battalion, right? Azov Battalion. They are an armed Nazi battalion. Now now the word nazi the problem is it's been so overused today that nobody really believes the word nazi or racist when it actually deserves to be used but let's just be very clear these guys have uh they are swastika raising actual neo-nazis and i mean that in the literal sense of the word and even the word literal is no longer literally yeah that's true it's literally been changed to mean something else we talked about this with lauren southern as well it is unbelievable right and and they are they are formally incorporated into the ukrainian national

guard we funded them by the way we when i say we funded them actually sent them money we trained them we funded them uh canada the, and the UK were involved in backing this battalion. And then they were incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard. And then once Putin attacked, the Ukrainian National Guard, from their official and formal and verified Twitter account, posted a video bragging that this was an Azov fighter dipping bullets in pig's lard saying that he was going to go and find the Muslims. It's like that urban legend, that apocryphal story. Are you familiar? No, which one?

There's an American general in the Middle East, you know, killed a bunch of Islamic soldiers, but kept one alive and put pig's blood on the corpses and said, go tell everyone what we did. But I believe that story is not true. Yeah, I don't think, but this is, this one is a video. No, right, right, right.

And the thing is. I'm saying it's probably, he probably saw that meme story on the internet. Maybe, but the thing is, let's put aside the emotional reaction that some people may have to that video, right? And consider it strategically. The mistake historically that Chamberlain made was to appease Nazism in Europe in the belief that they could be of use to defeat the Soviet Union.

So we know how that ended. What you've got at the moment is you've got a Nazi battalion as formally incorporated into the Ukrainian army in their military, and neo-Nazis from around the world are now travelling there to train with them. They are armed, and they are part of the Ukrainian armed forces. My question is, if they win, or if Ukraine is split to East and West, and they've got the river in the middle, if Putin takes, from the upper river, if Putin takes Eastern Ukraine,

and the Ukrainian regime that's there currently keeps the Western part, the Nazis that are serving in their national guard in their army who are pretty much the most powerful faction in terms of grassroots mobilization i mean guys there are videos of children's summer camps in ukraine making nazi salutes there's nazi summer camps they've had mass rallies these are actual proper organized nazis with swastikas with insignia and everything now imagine in whichever part they end up maintaining, they are now the government. So you've got an actual Nazi government

that we funded about. Sounds a lot like ISIS. Yeah, sounds like an easy target. And how did al-Qaeda get created? The CIA were funding what they... The Mujahideen. That's right, right? To defeat the Soviets.

Now, if it's not okay to... They don't learn, do they? No, it's the same war in Oregon. It's intentional. They did learn. No, Tim, here's the same war. It's intentional. They did learn. No, Tim, here's the thing. They do study history. It's just that World War II is the only thing that ever happened in all of history.

So anytime anything happens, we have to say, that guy is Hitler. And so, like you said, pointing to Putin and going, that guy is Hitler. I mean, I don't know. He's a tyrannical leader over Russia, and now he's imposing himself on ukrainians is there anyone in history who that just sounds like a little bit more like besides hitler yeah i mean he's an illiberal autocrat is the word to describe illiberal illiberal autocrat right he's a dictator who's not he's not really keen on elections but he's not hitler there's actual nazis we're funding and backing this sounds like the overthrow of the shah and in Iran when we put the Ayatollah in power.

And it was like a radical, well, from what I've learned, and maybe you can enlighten me, a radical Islamic regime in power because we wanted it to fight and destabilize the region. But then it ended up destabilizing the whole world. Ian, Ian, more modern. From my perspective. More modern. It's Syria. That was 79.

It's the same MO. And some people say, look, your country's been invaded. Everyone should fight. We don't care if they're Nazis. And my point is, look, every country has racists and every country has Nazis and every country has jihadist extremists. But if you organize them into a formal battalion, that's the equivalent. So the analogy is false there with saying every country has racists. The equivalent analogy is the U.S. Armed Forces having a formal KKK battalion with KKK flags as part of the army.

That's the analogy, right? It's shocking. If the U.S. did that, if the U.K. did that, people would be up in arms. But we're funding it in Ukraine. And how come many of these woke YouTubers and personalities who have no problem, in fact, monetize attacking Nazis are now very much in favor of our support of these groups in Ukraine. Right. So, listen, like, promoting a white man at work is deemed racist, but literally funding an actual Nazi armed battalion is fine.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they say. I'm not a fan of that ideology. Well, no, if they're going to say that, then I'm going to hold them to their word and say, so why is it wrong to fund ISIS in Syria and go and join them? We've got we've got UK media calling for British citizen volunteers to go and join the Foreign Legion in Ukraine and join these people. So hang on a minute. So when young Muslim men went to join ISIS in Syria, that's terrorism.

But you can go and join a Nazi brigade in Ukraine. It's because public perception. They look ISIS somehow managed to get, I think the famous image was like a Detroit plumbing company pickup truck in Syria or whatever. And everyone's like, how did they get this? How were these weapons being given to many of these rebel groups ultimately then becoming ISIS?

And it's because, I think it's fair to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, if the US wants to destabilize a region. They provide material support to insurgent groups or extremist groups who then create problems. Well, and so then that begs the question, what's going on in Ukraine, really? Like, why have we been funding armed Nazi battalions who have now been incorporated into the Ukrainian regime? What's going on? I feel like it wouldn't be out of the question.

And far be it from me, I'm not an expert. I think it's possible the country splits in half. So I spent some time during Maidan, I went to Ukraine and I got to meet people and talk to them. Everybody down there was pro-EU. They said getting access to the Schengen zone, getting access to the European Union means a better economy. And Russia wants them to join the Trade Federation, which is similar, but much weaker and smaller. And it was a bad deal for Ukrainians, not to mention a lot of people I talked to said, honestly, we're scared of what Russia would do if they're given power over us because we saw what happened last time they had power over us. Holodomor.

So many of these people, especially in Kiev, were very much like, rather be with Europe. Sorry. It seems like the U.S. has been using influence tactics, bribery, manipulation like we saw with Joe Biden. If you don't fire the prosecutor, you don't get the billion dollar guaranteed loans, which is criminal. And he admitted to it. It was influence tactics. But the bribes, the cash, the money, it works. Putin didn't have that.

Apparently, they didn't care enough. But like you mentioned, the regime change in 2014, the President Yanukovych was effectively ousted, fled the country, went to Russia. The new government comes in very pro-West. So Russia loses because of that protest. And now it seems his only option, it seems to be a last resort physical invasion. Well, why was that so important to him after he lost is really interesting. Most of Germany's gas comes through Ukraine. Yeah. And that's why he was building Nord Stream 2 to go through the Black Sea to bypass.

Because if you think about it. Sorry, the Baltic Sea. Yeah. If you think about it, he had the access through Ukraine. He loses that. And so he tries to build Nord Stream 2 to go straight to Germany. That gets thwarted. Now he's got a problem.

By Trump. Exactly. Right? Interesting, right? Right. Now he's got a problem that he's lost the gas going through Ukraine because the regime's changed. He can't build it through the sea. But he's the second largest oil producer in the world.

Now, if you want to understand, you know, in terms of if Americans want to understand how that feels, when Ukraine was lost, as in Putin lost Ukraine, it went into the American sphere of influence. You end up with calls for it to join NATO. And from 1997, the expansion of NATO eastwards has incorporated most of those countries. But Ukraine is right on the border with Russia. So if you go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you remember what it felt like for Kennedy to have those missiles pointed at America from Cuba just 100 or so miles away, Putin's got to a point where he's saying, you're building bases on my border, you're asking for NATO membership, and this is my backyard. Why could Ukraine not have stayed neutral?

That's the geopolitical conflict that's going on at the moment. I think that's part of it, but Latvia and Estonia are NATO members, and they're on the border with Russia as well. According to Scott Horton, who was just on Kennedy Nation, he was saying that it was Condoleezza Rice that got them into NATO and put long-range Tomahawk missile nuclear rockets. Yeah, but they didn't have the gas going through them. Exactly. So one of the things I've been saying is there's the belief that a lot of people believe in conspiracy theory. Vladimir Putin is fighting Klaus Schwab in the World Economic Forum. In the New World Order, you had that Ukrainian member of parliament who said that we're fighting for a New World Order. And so there are people who believe that there's this great global battle and Putin is defying it.

And I'm like, Putin just wants to make sure he's getting the proper resources in exchange for the oil he produces so that he can fund his country. I wonder, do you think he has some sort of issue with the World Economic Forum?

Well, he was on their website. He was a member. So I don't know if that holds up because he was a member himself and they've just taken his profile off the website. Oh, wow. When Switzerland... They just removed him.

Switzerland is no longer neutral. They finally declared non-neutrality in a war for the first time I've ever seen. And that's where the Bank of International Settlements is, which is the central bank of central banks. Yeah. Well, what I can say is that when you cancel Russia from SWIFT and Visa and MasterCard, what you are doing is precipitating the need for need for um for for russia to develop its own financial system now when you when you kick russia out of that uh that could lead to a run on russian banks and if there's a run on russian banks if germany as it is is dependent on russian gas that will have a knock-on effect on germany's economy and you could end up with weimar style uh hyperinflation that could lead to a in russia

in but not just russia outside of russia because germany relies on russian gas so energy prices spike we're already seeing that and that huge for gas out here yeah yeah so the huge spike in energy prices has an ocken effect to the point where stagflation uh really pretty much ends up destroying uh the currency so it could end up being, regardless of whether it's planned or not. I tend not to go into intentions. I just look at reality and describe it and say, this is what's happening. So you could end up with a scenario where, because of stagflation, the dollar as a global reserve currency comes under intense pressure.

And it's that moment that is used as an opportunity to switch over to central banking digital currencies well so so let me ask you what is the relevance of vladimir putin being kicked out of the removed from the world economic forum website i mean we're talking about financial currencies we're talking about the world economic forum it feels like i've got a bunch of points that seem like they're connected the world economic forum the international monetary fund the swift payment system russia payment system, Russia starting a war, then being booted. What's the connection here? I mean, was Russia involved

in the liberal economic order? Is he not involved in that? I don't think Putin is, but I think that this will be an opportunity for the introduction of, it potentially could be, I should say, for the introduction of central banking digital currencies,

which I describe as vouchers. it's it's if that's it it sounds like what putin is doing is going to help make that a reality yeah so it sounds like that makes it sound like it's one big plot well you don't need to see this is the thing we don't need to worry about intentions just to understand what the consequences of these actions are yeah yeah i agree and that's where people get stuck they get stuck on intentions and i'm like well it doesn't matter what putin intended if the consequences of kicking russia out of the swift system mean that you end up with this financial money supply division on the planet you then have got these blocks eurasia and oceania and you and And what that leads to is, if you can no longer trade with Russian banks,

when you're buying Russian gas in your Germany, and you can no longer buy from Russia because you can't pay them. Bitcoin. And already we see Bitcoin flooding into Ukraine to fund the opposition, right? Yep. Now, how do you control that? Because one thing we do know

is Bitcoin isn't in the interests of the banking establishment. So that's where you then... Or is it? Well, you tell me. I think what they would want to do is introduce central banking digital currencies. That's what they've told us they want. I think there's a good possibility. When you look at the prominence of Bitcoin over the past 10 years,

it would not be hard for a nation to gain enough control over the network to create faux centralization. A lot of people say, oh, that can't happen. I don't believe it. But what's the current market cap for Bitcoin? Do you know?

Is it 1 trillion? My guess is 2.1 trillion. Let's find out. No, it's going to be less than that, 1.9 trillion. You could have market manipulation, right? Yep. You can manipulate the market there. We absolutely do. China's been doing it like crazy. It's 1.93 trillion. 1.9 trillion. You could have market manipulation, right? Yep. You can manipulate the market there. We absolutely do.

China's been doing it like crazy. It's 1.93 trillion. 1.93 trillion. No, that's the global market cap of all crypto right now. Of all crypto. The Bitcoin market cap is 832 billion. 832 billion. So let's go back seven years.

The market cap of crypto was substantially less. The U.S. NATO countries could have easily bought in and controlled more than 51% of the Bitcoin network, which would give them control over how it works. Effectively, it's a little bit more complicated than that. I'm trying to simplify it. The fact the point is, it just requires immense managerial power. But from the early stages, we could see the true power of Bitcoin. I've long speculated and even told all of my crazy anarchists and libertarian friends. I'm like, what if you're buying into Bitcoin?

What if that's the global currency? It's public ledger. Anyone can track. The AI systems, their computers, they'll figure out what your address is in seconds. And there's nothing you can do to stop them. You know, I got to tell you, man, I have seen brilliant private investigatorial work from individuals. There's an individual who was doxed in the UK. He was posting on social media.

How did they find out who he was? They knew the sound of his voice. So they looked at the average. They took a bunch of his posts and found the average time of posting. And they said this shows the individual is in this region of the UK. They then looked for a person who fit key details,

background, age, interests, hobbies. A human being did all of that work. Imagine what a computer can do when you're doing transactions. They'll instantly know what part of the world you're in. From there, they break it down down they know what you're buying because they know what everyone else is buying the bitcoin ledger is going it is it is publicly trackable and when they talk about z cash and monero which are two cryptos which are supposedly secure we learned that the fbi was able

to track monero payments when they arrested that that woman crocodile of wall street lady yeah i i think there's i'm not, I'm a big fan of Bitcoin. So you're talking about the privacy concerns on the ledger, but what you still can't do is control the supply. I mean, you can manipulate the price. You can control the supply. Of Bitcoin. It's called the 51% attack.

If you control more than- No, I mean the overall amount of Bitcoin in the world. Once it's hit its maximum cap, right? You can't just print more Bitcoin once that's done. Right, right, right. Unlike fiat currency. But with a 51% attack, you can effectively do anything you want. Yeah. So if you control more than half of the nodes, then you basically tell the fork what to do.

Now, of course, if you go too hard, you'll create a hard fork and it'll split the the blockchain in half we've seen that happen on accident before so what i'm saying is i don't know if it's true a lot of people say no tim calm down this can never happen but if the u.s and western powers or even china and russia bought in very very early on and have maintained growth of their of their uh bitcoin nodes they could absolutely control more than half the network which gives them control of the entirety of the system so i think what you're describing is the um compared to what can be done with fiat money in a in a sovereign nation is probably a less worse case scenario than what we currently have with the control of the money supply that's for that's horrible what's going on right now. They can print $800 billion of fiat and then just buy all the Bitcoin.

Now, there's also concerns about quantum computing, being able to crack private keys, in which case the system is just a facade. That, though, could be met. So when we reach quantum power in that way and it's sustainable, I think you also end up with quantum encryption that can actually...

So the technology improves in its encryption capabilities, not just in its hacking capabilities. Exactly. Quantum resistance. Right, yeah. So the Bitcoin community, all the people involved, could choose to hard fork on purpose with new resilience and new technology. I will say this.

It is my personal opinion that Bitcoin will become a dominant global standard for exchange and store of value in some meaningful way. I've long thought that was the case. And that's why I've said, how do you know this is not the global currency? That's something they want. But I'll put it very simply. I've long said I believe one Bitcoin will become worth a million dollars, equivalent buying power. I believe we're on track for that. I don't know exactly when or how.

But I do believe that – and I've certainly bought my share of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies because I truly believe it. I'm not telling anybody what to do. I'm just saying what I've done. I believe there comes a time we're watching what's happening in Russia. Every incentive is being given to them to back their financial markets using Bitcoin as the facilitation mechanism. Yeah, that's the consequence of what's happening. Or a central bank token, which is worse than, well, it's different than a crypto because it's not on a blockchain. It's just a central bank.

They have it on a ledger, but it's a digital currency that they can track. It's less secure. That's a disaster. I know. Because I could tell you from there, this is what I'm worried about. Because I could say, right, you're not going to buy meat this week. You've had your quota. Which you can't, even if you can manipulate the bitcoin uh price if you control

51 what you can't do is say right you can't use the tiny bit of bitcoin that you own to buy that meat you have to buy bugs it depends on if they can gain control of the exchanges which they mostly can so uh if people are i'll put it way. They can ban your address from sending or receiving through certain exchanges. So they can say all of our financial institutions and mechanism, the companies that facilitate the exchange, we won't allow it. But the blockchain still exists, which means you could easily find someone who just says I'll do a direct address transfer outside of an exchange. Except they could do something like a centrally controlled economy could do something where if you have crypto, you have to buy NFTs as vouchers and then you use those NFTs for specific things. So you can only use those NFTs for food, for

liquor, for cars. The currency would need to be fungible, but they can control the system. It doesn't need to be unique tokens specifically. I think this is the... So we've got the Chancellor of Exchequer in the UK, Rishi Sunak, openly declaring this... As the leader of the G7, they're going to introduce central banking digital currencies, right?

And this is what I'm calling as vouchers. And so fiat money pretty much at some stage is going to come to an end. And what you've described as the potential dangers and pitfalls of Bitcoin specifically or crypto generally, I still think is a least worst case scenario when you can consider what can happen i agree with cbdc it sounds like i just want to say real quick um i'm i'm i'm sort of playing devil's advocate on the potential risks of bitcoin i genuinely think it's it's better it's i think it's fantastic and i think it's going to become a million dollars per bit it's good that you're doing it because it's like don't let a crisis go to waste and what's happening is the bankers are looking at Bitcoin as a crisis, and they're trying to make sure that they can turn it into an opportunity.

Just like Joe Biden encouraged us to do last night in his campaign speech. I didn't watch it. Yeah, they called it a State of the Union, but it was just a campaign speech. At the very end, he was like, and what, by the way, the State of the Union? The State of the Union is strong. The State of the Union is strong because the people are strong. Strong, strong, strong. And everyone's like, yeah, we're strong. And we're going to gonna end cancer you see that joke where they gotta watch it at the end of the day at the end he says go get him and everyone's like

what like what does that mean yeah who who's that and then he's inciting an insurrection someone that's what during the standing ovation wasn't it yeah and then someone uh someone i think from the daily wire said that was just the part that of prompter that Biden wasn't supposed to read. It was instructions to his handlers. Go get him. That's hilarious. We were debating if he said, when he was saying the Ukrainian people, at one point he said the Uranian people. He said Iranian.

The closest real word to the sound he made is Iranian, but it sounded like Uranian. So I was making fun of him like he's talking about Uranus. I think Uranus. That's how I say it. He said Iranian. Russia will never get the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. Never say never. But here's the important thing.

I want to talk back about him splitting the country. Why do we believe he meant to say Ukrainian? Who is the person who gets to decide what Joe Biden really meant? If Joe Biden, so he was meeting with the G7 and he said, you know, we got troops in Libya, we're going to be sending

military. He meant Syria. What would happen? If Joe Biden's in a Situation Room meeting and he's like, we got to send these weapons to the Iranian people. And then someone was like, Mr. President, are you sure? Yeah, we're going to send $30 billion, some fighter jets to the Iranian people.

And they'll go, whatever you say, sir, I'll make it happen. And then breaking news, Iran receives massive palliative cash from the U.S. government. Dude, it's not even a joke. But hold on. Imagine the alternative. Joe Biden says, we're going to send a pall but hold on imagine the alternative joe biden says we're gonna send a pallet of cash to the ukrainian people and someone goes he meant iranian people and then they decide for themselves exactly when they when it's hitting the fan it's wartime make

a decision now and he says the wrong word that's death but that's why it's so dangerous to have a president that effectively is is mentally impaired no and he actually no we were talking about the most polite way i've ever it's a very polite way of putting it, and we were sort of joking about this the other day. We were watching his State of the Union, poking fun at him. It is actually genuinely sad, the fact that we were all talking about this after the show. This is probably

the best speech he's given in his entire presidency, and he's slurring every single word. He sounds intoxicated. And that's as good as it gets i mean i remember when him when trump would give speeches and make such mistakes there would be viral videos exactly and they were never even close to as bad as biden's mistakes like biden's best and i'm not saying trump didn't have some gas but like biden's best day is what we saw yesterday and he sounded

drunk he really did i'm not trying to be mean and if anyone's going to come at me and say that that's really insensitive to say about the president of the united states you are acknowledging that he did sound like that oh that's a good point he did realistically now i want to just touch back on ukraine really quick so you think that he's going to try and i think i've been thinking almost every day he's going to split the country in half on that river yeah that reservoir what's the do you know what the name of the river is i can't figure it out which reservoir is referred as upper river but who knows but there's the east and the west right so the side that's on the russian side that's the east of that river will probably go to look i say probably let's hope there's no world war three

right so if look ultimately putin's gone in there now and he's not just going to leave that right he's gone in there for a reason for whatever reason so probably this is the the outcome that it will end on which is that you'd end up with a split ukraine and kiev like the kiev and rus i think that was the history of the russians was kiev and kiev and rus yeah and it's in his backyard right so you know bay of pigs i mean america's done all of this stuff iran contra affairra affair. I know. I want to speak out against it, but to sit in silence while my brethren are conquering and kicking doors in Iraq. I don't know if they're still doing that, but they were.

If our president is, as you described it, mentally impaired, can't speak straight, how is he going to prevent Russia from doing whatever it is Russia intends to do? Is it because someone else is in charge? But he's not going to. What has he done? I mean, look. Well, they canceled this ICBM test, which is in some ways good.

But that's not preventing Russia. That's just not escalating a conflict. Right. Which is good, by the way. I'm happy. But no one's going to stop what Putin's decided to do unless you want war with Putin. And this is the problem, that you've got an option right now. Putin went in and called everybody's bluff.

Now, either we engage directly with Russia, and that's World War III, which I don't think is a good idea, in particular because we don't have the moral high ground. You know, our own countries have gone and invaded countries. And when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, the last thing we expected was for for russia to attack us directly because we invaded iraq or afghanistan you know what narrative i really love yeah there's a story coming out where it said vladimir putin believed the invasion would last only 15 days and the

government would collapse and they would come in and it would be clean and i was like yeah yeah and and we thought we'd be greeted as liberators the same same narrative this is it it's just people are very very out of touch and they they i find it same the same narrative this is it it's just people are very very out of touch and they they i find it amazing how um there is now almost it's expected that we take a line on this that is uh this word jingoism right it's very jingoistic line that we're expected to take almost as if we must uh back direct action action against against russia so that question on on your point that question that the journalist put to um to boris johnson when he was in poland i say journalist it was somebody

purporting to be a journalist who stood well let's let's let's let's let's get into this yeah should i put it up so i have this here from the week yeah take a look at this story ukrainian journalist confronts boris johnson nato is afraid of World War III, but it has already started. This was a Ukrainian journalist, Darya Kalinik, who had fled Ukraine and was calling on the UK to enforce a no-fly zone. As soon as you announce a no-fly zone, you're declaring war. You are literally declaring war. Why, though?

Because you shoot down a plane. You shoot down Russian jets. But it's a declaration of war because you are saying to the other country, we are going to shoot you. It's a figurative declaration of war. We've got to get away from misusing the word literal. Only Congress can declare war literally. No, no, no. Legally.

You're talking about legal. I'm talking about a literal declaration of war, not a legal one. Unless you don't enforce the no-fly zone. If you're enforcing a no-fly zone, have to shoot russian russian jets down in ukrainian airspace the minute you do that it's an act of war well that's an act of war but to put it this way it would be like me saying seamus if you take one step you know in that direction i'm going to you know well hit you or push you or something i have declared declared my intent to attack them. That's not legal. Yeah, and you also...

A declaration of war is a specific thing. No, no, no. You put yourself in a situation where you can say, In the United States, there are certain statutes about declaration of war completely irrelevant to actual war. People come out here and they talk about war crimes and all of this stuff, and I'm like,

these are like rules put in place by European councils and conventions to be like, dare I say, we shouldn't use this kind of weapon. Okay, that would be a crime. You want to talk about real war?

Declaring war is me saying, I am going to shoot you if you do this. No, we did that in Vietnam. It wasn't war though. It wasn't an official war. It was just a military action. Tell that to the people

who were there. Well, there was conflict and combat, but it wasn't technically a war. I'm going to say it one more time because I don't want to get into a semantic argument. You guys look it up. I'm not lying say it one more time because I don't want to get into semantic arguments. You guys, look it up.

I'm not lying about this stuff. No, I hear what you're saying about the legal definition. You don't understand. You're talking about an American legal presence. I'm not. I'm talking about literal reality, that if you are a country of any type, regardless of your laws, and you say, I intend to shoot you out of the sky, you have declared war against them. I think war is a specific term that's used in times of, like, specific types of conflict. Like, combat, destruction, and conflict doesn't have to be a war.

But can you see what he's saying? That if you shot Russian jets down, for example, and then Russia shot your jets down in response, and then you started nuking each other, even if Congress didn't declare war, you're in. I was going to swear. You're in war. You're on Earth, basically.. I was going to swear. You're in war. You're in war, right? If you're doing that, even if Congress hasn't declared war. The soldiers would call it that, and they'd say war is hell.

And that's his point. But the legality is Congress is the only people that are supposed to be able to declare war. But then it's an illegal war. No, no, no, stop. We're not talking about the United States. The U.S. has nothing to do with this. Stop thinking about the U.S. If the U.K. says to Russia, this stop thinking about the u.s if the if the uk says to

russia we intend to shoot you out of the sky they have declared war against them i don't know about any legal parliamentary i don't know about other countries irrelevant if i am if my neighbor is next to me and i tell him if you put a drone in the sky you know i'll uh throw a water balloon at it i have declared my intent to take action against them should he do something i don't like now that's what the i'm going to say journalists advisedly this lady uh daria kulinek that you've referenced up there she called on boris johnson when he was in poland the uk prime minister to declare a no-fly zone over ukraine which would mean we would declare to russia we're going to shoot you down if you fly over ukraine which would mean we would declare to russia we're going to shoot you down

if you fly over ukraine right which is an act of war now it turns out that this person who called themselves a journalist who stood up in this press conference is actually a member of the world economic forum this is their profile on the wef website if you look up their name and wef you can see it on your screen there there they are and actually the bio does not state journalist it doesn't state journalist it states daria is co-founder and executive director of the anti-corruption action center a powerful national organization that has shaped ukraine's anti-corruption legislation and efforts by the way anti-corruption became an agenda because of course the biden affiliated biden aligned uh america friendly regime there was accused of corruption so they became an agenda because, of course, the Biden-affiliated, Biden-aligned, America-friendly

regime there was accused of corruption. So they set up an anti-corruption unit to investigate themselves. This was it. Now, this person's called themselves a journalist and stood up, activist, calling for Boris Johnson to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. To declare war. Declaration of war. It's very interesting to me that they are a member of the uh world economic forum yeah i i i have strong opinions on ukraine and what joe biden did and uh and hunter and hunter um and it's all part of the it's all one big happy family tree son as they all uh collude to engage in aason. But, hmm, charity coal.

Yeah, the World Economic Forum has plainly stated that they want, they don't think nationalist governments are capable of governing the world in its current form, but we need some sort of hybrid corporate governance. And I think that they're trying to get countries to blow themselves up so that they can show that, oh, yeah, you do need our help to come in and save the day. Build back better. Yeah, you got to destroy before you can build back. That's the point. So who is this? What what's a great reset you have to destroy everything first you have to reset it and then build back better so i wonder why certain voices in the media and you see

them openly encouraging war with russia and i wonder what what do you want to build back from the ashes of this war once you've had your way and that's why it becomes so important to make sure they don't get their way there's a great meme are you familiar with the political compass no so uh the political compass is you've got the authoritarian on top the libertarian on the bottom oh yeah yeah okay yep yeah i am familiar so you have the authoritarian left you know i thought you thought a band or something no no you have the authoritarian right you know fascist traditionalists uh the meme shows it traditionalist. The meme shows – it's the Wojak meme. It's the paintbrush kind of guy with the squiggly face and the evil eyes. And each quadrant is looking towards the center.

The far-left libertarian, the far-right libertarian, the far-left authoritarian, and far-right authoritarian are all looking down at the story of World War III saying, I can't wait for the world to collapse so I can rebuild this world in my image. They all believe it. And look, there's a problem here, which is that some way or the other, whether it's by enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine or it's by directly arming and funding Nazis, I worry about the stability of Europe. So I'm going to pull something up for you.

I wonder if, Lydia, you can look this up. So there's a New York Times article article let me just find the headline for you so you can search for it give me a second and what while i'm looking for it what what it's basically uh what it's talking about is that because of this as a battalion that has now been raised in ukraine um already we know that internationally so i've done a lot of work in counter radicalization and counter extremism um before being a broadcaster i founded an organization called quilliam which was a counter extremism right organization seeking to help understand during the global war and terror how to navigate our way through that from a muslim background especially because of course muslims were central to that debate so i come come at this from that angle when I look at radicalization, understanding how radicalization can work.

So if you've got an armed Nazi battalion that gains victory in Ukraine, what that does to radicalization is incredibly dangerous and there's a new york times article uh that actually uh addresses the fact that people now neo-nazis have been traveling from around the world flocking to the azar battalion to join them now once you have caught that so think um think isis and al-qaeda and how global jihadism uh if you had a battlefield how foreign fighters would go they'd fight with that jihadist group and then they'd hey you got it i didn't even have to find it for you yeah i'm pretty good at google i suppose far-right militias in europe plan to confront russian forces a research group says right so they're flocking to join as of right now now the problem here is what does that do for radicalization if you end up traveling across europe to join the Azzam Battalion, you gain combat experience fighting the Russians. And then you go back to your country of origin.

Oh, boy. Right. You're now the equivalent of the jihadi foreign fighter. Now, we know what effect that had with global jihadism. Those that fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, al-Qaeda emerged from there. Global jihadism spread from that combat experience in Afghanistan. 9-11 happened and the rest is history. This is the powder keg we've currently got. What happens though in Europe in particular is very interesting.

Combine this New York Times article with the fact that the video, in fact you could probably still pull up the video of the official Ukrainian National Guard posting that video of the um official ukrainian national guard posting that video uh of the azar battalion guy dipping bullets in pig's lard and the reason why that's important pig's lard is everything yeah pig's lard right pig fat so i'm gonna um if you can't find it because it's on twitter you may not be able to find it but i'll find it as well and then just at least what we can do is because the audio he actually uses the word in their language. He uses the word Muslims. Why that's relevant is combine these two pieces and use together.

You've got the potential for foreign fighter radicalization, this time with Nazism as opposed to jihadism on European soil. But Europe's never had more Muslim citizens in history than it currently has. Think France, for example, 10% Muslim. Also, Europe has a radicalization problem on the Muslim side. Now, going back to the Great Reset and the destruction of the world order and build back better, this is the perfect way to encourage civil war in Europe. With these battle-hardened Nazi fighters going back to their current views of origin, you've got jihadis there already.

Keep in mind, the Chechens, who are in Ukraine at the behest of Putin, is who the Azov battalion was talking about when they said they were going to dip their bullets in pig's lard to shoot Chechen Muslims. Now, the problem here you've got is, so they've gone to fight Chechen Muslims in Ukraine. They come back to their countries of origin, and they find Islamist Muslims in their own countries of origin. What I worry about

is this leading to reciprocal radicalization in European countries and that civil conflict emerging in continental Europe. One of the most valuable things, any great reset is a civil war. Yeah, exactly.

It's incredibly worrying because we've already had a genocide in europe in bosnia with muslims and you end up with with this situation and and you know we've been funding these we've been funding this nazi battalion what was the bosnian genocide it was a it was a genocide against bosnian muslims when during the bosnia war like 1990s early 90s and how many people died so in srebrenica in the srebrenica massacre you had i think it was 6 000 bosnian muslim men and boys geez in one day in a mass grave in one attack yeah in one of this was just the bosnian government or was there this is the serb serbian croatian bosnian so the the the former sort of so there was an interestingly the olympics

were also held there just before this happened. The Olympics always get involved in these sorts of things. Remember Hitler had the Olympic Games as well. Yeah, Jesse Owens. It's crazy. But yeah, and this is in living memory, by the way, right? So this is when, so when I was 15 and 14, this genocide was happening, and it radicalized an entire generation of European Muslims.

Oh, this is when I was 12, and I remember Clinton, the Bosnian War, it was was all about serbia bosnia and so he sent troops in to stop the genocide was that the intent that's so kosovo came immediately after that and so he sent troops in the the ostensible declared intent intent was to stop it happening again in kosovo where albanian muslims were just after the bosnia genocide but the dayton accords is what emerged from that yeah is clinton's dayton accords and they did that turn them into nato or something the dayton accords i just after the Bosnia genocide. But the Dayton Accords is what emerged from that. It was Clinton's Dayton Accords. And did that turn him into NATO or something? The Dayton Accords? I don't know about this. So the Dayton Accords was a deal that he struck

with the Serbs involving the Kosovans to stop the war expanding into Kosovo. But the genocide had already happened by then. I want to talk about manipulation and propaganda, if we can. So I have this tweet from me. You are being being played they are manipulating your emotions to get you to support war in the first clip you can see emotional moment german interpreter cries during zelensky speech then you have this tweet cnn interpreter cries as he translates zelensky's speech that mentioned

children killed by russian strikes And then you have another story. Translator breaks down during Vladimir Zelensky's speech to European Parliament. I do believe it's not. I believe it's two interpreters. But I posted these three stories because of the ones I just happen to have. My intent to what to explain here is not so much that there are there are two different circumstances I found where translators began crying. That is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion. And I believe it's propaganda and manipulation.

Not necessarily intentional or whatever, but I think they allow these things to happen. They know these things are going to happen. Because what they want is when the president of Ukraine is giving a speech talking about the devastation and speaking literally about what's happening. Children are dying. We need to push back on this. To drive the point home in terms of manipulating emotions, you have someone cry while saying it, which the president of Ukraine certainly was not doing. This is a manipulation of your emotions.

To hear someone is killing children and so you go, oh no, they're crying. They want you to support ground war in Ukraine. And why? I mean, this comes back to what I'm saying, right? Well, why would you want to do that? Military industrial complex, profits, stocks go up.

I guess who's the they in this equation? I think for me it's always a simple solution of who benefits and it's weapons manufacturers.' stock skyrocketed the moment war was declared. And you know it. And they actually did that article 10. It was like digital security firms like Palantir and nine other ones. There's an article that said, what was it?

Cutting Russia off from the swift payment system could result in major cyber attacks. Here are some stocks that will greatly improve or will go up in value. And it's like basically saying invest in these companies. So, Lydia, what I've just done is I've just emailed you the video that I'm talking of, of the Azov fighters doing that. Sure. I couldn't send you the tweet because Twitter has decided that this tweet violates their rules. Is it on your Twitter? No, it's still on Twitter, but you can't retweet it or send it to somebody.

But because I quote tweeted it, I've sent you my quote tweet. Well, who posted it? You quote tweeted it. So the National Guard of Ukraine posted the video. Oh, this is the pig's blood one? Yeah. Yeah, I'm looking at it now.

And so because I quote tweeted, I can send you my quote tweet, which allows you, but I couldn't send the. Yeah. And so because I quote tweeted, I can send you my quote tweet, which allows you. But I couldn't send the actual. When did you post it? On the 27th of Feb. Maybe you can help because I'm not Muslim. Let me do this.

What did you say in the quote tweet? Do you want me to email it to you? No, no. Just tell me what it was. I can pull it up. I've said, why does the National Guard of Ukraine think it acceptable to glorify the Nazi Azov Brigade while they grease bullets with lard to target Kadyrov's Chechen forces? Got it.

Here we are. East way to pull it up. I'm sorry your country was attacked, me, but armed Nazi units are not an answer, especially when pulling off this. I got to say, I don't know if YouTube would consider it a violation of the rules if we show that video. But Twitter did. Yeah, Twitter considers it a violation of the rules. But if you clicked view, you can see, if you hit

view, the video will come up because it's not been banned. My concern is that YouTube will delete the live stream. We should definitely show this on the after show regardless. We'll show it on the, in fact we'll have a conversation about religion and the implications. But this is one of the problems of propaganda manipulation and censorship and it's why they need censorship.

I actually believe if we were to show that video YouTube would probably just take the stream down, give us a strike, block us from streaming because it's bad for the establishment narrative. And yet it's newsworthy to know that that's what the formal Ukrainian army has tweeted out with our funding and backing. Hunter Biden's laptop was particularly newsworthy and they shut that down. This is the first moment I've seen him turn into a religious war of any type. They're going after their faith. Right. And then why am I raising?

That's the point. Why I'm raising this is because those that New York Times article you pulled up, Tim. Right. So those fighters now, let's call them foreign fighters, a bit like we called foreign jihadi fighters, foreign fighters. Right. They go to join that battalion. They've gone and they know they're targeting Chechen Muslims. They get radicalized.

They're Nazis. They go back to France. Ten percent of France is Muslim. Yeah. And France has its own Muslim radicalization problem. targeting chechen muslims they get radicalized they're nazis they go back to france 10 of france is muslim yeah and france has its own muslim radicalization problem and france as we know and if you read any of welbeck for example his book submission we know what could potentially happen with that tension and i worry that you end up with this perfect storm and you end up with a civil conflict in europe and of course if you need to build back better, you need your great reset. You can't build back unless there's...

Unless there's a great reset. Both of those phrases happen to come from somewhere. In the United States, there's an escalating concern of a civil conflict here as well. And I certainly feel like it's coming. I saw a story of Google Pay and Apple Pay banned Russia.

You can't use it in Russia to get on the subway anymore. so the lines are really long. So I was thinking the cost. The cost is not only fiscal, but it's time. If you can't get to where you're going in time, then you can't get it done in time, which means it doesn't get done right, which is another kind of cost. That's right. But let's push this a bit, right? So why would you have a policy of divide and conquer in this way yeah

why do you want me hating you guys right muslim hating non-muslims if your is if your system is under threat as we know from the british empire the best way to make sure that all of us are not looking up is to make sure we're looking left and right that's critical race theory correct and that's what i believe if you look at the situation with the money supply if you look at like what's going on with um this desire to to have this great reset the only thing that makes sense is to encourage everybody to turn on each other and we witness that happening we witness that happening in our media narratives you know there's a reason why the word racism is now being thrown around everywhere by not by you or me but by big corporations who you know you think about it what why have they suddenly become so interested in

stoking these racial fires what's going on and these are some of the biggest profit-making corporations on the planet why why is it the people who were supporting the rise of a black lives matter who then became the vaccine mandate supporters are now the flag they keep changing the emojis in their twitter accounts and if you follow us like they're not they're they're they're not um independently thinking individually prioritizing profit over all else maybe but if you follow the causes they've supported one thing you can see from those causes is they all do end up dividing everybody from each other to a point where people are fighting each other yeah rage bait why hate clicks uh emotions put people in a vulnerable place and then you can get them to do what you want them to do and they're emotionally erratic

a little easier push this button now you better and you know i wonder if um some people are just not able to be independent thinkers that that's what i should say some people are leaders some people are followers there's nothing wrong with being a follower some people just just not able to be independent thinkers. That's what I should say. Some people are leaders. Some people are followers. There's nothing wrong with being a follower. Some people just want to get by and live an honest life and have someone else be more dedicated to the hard decisions. I can understand that.

But if that's the case, that means there are a lot of people who are going to say something as absurd as, you know, you don't even got to do anything. You just look it up on the CDC's website, just do whatever they tell you, which in my opinion is an absurd statement. I mean you have to take some responsibility for your own life. When you get a follower in a leadership position, like when someone says that dumb follower mind but they have 100,000 don't even got to think about it, just do what the government tells you,

or who have their followers who have been put in, you know, high up positions where all they're doing is telling their followers to follow other people, to do as they're told basically, because they themselves are followers. I think there's a, the average person is working nine to five

who's struggling Monday to Friday to put bread on the table for them and their family, I can excuse them. They don't have the time, luxury, or privilege to think through some of these topics. What I am particularly animated about is those people that do have the time, luxury, and privilege to think through this stuff and still choose a course of action that harms people severely because they want to make money and profit i know or well i i would say there's also something else on top of that i agree with you but i would argue that in most situations it's just the fact that they don't want to think too hard about things because then they face social ostracism so if you're an academic and you're out of line with the other academics

and question their orthodoxy, all of a sudden you're less likely to get a promotion, you're not getting invited out, and you're just not liked by your friends, which is really painful for us as human beings. So I think oftentimes it isn't necessarily just a profit motive. It's about social status. Yeah. It's funny that the people who throw on the word grifter tend to be the grifters. It's projection, isn't it?

Because the thief thinks everyone steals. You get to companies like Nike. Well, let me elaborate on this. People think everyone else thinks and behaves the way they do. So what's interesting is I don't see you accusing left-wing personalities of being grifters. I maybe periodically might say I believe someone's ingenuous or grifting. But for the most part, the politically homeless, the post-liberal, the freedom faction, whatever you want to call it, aren't going around saying this leftist personality is a grifter for money. But the leftist personalities say it all day, every day.

They make shows and segments just targeting people on the opposite side of the political spectrum and say they're grifting for money i also i think it's a genuine failure to understand human motivation in most cases i think if somebody believes something that they haven't really looked deeply enough into to have a fast fact-based opinion on it's not so much because they're trying to cynically exploit people for gain that can happen but i really think oftentimes it's because they settled on a particular perspective. They're afraid of looking into it more deeply. They do believe that they're right and that they're telling the truth, but they're not responsible in their pursuit of it.

And so they end up promoting things they shouldn't be promoting and saying things that aren't true. And they do end up making money off of that, but it's not as if they're twirling their mustache going, I'm actually a right-winger, and I'm making money as a left-wing pundit, or vice versa. I've said something, and we saw, who was it who said this? I can't remember the gentleman's name. I'm forgetting. Clifton Duncan. Sorry.

Sorry. I love that guy. What's up? I think it was Clifton. I could be wrong. But I said something to the effect of, you know, getting clifton duncan sorry sorry that guy what's up uh i think it was clifton i could be wrong um but i said something the effect of you know the people who know what's going on they but they're but they're unwilling to stand up and take responsibility and do anything about it are

part of the problem but i believe it was clifton it could be wrong if it wasn't forgive me who said that um he's starting to have more contempt for those people that was good then was Clifton. Then, it was Clifton, yeah. Then which people? Then the people who are just like mindless drones as a part of the woke. So the more contempt is for the ones who know. The ones who know but won't do anything about it. Yeah, well, that's my point.

You can't, look, look, you know, people living on minimum wage, people that are from, say, for example, migrant communities whose first language is in English, who are petrified that they're going to get kicked out the country if they step foot in the wrong direction there are excuses and understandable reasons for why people may not be engaged with controversial political conversation but there are people that have the luxury and the privilege to engage in that and either don't say the right thing or are actively saying and doing the wrong thing and that's where i think the focus needs to be go back to that example and you've got governments and by definition that

means people in power funding armed nazi brigades now what that does immediately is undo the entire last 12 years we put our we when i say we now i'm talking about muslims have put their neck on the line to go and challenge a lot of the extremism and terrorism that was coming from our communities right we put our neck on the line me and the networks that I work with um that one of them was going to come here with me today but paperwork and whatever uh Usman my brother Usman Rajo we do a lot of um for example intervention work in prisons with Muslims who are convicted of high level terrorism through mentoring through martial arts to attempt to rehabilitate them now you put your neck on the line for that kind of work and you say to these people that there is never an excuse for

example to leave your uh democratic rights-based civil law-based country to go and join for example a jihadi brigade in isis because you're upset with Assad, that dictator. Right now, they're witnessing videos put out by British media encouraging British citizens to go to Ukraine and join that. It's undone all of the last 10 to 12 years. And the last point I'll make on this is that, back to that Oceania discussion, we are so unaware of how that's

perceived outside of our media matrix the work that's been undone is to the point now where you're going to have a 16 year old muslim based in france who's going to see those nazis go and fight with other nazis and say you know what why am i i'm going to go and join the chechens and fight these guys because they're dipping bullets in pig's blood. We've gone back to square one. I was invited by YouTube to an anti-extremism event. The concern was that jihadi groups were using YouTube to recruit. They were showing videos. They were claiming it was injustice and you had to fight for justice.

And they were talking about strategies to stop this. And it was particularly in the UK. They said that these groups were targeting kids in the uk to convince them to go fight in these wars i find it fascinating to bring up now that it's uh effectively essentially okay when it comes to ukraine well what you've just said there right so i'm going to pull uh something else up if my if the wi-fi works here so if you if you can pull that um tweet back up of mine and go down. It's a thread. So, yeah, scroll down and there will be a. Oh, you have to log in. OK, so we'll go. So there's an intercept article.

I can talk you through it. There's an intercept article. Basically, Facebook on that point. Yeah. On radicalization. Facebook has decided that it's prohibited to promote the azof brigade because they're neo-nazis unless you're promoting them to fight that's right in uk i saw that that's amazing isn't it now this is the what i'm saying about the again i'm trying

not to swear right i'm doing the work we've just done for 12 years on the muslim side imagine you're a young you know 16 year old french muslim and you see that Imagine you're a young, you know, 16-year-old French Muslim and you see that. Imagine you're Antifa. You were there, man. And you're screaming Nazi for five years. Yeah.

And then you're like, finally, we're getting these people banned from Facebook and Facebook goes, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We're letting these guys back on. I don't know if people

even know your history. Here it is. You see that? Facebook allows praise of neo-Nazi Ukrainian battalion if it fights Russian invasion. Wow. I mean, I can send it to you, Lydia, if praise of neo-nazi ukrainian battalion if it fights russian invasion wow i mean i can send it to you lydia if you want to put it up but that's amazing was

that on twitter that's on intercept oh the intercept if you look if you look up the intercept facebook allows praise of neo-nazi ukrainian you'll get it on your screen i just want people to see this tim forgive me it's important because it's the hypocrisy it stinks look at that that's incredible and the problem is whether you're antifa or a young islamist right the problem now is how are you going to react to that yeah let's let's let's talk about we're going to do a it's not a complete hard segue yeah this has a lot to do with the great reset but it's very strange this is a story from timcast.com chile passes employment law prohibiting discrimination against mutations and alterations of genetic material. Have you heard this?

So employers can only ask workers to undergo genetic testing if it's necessary for their safety. They say the National Congress of Chile passed the policy on February 16th with 114 votes and no abstentions. No employer may condition the hiring of workers, their permanence or their renewal of their contract or the promotion or mobility in their employment to the absence of mutations or alterations in their genome that can cause a predisposition or a high risk of pathology that may manifest itself during the course of the employment relationship. Now, are they saying is this let's just let's just be calm for a second. What is that? Are they basically saying if you have like Down syndrome or a genetic disorder, the question is alterations to the genome. What I find interesting is this specific line here, a predisposition or high risk of a pathology. So that's almost implying that an alteration to your gene or to your genome could end up with you gaining this pathology you would not have otherwise have had. What pathology is that that they're saying that you could gain?

This is a very, very strange story. What do we have right now that is in any way altering people's genomes? Precisely. Wi-Fi. No, I'm just kidding. Right? 5G towers. I see.

No, no, but everything. But how is it? Even that that's what... 5G towers. I see. No, no, but... And then everything... But how does it... Even that, right? Even the vaccines, right? Which is what you were doing. How does that lead to a pathology? Like, this is what I think...

Like, unless they're saying that there is a connection between whatever gene therapy was in those vaccines to having developed a pathology. So is that an admission? Pathology is one of the side effects i don't know um look nothing about this has anything to do with the vaccine i'm thinking what it means is if in case it leads to a pathology and it was genetic they can't say you can't work here because you're gonna fall down a lot because you have this gene or something but

it says it says it says specifically right sorry to push this guys no i want right to the absence of mutations or alterations in their genome that cause a predisposition or a high risk of a pathology now there's only that first of all you're not going to talk about alterations to the gene in a vacuum or a void what is it that we've taken recently that causes an alteration yeah you got to look at horizontal gene transfer the environment i i no no i don, I think, I think we're more looking at transhumanism in general. Oh yeah, CRISPR. They're going in there

and altering genetics in babies and stuff. But they're not doing that in Chile. Chile is actually one of the most co-opted countries on earth right now. I spent a couple months

down there, six months, and I was learning like, it's the highest, it's one of the most copper rich countries in the world. So it's like

military industrial complex just owns it now. Diet Coke is in there making people obese. China absolutely is doing tons. China did it, but Chile's not. But what if you're one of these Chinese super-ubermen, and you go and do work? No, China's doing tons of exploration and development. Why randomly in Chile?

Chile is a big business place right now. I don't know if a lot of people realize yeah no no i i don't think the country of origin matters so much as we know china's been uh it's been reported by numerous outlets been working on uber mensch super super men super soldiers yep and this seems like i gotta be honest it says alteration to the genome it sounds like they're preparing because once you do that you're born with the alteration right forever genome, it sounds like they're preparing. Because once you do that, you're born with the alteration, right? Forever. Well, there's this thing called... Hipguest.com says some reporting of the bill's passage noted that Chile has been celebrated

for its high vaccination rate. But again, whenever it comes to that stuff, just talk to a doctor. We're not... I don't want to be too myopic. It's just weird. It's weird, though, you've got to admit. Absolutely. That's what I wanted to talk about.

I just want to know why now. Because I am not inclined to believe it is because of the vaccination, but I'm very curious. It's a very strange place, and it is a strange time. So I'm wondering, is it WES stuff? I think it's transhumanist, Great Reset-oriented kind of stuff. So why Chile?

Because, well, I mean, Ian can give you an example as he said it's a country but who cares if it's chile it doesn't matter if it's chile what matters is there is a country doing it and there are countries like china that do this kind of genetic modification and alteration chile is like right on the coast right up for china to just land on and but regardless if any company is doing work in this country and they've passed this law, certainly something has occurred in this country to trigger the requirement of this law. So my question is who? Well, we know China's doing it. I want to get to the bottom of this.

What are they doing? The one thing we know is the super soldier stuff. Yeah. But does this mean that in Chile, genetically engineered or modified or altered humans are employed at companies? Maybe. I mean, you wouldn't have that introduced if there wasn't that consideration. Something had to have happened or they're preparing for something. What's interesting is what's the difference between change to your genetic code and change to your genome?

I don't know. Did you ask if there is or are you saying? No, there's an interesting difference, right? So the change to the genome, I believe, is permanent in your lineage forever. Oh, right, right, right. Whereas a change to your genetic code in you is just you. A change to your genome means your lineage forever has that altered gene. There's lateral gene transfer, which is your lineage,

and there's horizontal gene transfer, which is your environment changing your genetics. What if? This is where Alex Jones' animal-human hybrids are. I'm kidding, by the way. No, no, don't even joke. They patented life, dude. I remember the Supreme Court thing in 2011 where they finally decided you can patent life. Yeah, Monsanto, right? What if we've just gotten so progressive that we're trying to protect the rights of groups that don't even exist yet?

And now every single country is going to try to out-progressive the last country by being like, yeah, well, this group that doesn't even exist yet will be protected. Well, AI did nothing wrong. You can't discriminate against giant balloon gaseous orbs from outer space. No, it has some grounding in reality. Yes, it must. Yeah.

I introduced that law. I hear you. It's weird. It is it must. Yeah. You don't just introduce that law. I hear you. It's weird. It is very fishy. According to the World Health Organization, what does it say? The South American nation has had over 3 million cases of COVID. COVID-19. See, they're linking it to COVID, man.

Well, this is TimCast.com. Which is a very biased source, Maja. I don't trust TimCast.com. I'm your link. I need a second opinion tim i will absolutely criticize my own website yeah let's do that together who wrote it it's hannah claire brimelow hannah claire hannah claire is actually really really good she's great but i but i i do think we we have issues where um i i personally would be very careful about directly adding a framing device such as hey, hey, look at all the COVID cases in this country.

I don't see that as relevant to the passage of this law. I mean, speak to whoever the, I mean, I don't know the lady, but why would they have put that in there? That's maybe a conversation you need to have. Absolutely. Oh, we do have these conversations, rather. Yeah, this is one that I just don't, I'm not comfortable talking about on YouTube

due to terms and conditions. But, you know, when you're working with genetic materials, then what were you going to say, Magic? No, it says similar in Switzerland and Austria. Similar laws protecting the genetic characteristics of workers had already been passed in Switzerland and Austria. But again, the question here is, are they referring to someone who might have Down syndrome? Right.

Like you can't discriminate against someone with Down syndrome. It sounds like they are. No, but then you just say you don't discriminate against people that have disabilities. Why would you need to excuse? Because it's such a weird thing to call it a genetic mutation too if you're just talking disabilities. Yeah. Because in a progressive world, you can't call Down syndrome a disability. But I think calling it a mutation sounds way worse.

Yeah. And then in particular, you specify genome. syndrome and disability. But I think calling it a mutation sounds way worse. Yeah. You're saying like you guys are mutants. And then in particular you specify genome. But the bill specifically says alterations, which is intentional after birth changes.

But also it indicates alterations like, I guess it was the way she wrote it, that alterations that aren't bad. Like if you scroll up to the top again

where it says the word alterations, wherever that was. See, I don't, I'm not a fan of this article. Could just be the way it was written. Because I don't think it's relevant to include context.

Because what if I wrote the article and I put, in China, they've been working with... Is that the bill? It appears to be. It seemed to indicate that if they're genetic superhumans, you also can't discriminate against them. We'd need to read the bill. Well, superhumans don't have to worry about discrimination, all right? So we think. Well, let me tell you something.

They will overcome the issues. Oh, you're right. The more you do for them, the more they'll hate you. They live among us, right? They live among us. We are superheroes. God's energy is flowing through us, empowering us. It is the future.

Let's see. Well, I'm trying to find other sources on this one, too. Yeah. Do you know if it's reported anywhere else? I'm sure uh other sources on this one too yeah is it is it do you know if it's reported anywhere else i'm sure uh i'd have to i'd have to dig into it yeah i'm really curious about this i want to but maybe we need a hard fact check on that one do it you're gonna get the uh the neural net and go into the metaverse you know um maybe but i'm not so sure that i want to do it with meta as a company i'd like it to be free software so you can watch the algorithm. Yeah, and also I'm not too keen on Facebook's and Meta's recent turn.

Can you imagine? No, I mean, it's a good point. Look at the way Facebook influences people with their algorithms now and then say, you know what? I really want to plug my brain into that. I trust those people. Zuckerberg was on Lex Friedman's podcast and was like, I studied psychology.

I'm a psychologist. So he's doing like a psychology experiment right now with that. It's technically kind of unethical. They got in trouble for doing experiments on people without their knowledge. Multiple times. They chose to do things

that they knew would depress people. And it worked. I would like to extirpate the, I think that's the way to say that word, the concept of the metaverse from meta. I don't think they have, they're just a piece of sand in the heap that's going to be the metaverse.

They'll have their own highway, or version of highway. Well, it's unfortunate they've taken the name meta. I know, it was really gross. That's almost attempting to kind of like, you know like we say vacuum when we mean, when we say Hoover when we mean a vacuum cleaner. Or Kleenex when you mean tissue we say uh vacuum when we mean when we say hoover when we mean a vacuum or clean x when you mean tissue xerox yeah so that's what they're trying that's

what they're trying to do yeah you know they're trying to basically monopolize the brand the brand i'm not convinced this story is real to be completely honest it's on your website i know look how long we talked about copywriting and i absolutely have the standards to see it yeah and then come in and be like, something's not right here. Something's not right here. Well, someone should read the bill when they have time. But I don't even know if this is a real document. So hang on.

Your website may be publishing fake news. Absolutely. Good to know. Yeah. So I have very serious statements. To be fair to the journalists involved, because we would want to be sensitive to the fact that you just may have outed one of your own people. I have a correction to make, too. When we were talking about the bill, it said 70% of liberals think we should protect Ukraine's borders.

It's more important than ours. Cassandra was 100% correct. I confused liberal and Democrat. Among Democrats, it was 57. Among liberals, it was 70 And so I got to be very careful about But I'll put it this way Because when we pull up a story

And I'm like wait a minute This seems to be off the number This seems to be wrong I got no problem being like If you work for TimCast.com And I see something And I don't think it's right I don't care if you're TimCast.com or otherwise

I'm going to make sure Because I think the people who read the site Have an expectation of standards here That's why people work for you anyway Because they like that Well so I'm going to make sure because I think the people who read the site have an expectation of standards here. That's why people work for you anyway because they like that. Well, so I'm trying to real-time fact-check this because I have a high degree of trust for the people that work for us. But we make mistakes. Yeah. Sometimes something slips through.

Well, I'm sure tomorrow you'll be able to come back on this thing. It may be illegitimate. The issue is right now in real time. I don't know if I could fact-check this other than the sources that are writing about it seem desperate to link this to vaccination, which is ridiculous. And it's kind of annoying. Because if there was a bill talking about this, the immediate assumption is it has to do with – even in this document, it says physical or mental conditions on the job or whatever. It sounds like they're talking about genetic diseases. So the headline is misleading then if that's the case.

Right. But it could be your environment could cause the genetic disease. Like burn pits we were talking about last night. People coming back with like just traumatic injury and cancers and things like that.

What he's saying is that the use of the word alterations would seem to suggest a deliberate alteration to the gene which is not disabilities. Otherwise it would be mutation. Yeah. And I think, yeah,

it could be mutation. Or you just use the word disabilities, right? If you were talking about that. I wonder if that word's getting retconned. Is it becoming not PC to say disabled or disability? For a while, they were trying to say differently abled. That's an older one. But there are PC equivalents to what we use to describe as disability.

And it's not the PC equivalent. Isn't gene alteration. It's interesting that they're going at the genes. They're focusing on the genetics of it. I do think it has to do with CRISPR. It's been around for 20 years or something. But his point is that he's saying it may not even be a real story.

I don't believe it. That's where you need to look into it. I feel a bit bad for the writer because they're not here to defend themselves. That's true. Well, so typically what we do is we always want to have original sources. There's no original source included in the article,

which is why I'm immediately saying the bill could be fake. It's not up to our standards 100% with no original sourcing. There's a translated PDF from a website that is questionable at best. Translated from Spanish to English.

Right. So this is not an original document. It's not an original source. It's on a website that's questionable. This sounds like a journalism lesson. It's great. Absolutely. I love it.

And it's also a standard lesson. It's a lesson in standards I have. I apologize to Cassandra because she was like, you said that I got something wrong. Then Ian said we need a fact checker and I was right and you were wrong and I wasn't there.

And I'm like, I love you, Cassandra. Cassandra, you were right. Is that the same? No, no, no. Oh, it's a different writer. No, no, no. Cassandra Fairbanks.

Right. So we're picking on somebody else. McDonald. Oh, yes. Cassandra McDonald. Congratulations, guys. To be fair, Pencils have erasers.

You know, if when news outlets publish incorrect things, I just say, correct it. Yeah. And if they're willing to correct it, I say, well, we move on. What are we going to do about it? When they refuse to correct it, now that's the issue, like the New York Times and Project Veritas. Yeah. They want to smear.

They want to lie and cheat and steal and even admit it, but then not correct it. Or CNN. CNN with Rogan. If you get called out for this, all you have to say is the science changed. That's right. That's right. Exactly. The science changed.

These are... That's even better. You can say, I am the science. That's right. Yes. You can say, I am the science. I am the journalist. I'll just be like, I am the science.

I am the truth. I am the science. No, I'm the truth. I am the scientific method. You've got to write like a speech, like a short paragraph of, I am the science. I am the method. I am the actor and the acted i looked up radical antonyms because i'm like how can we how can we be de-radicalized without having to say be counter-dependent on the word radical um i came

it came it gave me conservative traditional it's interesting you did that because since being um let's put it politely, since having my show ended. Yes. Right? Indeed. There's a legal dispute, so I have to put it politely. Since having my show ended on the UK's largest commercial broadcaster, I am starting a new show on Odyssey, and it's called Radical. Because I believe that that word, actually, when I was young and I used to skateboard.

Tim, you remember this, man. Radical. Rad. Radical. Rad was a positive. It still is. I love that word is right so actually all it means is thinking out of the box so radical with margin noirs will be available on odyssey in about a month or so cool i guess radicals it's cyclical though well because radical was frowned upon

and then it became a good thing and now it's frowned upon again it's just changed and why is that because why is that because they were trying to change the established order at that time so being radical was good, and now that their order is in place, being radical is bad because it's a threat to what they've built. And I kind of feel like, you know, a bit like the N-word, it's Muslims who have been labeled with this word radical, and I have been.

Interesting. So I kind of feel like I'm going to reclaim that word. I love it. And my autobiography is called Radical as well, so I kind of feel like ownership over that word. You could say George Washington was a radical, that all the Founding Fathers were way radical. Thinking out of the box is a good thing. And good thing and you know to be honest even if you're wrong and you're thinking out of the box i still respect you more than somebody's just following the damn crowd i would argue that thinking outside the box is neutral if you do it

for evil it can be very bad yeah yeah yeah i mean look that's a moral judgment on the actual ability to think out of the box but the prerequisite to being able to change anything is it's a necessity right oh yeah you got to be your own perspective from the outside precisely you know precisely now you could you could end up having that ability like any ability and do wrong with it and do bad with it yeah just like saying you have a high iq and you can use your high iq to do evil so you think allowing yourself to speak radically and witnessing yourself doing it via video it helps you put a check on yourself to not become too radical well look everybody evolves right so here's the other thing so i wouldn't be the person i am today if as the 16 year old me i didn't adopt ideas that i now very many disagree with right but that's part of my evolution and i

think everybody every teenager it's a rite of passage, man. You have to have to, you know, every teenager goes through that kind of phase where they rebel against everything. And to an extent where it's harmless, where I say harmless has been, where it doesn't do too much damage. We've got to be able to manage that process because what you don't want to do is discourage. I mean, this is what surely this is what Pink Floyd's brick in the wall is about. Right. You know, teachers leave those kids. I don't want to do is discourage. I mean, surely this is what Pink Floyd's brick in the wall is about, right? Teachers leave those kids alone. I don't need no education. What you don't want to do is encourage robots.

So we've got to work out a way where innovative thinking, even where it's wrong, is accepted by us as a right passage for young people to arrive at them wherever they end up. Are you raising kids? Do you have children? Yeah, I've got a 5-year-old and a 21-year-old. Are you homeschooling? No. Are you considering it at all yes but at the moment i'm not doing it yeah i'm thinking about doing that too i don't have kids yet but that's my plan yeah i just don't trust this this robot forming public school system yeah i mean what i don't understand is the same people that listen to still to this day would listen to say we don't need no education and yet and yet everything they

do is the opposite of the music like i went to a liberal arts college and what they told me is that racism and white supremacy run amok in this country and it's just strange to me it's like every it's like all the cultural icons you respect to the uh even if you know they are the exact opposite of what you're doing and the worst part is when those same voices, now thankfully Pink Floyd isn't one of these examples, but when those same voices themselves flip and start becoming really weirdly established. When Neil Young was really mad at Rogan. That's what I was referring to.

I don't think it's quite as ironic as we might believe at first glance. They were trying to establish a new social order. That social order is here and now they're trying to protect it so so yesterday's radicals become today's conservatives exactly yeah i mean yes i get that point but neil young i mean free speech right i mean well yeah well and then of course that's the principle you're always going to defend surely said uh not necessarily if you're operating within a system if you're operating within a system that privileges free speech or believes it's a positive value and you want to change that system, you're going to use that tool. And then as soon as you come to power, you're going to say, nope, don't like that. But you see, that demonstrates to me that he wasn't really committed to free speech.

Or at the very least, because also we want to be charitable to some extent and say maybe he was at the time, but he isn't anymore. Whereas Roger Walters, you find Roger Walters today still very radical. to some extent and say, maybe he was at the time, but he isn't anymore. One thing I find hilarious. You find Roger Walters today still very radical. You don't have to agree with him, but he's still very anti-establishment, trying his best to think out of the box. And I respect that, even though you don't agree or disagree.

I respect it. In my radicalism, sometimes I found that sometimes it was better to stay in the box, but I'd still just do the radical thing because I thought it's better to be radical. But it's better to just be right. It's better to fit the process, whatever it stands for, radicalism or conservatism.

Seek the truth. What I really like is Chesterton's gate. And so it's the principle that when you find a gate, you try to figure out why it's there instead of just mindlessly tearing it down. And if it turns out it's there for a bad reason or doesn't make sense, then you tear the gate down. But you don't go about saying, we need to completely destroy the social boundary before you try to understand it, which I think is what a lot of people who are radical attempt to do today and have in the past.

I think it requires a great deal of strength of character to hold on to your anti-establishmentarianism, whatever. Yeah, that's the word. No, you did it right. Yeah, you did it right. And most people don't have that. to hold on to your anti-establishmentarianism. Whatever. Whatever. You know what I'm trying to say. And most people don't have that. And you'll see that when you look at the way people do things like raise their kids and do their work. And they're looking for the shortcut. They're looking for the easy way out.

And this is because having a strong moral character is hard. It's very challenging. And it's something that you must hold yourself accountable with. And it's something that people are afraid to do now, I think. They are just looking for the quick out. I don't know. That's kind of what I came up with. It's like the panacea of having enough money and the food and they feel like if they get radical, they're going to lose access to that, the panacea, and then they're going to starve or the kids are going to go hungry. So they're like forced inside the box. It's possible that we have it too good and we're afraid to lose it.

They think they're forced. Well, no. So this is interesting. You were mentioning earlier that there are some people who are really afraid of losing their livelihood and so they don't speak out on these issues. And sometimes it's understandable because they have a family to feed and the cost would be too high for them. And then there are other people who aren't speaking out because they're afraid.

I would venture to guess, though, and maybe this is a little pessimistic on my part but i really believe given the state of the people in america at the very least if we were able to completely eliminate the risk of losing your job over your opinions i think a lot of the same people still would not state them publicly because what they're most afraid of is social ostracism. Which leads can be to cultural ostracism and political ostracism. No, you have to cultivate that. You really do. It's very important.

And to the people in chat, I did not go to the bathroom. I can confirm. They were like, Tim, stop talking to him to the bathroom. You know, yesterday we did this video thing during the live stream of the Biden's campaign speech where all our videos were on the screen, we should do that when we show stories because it was so fun to watch all our faces at once. Everybody got to see their favorite character.

They weren't taking it out of it. In the downtime, I was conferring with our editor-in-chief who agrees that story is probably bunk. Unconfirmed. The story is unconfirmed. Nah, I'll come out and say it. Sounds bunk.

Had typos in it. Like someone just plastered it up and it slipped through. Well, I'm still interested in... Isn't that the... Buck stops with the editor-in-chief, though, there, surely. I'm trying to defend the little journalist here, just because I... They're not here to defend themselves. I can only apologize, and everyone else can apologize and say,

I'm pretty sure that story is not real. Wow. Normally I'm reading all the news every single day. But that one went up right before we were doing the show and I saw it. And I have faith in our news team. While we were reading it, I'm like, wait a minute. Something doesn't make sense here. And so I started looking at the sources, which are dubious.

And then I reached out to the team. Is somebody in trouble right now? Yes. But it is what it is, man. You know, look, we try our best. Pencils have erasers. Sometimes things slip through and, you know, mistakes happen. But, you know, we try our best.

We're not perfect. I just looked up Chile genetic engineering laws, and one of the links is world human cloning policies. Rice University. I suppose a story that significant, if your website's the only one breaking it, that's a bit of a reference. I saw another website called Daily Expo Zeta UK,

but it's dated tomorrow, the 3rd of March. Is it on the Daily Expo? Maybe it's from the future. Oh, the Daily Expo. Is that what it is? Is it on that website? It is. Is that where the source was? One of them. Is that what it is? Is it on that website?

It is? Yeah. Is that where the source was? One of them. Is that a fake site? No, no, no, no. So they don't tend to publish fake news. I can tell you that.

But the link to the vaccines is just infuriating to me. Is that what's on The Daily Exposed? The Daily Exposed connects the article to vaccination. And the problem I have with that is there's very few things that make me legitimately angry. But one of it is when news sites falsely frame things by connecting them to things that are tangentially connected. Well, I mean, you'd have to have a reason to make that connection. For example, a legislator would have had to say, this is why we want to make this law. Which is not the case. And so the annoying thing is...

As a journalist, you'd have to have that link. If we published the article at TimCast.com and it outright said, some people have questioned China's super soldier program. In China, they're doing this. I'd be like, why are you including that? It has nothing to do with the news. So if there's a bill being passed that says we did X

and we will now enforce X, you're done. Nothing else. That story is actually from the 25th. It's the expose. There's an accent on the last E. So it's pronounced expose. I suppose the issue is there's no original sourcing in it. And that takes serious issue with. So it may be true.

My issue is the framing. And my issue is if you're going to source a Chilean law, you need the Chilean document from the Chilean government. For sure. Not some other website's translation of a PDF that they've not sourced. So I'm not a fan. But hey, look, I got standards. Not everybody is me, and I don't write every single story,

but I'll absolutely call out. I don't care who it is, and we'll do better. But my only real issue, like I was saying, with a lot of mainstream news websites is not when they get things wrong. It's when they don't correct them. That's the main issue. Issue of correction. So the policy we have at TimCast.com is any change has to be logged and documented.

Yes. So, like, if we change a single word for, like, even formatting reasons, we'll put a note right editor's note after it's been published yes yeah oh there's actually something called neurorightsfoundation.org slash chile neurorights in chile which uh the expose references immediately a bill to amend the constitution to protect brain rights or neuro rights okay it's not it's not connected and it doesn't prove anything, but this is very interesting. Chilean neural rights are on there.

The story is not complete. So I'm hearing that there may be something here, but we would have to go and actually find the original sourcing documents. So for now,

we're pulling the article. Cool. Neural rights. Real time fact checking from a website. Neural rights, dude. They're talking about metaverse thoughts.

Do you own your thoughts? Does someone else own your thoughts? That's where we end up with, right? Does someone else own the shape of the neurons of your brain? Can they patent the shape that the neurons make to produce the memory? Let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.

And if you still have faith in us, go to TimCast.com and become a member. Because I would love to fact check our own website in real time for all of you to watch so you know that we take it very, very seriously. And if you agree with that, your support means the world to us. But we are going to have a members-only segment coming up just after the show. It will be up around 11 p.m. And that should be a whole lot of fun. We're going to talk a lot about spirituality and religion, I believe, among other stories, particularly the tweet that Magid has that YouTube would probably boot us for if we showed, but we'll put up on the site. Alright, let's read some super

chats. Alright, let's see. Trip Sucks says, Ian, I ordered you a couple 20-sided dice. One of them has only 20s on each side, and the other has only ones. Use them wisely. Check the mail in a couple weeks.

10% chance to roll a 20 then is better than 1. 10? What do you mean? Well, you got a 5% chance to hit every number on a 20-sided die. So if there's two 20s, then I have a 10% chance to roll a 20? Every side. It's two 20s and then everything else is a 1. No.

Ian, you're rolling a 1 right now, man. 20-sided dies. One of them has nothing but 20s. Oh, okay. One of them has nothing but ones. There we go. Ian, you rolled a one already. I'm going to have to roll a die to find out which die I have to roll.

There you go. If it's greater than 10, you can roll it. You can get a 20. All right. Wired Knight says, I really see World War III is right around the corner. Putin isn't going to stop. He is this era. Oh, man.

He's saying this era is Hitler down with Putin. Keep up the protest in Russia and hopefully they'll take him in custody. I think they're being a bit sarcastic. Yeah. Well, he's not going to stop, but it won't trigger World War III. I mean, do you really think so? Well, because I don't think Biden and I don't think Boris Johnson are going to retaliate in that way. He's already been asked to impose a no-fly zone.

They haven't done so and they won't do so. And when we had a guest on the show who said Russia will not invade and they will not go past Kharkiv. They won't go anywhere near Kharkiv. They're not going to go to Kiev. So we've already been asked to impose a no-fly zone and we've said no. Well, my point is they could just do it. Do what? A no-fly zone.

Who? NATO, the UK, or the US. So why would they, though? Well, why did Russia invade Kiev? But we know why Russia did it. Well, no, no, no. So we've had that discussion. No, no, no.

Hold on. A week ago, there was only speculation from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia would do this. And as far as we knew, Russia, Putin said, no, we're just recognizing Donbass as independent. And then I said, I said, I don't think they're going to invade it. That's absurd. I don't know what they'd accomplish. You said that. I went on Rogan and said they would. And then he did. And he did a couple of days after. So maybe you're right on this one.

And I don't think we're going to impose a no-fly zone. And I want to make this point, too. I don't believe mutually assured destruction is a real thing okay what do you so so so if there's a mutual nuclear war who stops what do you what do you mean by who stops so mutually assured destruction the whole point of it is that you don't stop right you end up destroying each other right right so if i drop a nuke on you you drop a nuke on me and i drop a nuke back on you how does that stop why why would why would you nuke me so that's different to saying you don't think it's a mutually sure destruction is a socratic method why would you no i wouldn't no no i'm saying i wouldn't choose no one would and putin wouldn't but mutually sure destruction is a doctrine that assumes somebody has in the first place and the only relevance of the doctrine

why would you say that they wouldn't because it would lead to mutually short destruction. No, no, no, no, no. But it's not correct. Why would someone nuke? Why would one country nuke? Why would Putin nuke another country? So in theory, why you do it is because you're going to lose a war. You don't have aerial superiority.

And the only trump card you have is a nuclear weapon. And where do you send it? And you're about to lose, right? So where you have is a nuclear weapon and where do you send it and you're about to lose right now so where where do you fire the nuclear weapon what's your what's your target the country that's conquering you but what's the target in the country say the capital city why why the civilian capital is that where they have the weapons but that's where they're so wherever their leadership and command and control is is where you think it's based i mean that was maybe true 70 years ago.

Yep. But we know for a fact now that certainly the United States' government is decentralized to a point that D.C. is not relevant to the operation of the United States' government. So there's absolutely zero point in nuking civilians. D.C. Right. Let's say, for example, you're Iran and you're Israel. And imagine Iran

develops its nuclear capability to a point where it has a weapon, right? Israel isn't that large a country. Iran is basically do or die. They're about to lose the war

and they say, listen, either we lose and we all get killed or we launch this bomb because I'd rather we end the war in this way right how would it end the war by killing civilians it doesn't it doesn't inhibit the military

but see mutually assured what i'm trying to say is mutually assured destruction is a doctrine that only applies once you've launched a nuclear weapon my point you're asking is why would you launch one in the first place i don't think you would no no no no no no what my point is if a nuke was headed in your direction and i as your military advisor, came to you and said, we can't stop it, 10 million civilians will die, you have the option to kill 10 million civilians of your own, though. It's not going to stop anything, but certainly you can kill a bunch of innocent people. I don't believe that makes sense. Now, when it comes to ideology like Iran,

well, they want to wipe out Israel. That's a different question. Israel may say we'll hit – I don't believe Israel would just be like, well, then murder all of the Iranian people. I don't believe that's true. I believe that Iran might say, can we intercept? Do we have strategic – you know, SDI defenses or things like that and try and stop nuclear weapons? And they may respond by targeting key military infrastructure. But the idea that one country fires nukes targeting a civilian base,

which doesn't stop the war in any capacity, and then the other country responds by blowing up the other country's civilians, which doesn't stop the war in any capacity, makes no sense at all. You're applying reason and rational thought processes to somebody that decides to launch a nuclear weapon. Yep. rational thought processes to somebody that decides to launch a nuclear weapon yep and so an ideologically driven nation may not decide to launch a nuclear weapon for the reasons that you deem and only if they're targeting another ideological nation do you get mutually assured

destruction in the event of russia say so it could happen it could happen in limited capacities between smaller nations. So North Korea and, say, North Korea and... I don't believe North Korea. Okay, so sufficiently ideological nation. Iran and... So when you have a desire to wipe out Israel for long-standing, deep-seated issues, but I don't see Israel as the kind of nation that would respond by saying, let's just eradicate the Iranian people. You don't see Israel

as the kind of nation that would say, retaliation demands this. I'll put it this way. Because I disagree with you there. Do you think the people of Israel want to mass genocide the Iranians?

No. But do you think the people of, at least a large portion of Iran, wants to wipe out the Jews? And that's my point. That if Iran were to launch it, I do see Israel saying, they've now taken out a city, we demand revenge. Revenge isn't the same as wanting to wipe out a nation.

It's just revenge. Is the revenge on the civilians? That country struck us, we need to strike back. But I think that may have made sense seven years ago. I don't see that making sense today. I'm not so sure they would be looking to make sense. So you also have to think about it from the individual. When it comes to the West,

I don't see an individual, on average at least. Certainly there are some people who wouldn't care. But if, again, someone came to, if you went to the average person and said, there's a bomb that's going to kill 10 million people, you can't stop it. These 10 million people will die in two hours. You can respond by killing 10 million people. Press the button.

Yeah. It's like I just don't – I don't see a human emotional response, not a logical one. I don't see a human emotional response being like better kill a bunch of civilians well it's more like what i could also see somebody in a situation where nukes are heading towards their country saying well these people are clearly comfortable launching nukes and if we don't launch something back they could kill a bunch of other innocent people when they have gotten the message from us that you can just nuke someone without retaliation keep in mind the only time they've that nukes have been used it was used twice right yeah two cities yep so you drop one on hiroshima it

doesn't end the war you then drop one in nagasaki so say iran launches one takes out one city there's a rational thought process which i even question would be the full process but let's follow that logic there's a rational thought process that could say hey they might target another city unless we retaliate as a deterrent the reason that's assuming they're thinking rationally i don't even think at that point people would. Yeah, the thing about nuclear-assured destruction is that they've already... The country's not going to launch one.

They launch 80 at all the cities at once. It's... The assurance of destruction is that you have already decided we are going to be destroyed in 20 minutes completely. Now what are we going to do with our nuclear? And that's to deter civilians outside... Well, I don't know.

Seamus made a good point. Why are you arguing for the doctrine here? Why does this... That is the doctrine. But it it makes no sense that's the point of it that's why nobody would launch a nuclear war that's that's not i i believe that it makes literally no sense russia invaded ukraine and the west you say is going to do nothing they won't there is no mutual drive towards in ukraine is getting flattened in many areas by Russia, and the US should, or these countries should be like, how dare Russia?

We have every reason, because we were trying to win over Ukraine, but they won't do it. Because of mutually assured destruction. Because they're all conquering countries themselves. They took Libya, they took Iraq. Russia is able to launch an attack, and no one responds. If they launch a nuke, no one will respond. That's my point. No, responds. If they launch a nuke, no one will respond.

That's my point. No, but they won't launch a nuke. Russia did invade. No one invaded back. That's because we've been invading. Because Russia knows we fear mutually assured destruction. Yeah. And they don't.

I think that the world's carving up the world right now. The superpowers are taking. We took Libya. We took it. I mean, that's like an American colony right now or like a puppet state or something. I think you're arguing that is the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. We took Libya. We took it. I mean, that's like an American colony right now or like a puppet state or something. I think you're arguing what that is the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. That someone could launch a nuke and no one will do anything about it?

No, that nobody will for that reason. Nobody will because it makes no sense. My point is. And nobody has. In any facet of war that involves civilian death. Right now, Russia has engaged in a campaign which has resulted in civilian death and no one is doing anything about it so Vladimir Putin knows if he were to launch strategic

tactical or nuclear artillery no one will respond if the idea was that launching a nuclear weapon assured your own destruction the US and NATO would go and flatten Russia's forces at least in Ukraine that's the bit I'm not getting so Russia doesn't need to launch tactical nuclear weapons to do what they're doing in Ukraine because they're already doing it russia's for russia's forces at least in ukraine that's the bit i'm not getting why so russia

doesn't need to launch tactical nuclear weapons to do what they're doing in ukraine because they're already doing it right so i would only go to that next level is if there was an escalation why does mutually shared destruction only apply to one type of warfare to nuclear warfare oh yeah it could be a digital war the nature of the weapon but what about cyber war infrastructure destruction of water pipelines the u.s could use surreptitious methods to wipe out russia they're not doing anything that we know of yeah there's there's low-scale stuff like the trains funding or something funding or funding it so i'm not i'm not sure a uh say for example let's say we you hack the uh the water supply i'm not sure it leads to that same the nature of immediate absolute and

total destruction of a city is what we're talking of that would lead to that retaliation i still think there's that doctrine applies and uh i can see why it would be a deterrent because of that doctrine and it's held for so long why nobody has launched a nuclear war against anybody else because it would lead to that kind of situation where nobody wins and everyone loses. I think the idea of mutual destruction is born out of a lack of understanding of human behavior in nature. And I think certainly, you know, the chat is lighting up saying I'm wrong. Yeah, I think you are. But they don't know about it.

Because you're assuming human behavior is rational. No, I'm absolutely not. I'm you are. But they don't know about it. Because you're assuming human behavior is rational. No, I'm absolutely not. I'm absolutely not. You're asking why it would make sense not, like, why you're destroying my city would mean I'd have to destroy your city back. My question is. There's no reason at that point. Why is it that Vladimir Putin can launch an invasion no one responds to? That's the point, right?

No, no, no, no, no, no. He's not launching a nuclear invasion. No, no, no, hold on, hold on. Why is it... So this idea... I've not been given a sufficient response as to why only nuclear weapons are the special category of we kill each other. Because it's total destruction.

It's not, though. That's the problem. Bombing a city does not end the war. It may have 70 years ago. But today, when we had January 6th, these protesters thought by occupying a building, they would have some impact on government. And that makes literally no sense in a digital age.

We know that through Directive 51, through what used to be the NORAD strategic defense in Denver, we had underground military bunkers. I think you would be absolutely naive not to believe that we don't have... You're a country. Right. And I decide for whatever reason I've had enough and I launch nuclear weapons.

I'm not going to launch one. I'm going to launch whatever, 80 to all of your cities, right? They're now coming. What are you going to do? You're the country. What do you do? Nothing. I've now launched them already.

Nothing. Then I win. I've won if you don't do anything. Just like Vladimir Putin has already done. No, but he hasn't launched nuclear weapons. I'm not talking about nukes. That's what mad is. Mad applies only to nuclear war.

So it makes no sense. That's why nobody will do it. Vladimir Putin is of the idea that mad doesn't exist, which is why he invaded Ukraine and is telling everybody, screw off, I got nukes. And they all say, we're scared scared of this so we'll do nothing but if this logic applies russia would have been scared of a retaliation they're not scared of which shows an aggressor can attack and expect no retaliation it happens all the time so i'm not sure you're so look mad as a doctrine only i know what it is no but i'm not saying you don't know what it is i'm saying i'm not sure you're applying it in this context correctly.

Putin isn't worried about retaliation. When he says, I have nuclear weapons, he's saying, if you declare a war against me, then war by definition is a total war, which means it will become a nuclear war. That is mad in effect. That is mad literally being played out right that's the whole point that the reason why nobody's doing anything is because of the doctrine of it's a question of will soldiers indiscriminately kill civilians i'm of the opinion the answer is mostly no not always

so when given the instruction to fire a nuke on a civilian target, explicitly a civilian target, I am of the opinion that people like in Vietnam, the soldiers were firing over the heads of the Viet Cong, resulting in them getting killed, that most humans are too terrified to actually be the person to murder 10 million people. Now, there are some people that would, but this is a big problem, I believe, still persists within human behavior. When there was a bank robbery, this is a famous story. It may be apocryphal, but there's a story, and factor me on this one. A bunch of guys go into a bank to rob it, and the security guard stands there and does nothing.

They walk up to him, they point the gun at him and say, give me your weapon, and he does. He was later asked, why didn't you do anything to stop him? He says, I didn't know. I didn't know what was going on. I didn't know what to do. It he says i i didn't i didn't know i didn't know what was going on i didn't know what to do it's like well you're the armed guard whose intention they don't want to kill anybody that people don't want to kill anybody it takes a special kind of conditioning to be i just i this idea he's not a soldier is he but the idea that any person like a soldier i'm imagining an American soldier. I don't believe in World of Comic Book villains.

I don't believe that Russian soldiers are all like mustache twirling villains like Cobra Command. To go to an 18 to 24-year-old kid or maybe someone a little bit older who's got the keys to the nuclear command. And they're going to be like, I want you to execute 10 million civilians. And for the average human being, be like, you got it, boss. Killing 10 million people right now. I don't think most people would agree to do it. No, but that's not – the people that do it are the ones that are trained to do it, right? But the one instance we've had where we came close to it was a story that we talked about the other day with the nuclear submarine.

And the guy on the ship, there was two captains saying we should. One guy said no, and he stopped them from firing when they – what was it? They thought they were being attacked. It was three officers. I don't know if they were all captains saying we should. One guy said no, and he stopped them from firing. What was it? They thought they were being attacked. It was three officers. I don't know if they were all captains or whatever, but they thought they had gone and the U.S. had destroyers in the area, and they were in a nuclear sub, and there was depth charges going off. And apparently there were practice depth charges. They didn't know.

They thought that a shooting war had started, and they were like, we've got to fire nuclear torpedoes. And then the two officers were like, yeah. And then the third guy, Alexei, I believe is his name, his name said no we need to wait for command from moscow before we fire and then eventually they surfaced and they communicated with the destroyers and found out there was no war and he basically they say he prevented world war three in that moment by refusing to fire i think there's some people who would do it but i think well people did do it in history did what drop a nuke the united states did and we did it because if we did a ground invasion we would have lost more people.

That was the argument. I'm not going into the justice. I'm saying people did it. That's the point. So some people are trained to do it. But this is, you know, absolutely I agree. I just think the idea

that we see in movies where all the missiles are flying at each other is just, it's movie beliefs that people just think is true. They're basing their ideology off of like war games with Matthew Broderick or G.I. Joe.e well well i mean that's because it won't happen but that's

the whole point of the doctrine that it won't happen so what you see depicted in movies is what the doctrine says will not happen mutually assured destruction is a doctrine that essentially argues that that scenario you've just depicted that is a very unrealistic scenario will not happen for that reason so the issue is i i see what you're saying the problem i think especially people in the chat who are saying one the idea would be that russia decides i'm going to blow up amsterdam well why would he he would target a military base or an airport first the use of a tactical nuclear device nuclear, gravity bombs or otherwise would be on strategic targets to help them win a conflict. Yeah. So he wouldn't do that, right?

The only time the doctrine kicks in is because the only reason you could conceive of using a nuclear weapon is out of a necessity to defeat the enemy when you have no other option left. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. And the whole point of the doctrine is that by the time you get to that necessity, you realize that it's going to lead to mutually assured destruction. So the point of that resort in necessity isn't really, it doesn't make the difference. So I guess to clarify, the mutually assured destruction would be of military and not civilian targets. It's total war is everything. Because if the civilians are making the steel that is being used,

then they're military. I think we've come to something. As in winning or losing the war. I think we've come to a development on the idea, which is important. It's the governments that lose. The people would end up being mostly fine. I don't think so. If you did a full nuclear strike of the U.S.,

it would be mass migration towards the farms in the middle of the country. People would be starving and going towards the suburbs and it would be full chaos the economy be shredded to zero no electricity no water yeah but still you'd have whatever somebody living in say Indonesia would be fine right hopefully as in well I mean

there'd be a global economic disaster but they wouldn't be dead I know the U.S. would nuke the entire planet in that moment I don't know I think yes what you're saying is it's the governments that the mutually assured destruction is just uh we have no choice but to do it if you do to deter you from doing it in the first place and that's why i'd argue it hasn't happened and won't happen it doesn't make sense for it to happen and that's what the doctrine states as well i think we'll see the use of tactical nukes uh people people need to understand the the uh when which conflict as in not in this conflict right at some point not with russia in i think it's possible but i don't know

but i'm not i'm not talking about uh uh i'm not talking about what i love to cite as you know mervs i'm not talking about uh you know i think it's possible we see like kiloton bombs so radioactive yeah nuclear artillery etc dirty weapons biological warfare that's where we're at these days right one of the reasons i don't think nukes are going to happen is in particular because what you've got is for a long time u.s military leadership has long recognized russia's strategic national interests in eastern Ukraine on that eastern side of that river that we were speaking about earlier. To the point where I posted this video on my feed, actually. Colonel McGregor from the U.S. military was on Fox.

And he perfectly articulates, as a U.S. colonel, perfectly articulates what Putin's desire is with eastern Ukraine, and then acknowledges that they've been aware of this for a long time. Now, keep in mind, of course, that if you're a serving U.S. military officer, you don't get to set what U.S. policy is in, for example, funding as a battalion or whatever. That's not the military that sets that policy. But the military being aware of this, it kind of indicates to me, and this has been around for years, this kind of idea that, you idea that we can't keep pushing NATO eastwards. U.S. military have been making these noises for a long time. I think, to be honest, we're probably past the peak and the worst, I'd say, of Russia's assault in Ukraine.

If we operate under the assumption that mutual laser destruction is correct, that means Russia is going to win and they're going to keep advancing. In Ukraine? They will win in Ukraine. They will take it. Putin will get exactly what he wants and he'll stop only when he decides. He'll stop at the river? Well, I think they're already past the river.

But that's where he'll... Odessa, right? But that's where he'll, for example, when he calls it quits... He splits the country. Because it's not in his own interest to go any further. Did you see the map that Belarus had

that showed an attack into Moldova, Transnistria? Yeah, I've been hearing about that. Belarus showed a map that depicted four attack vectors that have happened, several that haven't. Some have argued it is that they haven't happened yet. I don't know the way of evidence to suggest it's predictive or just speculative, but it does show accurately four attacks from Russia. Could be fake because they get the enemy to put their troops in the wrong spot well russia already occupies transnistria with about a thousand soldiers so if russia is planning on moving into moldova into this disputed territory to stage troops that means they're planning a western assault on ukraine

if that's the case then maybe they just want moldova or it could be fake because if it gets nato to put troops in moldova when they're not needed, then it's good. He doesn't need Western Ukraine. He needs Eastern Ukraine. What he wants in Western Ukraine, as McGregor said in the interview, we can pull it up if you want. It's quite good, actually. What he wants in Western Ukraine is a neutral Ukraine as it was pre-2014. That's all he wants. And if you understand that, this is where it really winds me up that we banned Russia today andussia today and all these like russian propaganda channels they are state-owned propaganda channels but if i'm playing chess with you it

helps me to know your strategy if i want to win now why would i if you're telling me your strategy why would i silence your voice if i'm playing against you right so this is why it makes no sense to silence russian media you want to understand what they're saying if you're competing against them but so far what we know is that comfortably we can say that putin wants a neutral pre-2014 style neutral ukraine now because he didn't get that he'll probably be happy with a western ukraine that's neutral and an eastern ukraine that's under his sphere of influence i think i think that's where he's going to end we went a little long but we'll read some super chats go for it yeah uh is that where

we were going to be we're going to be reading i got the guy's name it's going to end. We went a little long, but we'll read some super chats. Go for it. Is that where we were going to be? We were going to be reading. I got the guy's name. It's Vasily Arkhipov is the Russian officer. So we have Ryan says, Tim is just pissed because the chili story didn't take, because the chili story don't take it out on your guest. No, I'm not pissed about that.

But then someone actually responded, the chili law is legit. It seeks to prevent discrimination against workers who may develop genetic pathologiesologies but are not yet disabled. Keep up the good work. Love from Santiago. So that's someone saying they're from Chile. Someone that might get disabled in the future from a current genetic thing.

They want to make sure they're protected. So Ghost of Recon says, Tim, the purpose of mutual leisure destruction is to ensure that if a country were to launch a nuclear strike, the destruction would be ensured before the first nuke lands. This makes it completely unreasonable and unpalatable to fire nukes in the first place. My response to that is, I think it's interesting that people are saying I don't understand human nature when they're making assumptions about what humans would do in a situation that's never happened. My point is, mutually assured destruction is predicting human behavior on a circumstance it's never happened with no reason to believe and

no evidence suggested it would my my belief is that humans are averse to killing but you know as much as they could be and it's strange to me that people are adamant something that's never happened would happen with no evidence to believe it would you've seen alien to you remember the guy goes in

the aliens are trying to kill the guy and he pulls out the grenade and blows everybody up. The only thing I've ever seen is that nukes were dropped on Japan and it worked and we won.

They didn't have nukes though. But it's not just Japan. No one else did anything. No other country said whoa they just wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilians. They said America wins.

To be fair mad only applies in the context of both countries having nukes. I'm just saying that that's never happened before. And so we have no evidence to suggest it would, just speculation. And what has happened before is we've used devastating nuclear weapons with no retaliation at all in any capacity. The evidence we do have in terms of human nature is that what we do know is that human behavior isn't always rational and that revenge is a powerful emotion and that if you shot at me i know that a human reaction is to shoot back

now whether that's not been done with nukes before we don't need that to conclude that if you arms races happen right so if you escalate an arms race i escalate back from emotion we know that happens so there is some evidence to indicate that it would escalate and that's the evidence based on existing human behavior with what happens in retaliation and revenge and shame has brought up interesting point like can you let that person win if there's like a dictatorship that launched nukes at your country you can't let them if you're okay maybe you're just gonna let yourself get wiped out but like are you gonna let them control the planet now it's that's and that emotion can be crazy.

It's a question remarkably complicated that I think I'm just surprised people are so definitive on. Yeah. I mean, martyrdom in the Iranian, you're right though. In the Iranian concept, the ideological motive is also worth considering. Martyrdom as a concept, insert there as well. We have this from Dan Pitt. He says, Tim, bro, like I said yesterday, if nukes were launched at the US, a retaliatory strike would be launched with no hesitation.

I was on submarines. Trust me, the birds would fly. The issue is people seem to have a very American perspective on how the response would be. I'm talking about if Russia nuked any country on the planet. Do you think if Russia nuked Sri Lanka, there would be a retaliatory strike? Sri Lanka doesn't have nukes, but say Pakistan, right? And India. They'd destroy each other.

They would destroy each other. I can guarantee you that Pakistan... But there's ideology there. Yeah, that's the point. But most nuclear powers have ideology. So I think the... I don't believe the US is... I think it's governed more by...

I think this country has lost ideology for sure. I think we're fractured and we're driven more by conquest and power of corporate elites and neolibs and neocons. But I digress. I think the issue is people who have nukes don't have the same ideologies. They don't have the same beliefs. They don't have the same intentions. The U.S. certainly might do this. A lot of people seem to have an American perspective. Yes, we will nuke you. Don't you dare. But what about other countries? Would they do the same thing? I don't believe there's a uniform response to this and the only evidence i've seen is that after the u.s dropped nukes certainly other countries would have reason to declare war

on the united states for such an egregious action certainly i mean i suppose bombing two major cities in japan they just said we give up you know yeah i mean look you've got to consider why iran's chasing nukes at the moment i think people nations consider it as a leveler yeah and uh that's because they're subscribing to mutually sure destruction as a doctrine the reason iran wants nukes is it knows it cannot defeat israel in conventional military terms and wants to therefore level up with israel and the only way you can do that is through nuclear weapons i wonder if this is like an uh allegory, because I was trying to get into Islam and understand it. And what it looked like is Muhammad was teaching them like, peace at

all costs, unless you're backed into a corner, and you have no choice, then you fight like hell. And so the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has put these people in the corner. And now they're like, well, jihad, or whatever you want to to call it but and so that's kind of the mutually assured destruction thing like if you're going to attack me and put me in a corner by faith dictates that i do this well i mean that's why i mentioned martyrdom if you've got a psychology in a nation that would prefer death over defeat you and i would argue that's why nukes were dropped on japan because they wouldn't surrender because the the the mindset prior to the end of that war in the japanese imperial mindset was very much if you think terms of samurai dignity honor warrior mindset was very much that's why they would fall

on their sword which is where that idea comes from that they would prefer um taking their own lives than defeat on the battlefield now in the muslim version of that it's martyrdom over defeat so where you prefer death to defeat uh that could be the japanese version of falling in your own sword in the islamic version of that you wouldn't just kill yourself you'd want to take out as many of the enemy with you as possible before you die because you believe there's something after that so it's not irrational within the internal logic of that mindset. You think you're taking out as many of your enemy as possible. And then you end up in some eternal paradise.

So you're not actually dying. You're going to an eternal life. And you've also killed the enemy in the process. Yeah, there's something glorious about a hero that sacrifices him or herself to destroy the enemy. But the important point I'm making here is it's very real for the person that believes that it's real it's more real for the person that believes it than any form of real is for somebody that doesn't believe anything like it's hard to explain that mindset it's a hundred percent conviction yeah that this is what's going to happen and it's done willingly and with honor and then is celebrated i would

love to talk about that on the after show. Well, so yeah, you know, I think we've we might be getting a little circular on the mad stuff and a lot of the superchats are just making similar points and kind of just joining the argument. So I don't want to just rehash all the same stuff. But

other than that, we have a bunch of people pointing out that the Chile story is correct, but it's poorly framed. That the story in Chile was about non-discrimination for people with genetic disorders, like I'd assumed, and that we needlessly included information. The original source was Daily Expose. So let me see. This is Marco Antonio Aravena says, Chilean here, alterations in this context means issue or problem.

If we were talking about modification, we would be talking talking about gene therapy also is a work law against discrimination so it appears to be true but when you translate it it doesn't translate properly without someone from chile explaining to you there was no need to connection to vaccinations then in the article if that's the case and that's what the daily expose had done yeah they had said you know they'd linked them and we we certainly should have done that but I've been explicit with the crew before, don't combine stories because it's like nebulous connections. Well, so here's what we're going to do. We argued a bit too much and I don't want to go too late.

So we're going to go to the members only discussion. So head over to timcast.com and become a member if you want to support our work. If you appreciate the fact checkingchecking and real-time corrections and scrutiny we have for even our own work, and you want to help support our journalists as we continue to do better and get it right, please become a member. But also, we're going to record that members-only segment. It'll be up around 11 or so p.m., so you don't want to miss it.

It's going to be fun. I really appreciate your guys' support. Everybody's helping make it possible. You can follow the show at TimCast IRL. You can follow me at TimCast Magic. Do you want to shout anything out? Your show, your socials? Just watch out on my Odyssey spelled O-D-Y-S-W. Watch out for my new show that's going to appear on there.

Give it a couple of weeks to a month until we get ready. Meanwhile, you can find me on Substack. You can find me on Twitter and get it at Magid Noahs. Right on.

Seamus. What's up, homie? I am Seamus Coghlan. Love doctor. The love doctor Coghlan. Those are my credentials. Trust the science. Believe me on these issues.

I run a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes. We do cartoons. We release a new one every single Thursday, which means we're going to have one out tomorrow about Obama's, I'm sorry, Biden's. What's wrong with me now? Oh, Biden? The gaffes are contagious. We're going to be releasing a cartoon tomorrow on Biden's State of the Union.

I think you guys will enjoy it. I am Ian Crossland. I'm looking forward to seeing you guys again. You can follow me at iancrossland.net. And if you want to see our multi-video camera thing at some point in the future, give me a solid 100 in the chat. Catch you later. Nice.

I was going to say that Chilean law actually does sound like a real thing because I have like a genetic disorder that somebody could technically fire me for. So I'm kind of glad that it's a thing. Really curious where it's coming from, whether it's a WEF or something. And probably not vaccines. But anyway, I digress now. You guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sour Patch Lids. We will see all of you over at TimCast.com in that special members-only segment.

We are going to discuss religion and spirituality. It should be a lot of fun. And maybe we'll solve all the world's problems. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all then. Bye.