Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #490 - Global Food Shortage Is Coming, WW3, Scary, Fear, Whatever w/Andrew Heaton

Episode Date: March 19, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia join podcaster, author, and commentator Andrew Heaton to discuss the five reasons the war in Ukraine is a problem for the world food system, Biden's dementia, the Russian sentiment, and whether censorship is good. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There was no news today. Thanks for tuning in, and we'll see you all next week. I'm just kidding. No, we actually do have a show. But we were making a joke earlier that back in the day, they used to actually say that because they'd be like, there's not really any news, so let's just take the day off and send out the message to everybody and let them know nothing's happening.

But there's always got to be something happening, and we're just chilling on a Friday night. The truth is, yeah, there's a lot of news and stink bugs, I guess. Yeah, so many. But the news story that's coming out is the global food shortage is coming. Because of the fertilizer shortage now due to the conflict with Russia and Ukraine, Russia's not sending out fertilizer, which means fertilizer costs are skyrocketing. And that means the crop yield is going to be like 40% down.

It's happening in spring, which means come fall, man, your food's going to get really expensive, not to mention all the gas and all that stuff. So, you know, scary, fear, the world's ending and all that or whatever. But, you know, it's Friday, so we're going to hang out., not to mention all the gas and all that stuff. So, you know, scary fear, the world's ending and all that or whatever. But, you know, it's Friday, so we're going to hang out. We'll talk about that. We've got a couple other stories. We've got Putin had a big rally in Russia. Everyone's talking about there's a glitch or something on TV.

Dr. Fauci, who vanished for some time, he's got some doom saying for us. You know, apparently there's a new variant and he's come out and he's like, there's a new variant. Put me back on TV. And they did. So we'll just talk about that, but I think for the most we're going to be hanging out and just talking about literally whatever. Because I've got to be honest,

it's one of those days where there is very little going on and it's kind of relaxing. Because we'll just make jokes and be silly and have a good Friday night. And joining us to be funny is Andrew Heaton. Hello, I'm very funny. A pleasure to be here, Tim. Thanks for having me on a day with no news to discuss. Yeah, oh, it's great.

Yeah, so the pressure's on you. You better talk. I took a lot of Adderall and read three issues of The Economist before I came on for nothing. Oh, was there anything interesting in it? Singapore is at a crossroads, Tim. That's what I figured out, yeah. Ah, yes, and the politics of Lichtenstein. Yes, let's talk about that.

So who are you? What do you do? I'm a political satirist and a podcast host. So I'm funny. I'm a contributor at Reason TV. You're funny. Well, I'm not going to do it tonight because I'm off duty. It's a Friday.

Okay. But if it were like a Monday around 11 a.m. to 11.43 a.m., I'm very funny during that slot. All right. And I host a show called The Political Orphanage, which is a podcast designed for people that don't feel like they're being catered to by red team versus blue team media. Oh, okay, cool. All right, then.

Well, thanks for coming. Thanks. Good to see you. I'll see myself out. We got another guy who makes fun of politics. Yeah, my name's Seamus Coghlan. I also do political satire for a YouTube channel I created a while ago called Freedom Tunes. We just do satire about current events. Sometimes we'll dive into deeper topics. And we also do educational cartoons every now and again. So that's pretty exciting and a lot of fun.

So go check that out. We released a cartoon yesterday on the industrial military complex. And now they're constantly using World War II nostalgia to get people invested in new meddling in other countries and new policies of meddling in other countries. And I think you guys will enjoy it. Yeah, it was disturbingly awesome. Thank you, Ian. I went out and bought war bonds. I was so excited.

He really took it literally. The satire went over. I got to defeat them Nazis. Yeah, exactly. That's correct. Welcome back. Hey, everyone. Ian Crossland here.

Welcome back to me. I am back again after two days. I wasn't feeling very well, so I took a couple days off and I decided to change my diet really hard. Hard left turn, I started eating only kimchi and aloe vera in her filet with these eternal reds. No, and then it healed me. So within like 40 hours,

I dodged like a serious cold. I could feel it coming on and I was just like, nope, not going to eat the dry food because it was making me dehydrated. The funniest thing was that we had Congressman Randy Weber, who's on the Energy Committee. When the Republicans win, he'll be the chair. I was just like, the one time

Ian really needs to talk about graphene. Apparently Tim misrepresented. Tim was like, graphene's horrible. I wouldn't even look at it. Graphene is awesome, by the way. We should go deeper into graphene tonight. Touchscreen wallpaper. I'm an idiot.

Ian was out sick, and here I was filling in for him, not taking the empty spot, but sitting in his desk with the microphone he breathes into right in my face, knowing he was sick. I didn't even consider it. That old guest mic was the one. You've got to wipe that one down. I licked your mic when I came in. Am I going to get Ian to do it? No.

It's going to strengthen your immunity. We're trying to strengthen immunity here. Before I forget, I want to kick it over to Lydia here, who's also with us. I am also here. That's true. Thank you, Ian. I'm here in the corner. I'm very excited for Andrew Heaton.

I was listening to his podcast, The Political Orphanage, earlier today and watching one of his videos. Hilarious, by the way. I'm going to have to make his podcast part of my regular rotation. Can I plug the latest episode? You can, yeah. So I have been watching all the Ukraine footage. I've been watching

all the breathless fighting between Republicans and Democrats, and I think the actual fissures are deeper and different than that, so I did an episode on that. I did an episode on international relations theory, which sounds boring,

but is actually just the DNA of war. Why is war caused, and what are the competing solutions to war? And so that was the latest episode. And go to TimCast.com, be a member, and you'll be supporting our journalists and the hard work they do.

This is how we run the website. It's how we do the show. You guys as members keep all of this floating, protecting us from the evils of cancel culture. It's true. The more members we have, the stronger we become. We're able to expand.

We're able to be resilient in the face of activists trying to shut us down so that's one one way you can really support us you'll also get members only segments you'll be you'll be able to watch those monday through thursday and don't forget to smash the like button subscribe to this channel share the show with your friends and let's just let's just throw it to this first story which is just more of a general story and then we'll just have a fun friday hangout there's there's been a lot of news about inflation and gas. And it seems like the new news cycle that's starting to bubble up,

we're getting from Politico, from CNN, from The Washington Post, and all these big outlets, is that there's going to be a global food shortage or that we're already experiencing one, not to mention inflation is through the roof. So we got a couple stories about there's this billionaire who owns a chain of grocery stores. And he said,

buy your food now because it's going to get really expensive soon. They're saying that basically because Russia produces so much fertilizer and now no one can trade with them because of the war, we're going to see fertilizer costs skyrocket,

availability diminish, crop yields will drop by 40%, come fall is when everyone's going to get hit by it. That's the latest scary news in the media and all it has to do with the war and what's going on. So how are you guys doing? So if I can get a couple million bats

and bat guano, I can corner the market on fertilizer? Yes. Okay. Ian, how do you feel about going in on me, in with me on a bat investment? In on me? Well, the way you asked me the question, it's hard to say no. Let me put my thought in you. Now that you've conceived inside of me. In with me on a bat investment. In on me? Well, the way you asked me the question, it's hard to say no. Let me put my thought in you.

Now that you've conceived inside of me. We'll talk later. We'll discuss graphene and bats. Okay. Maybe we do need a little bit of nationalizing fertilizer. What? I don't know. Nationalizing food production never ends well, bro. What about fertilizer, though?

It is a great way to murder millions of people. How about way cheaper than nuclear weapons, too? Socialized agriculture is the best way to murder millions of people. It's way cheaper than nuclear weapons, too. Socialized agriculture is the best way to kill people. That's actually a really good point. We work so hard on nuclear weapons to kill tons of people when all we needed was communism. Yeah, exactly. The United States didn't even need to drop bombs on Japan. We could have just dropped communist pamphlets and then... Communism in a nutshell, like the agriculture is such a good microcosm for that, of like

what the Soviets would do is they'd go, okay, we need more crops, so we're going to order all of the farmers, you've got to till twice as much land now. And the farmers went, yeah, okay. And they just lifted up the, what do you call them, the rudders? The rudders or the tractors? You can tell I'm a farmer. They lifted up the rudders. And then they just drove really fast.

Like, they just raked the top of it because they don't have any personal gain in it. And then, like, of course, that meant that all of the bushels of wheat declined and everybody started starving to death in Ukraine. The other thing they would do is they would go to the guy who knows how to farm, kill him, and then take someone who didn't know how to farm and put him in charge. Cambodia is a great example. I mean, Cambodia, they literally, first, like Cambodia, they shot anybody that had any kind of education. They just shot it to the point where if you had glasses, Ian, you'd be up against the wall. This is Pol Pot? Yeah, Pol Pot.

Was he like a subject of Mao or was he a friend of Mao or inspired by Mao or something? He wasn't. Not only was he inspired by Mao, this is literally the name of Cambodia's communist program was the super great leap forward. Not the great leap forward, but the super great leap forward. He's like, it was my idea. And they killed about a quarter of the population doing that. And literally they'd go, okay,

the annual crop yield of the average hectare of farmland in Cambodia, let's say it's like eight bushels or something. They went, all right, from now on, everybody has to do 40 bushels. And people would go, hi, I'm Steve Dorr. I don't know how to farm. And also, there's a bunch of rocks here. And that was it. And it caused massive, massive damage.

Yeah, that was the funny thing where, was it Mao? He was like, kill the sparrows. Yeah. And then locusts ate all the crops. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is why centralizing is important. Don't let commies near food. Don't let commies near food. No, no.s ate all the crops. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is why centralizing... Don't let commies near food. Don't let commies near food.

No, no, hold on, hold on. Lefties in general. Shout out, shout out to Maduro. Oh, boy. Oh, yeah, he did a great job there. When he was giving his national address and then just pulls an empanada out from a drawer and bites it really slowly and then puts it back on TV for everyone to watch. See, this is how great capitalism is, because capitalism is like, what are we worried about?

Getting fat. That's what we're worried about with capitalism is excess Twinkies. That's how great, like, we just produce all this stuff. Yeah, I saw AOC has a new ASMR video out. I don't know if you guys saw it. She's like whispering. She's like, no, baby. Wait, are you serious?

Stop it. Yeah, she's legit whispering into the... No, you're messing with me. No, I'm not. Are you serious? Yes. AOC did ASMR. I don't know if she was intending... It's like just whispering? Yeah. Yeah, she's legit whispering into the – No, you're messing with me. No, I'm not. Are you serious? Yes. AOC did ASMR. I don't know if she was intending –

It's like just whispering? Yeah. Okay. It's just whispering. And she was like, people don't realize they're actually socialists because no one's a capitalist because no one has a billion dollars. What? And I'm like –

That's not what the word means. You know, I was like going to tweet something that was like mean. And then I was just like, she's got a dictionary, right? Because that's not what the word means. You know, I was like going to tweet something that was like mean. And then I was just like, she's got a dictionary, right? Because that's not what capitalism means. Technically, she has a degree in economics. That's the thing that really irritates me. No, she doesn't. No, I believe she studied.

I know she does. She clearly didn't sit through any of the classes. That drives me nuts because I'm going to spend the rest of my life having to go, no, the definition of socialism is the government owns the means of production. That's the definition of socialism. It doesn't mean sharing. That would make the Koch brothers socialists. But what you fail to realize is that the definition of capitalism is you have a billion dollars.

That's right. That explains it. Seamus, you're so smart. I'm glad I could inform you guys. So in communism, they own the production. Socialism, they also own the production. What's the difference there? There's actually debate about that, the distinction between communism and socialism.

Some people say that communism is the end state and socialism comes in between. Others say that communism is when the government completely controls culture and economy, whereas under socialism, they're just controlling economy. It isn't really completely decided off. Let me tell you what the lefties say. They say socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system.

In socialism, you can have a variety of social issues. You can have a variety of church or gay marriage. But the economic system is the means of production are owned by the people. And they believe in full-out socialism. There would be no – I don't want to say no currency. But there's no private trade of goods. Whereas communism is everyone's equal on every on every issue and then so communism includes issues like gay marriage whereas socialism is just economic so would it

be like socialism is to communism as capitalism is to democracy yeah but that that that is a no no this is like capitalism's the economic state and democracy is the governmental political state not necessarily capitalism can exist under multiple systems. Sure, yeah, yeah, exactly. In fact, there are many who argue democracy and capitalism are opposed to one another. Yeah, yeah, saying, yeah, exactly. Like, socialism and communism are, socialism

is a large component of communist ideology. Like it can't exist, one can't exist. Communism cannot exist without socialism. Yes. We're also approaching this as westerners from a liberal democracy, Because as Seamus rightly points out, the commies didn't think this way. If you go back and you look at Soviet manifestos, like back in the 80s,

you see the Soviet premier would say, we believe we can achieve communism in the next 10 years. To an American, that sounds very odd for the Soviet Union to say it's not communist. But the way commies thought was socialism is our economic policy. Communism is when the withering of the state occurs

and the proletariat becomes the end all be all. The last 30 years, we've made a distinction of socialist countries are socialist countries that are cute that we like. And communist countries are socialist countries that we find scary. And capitalism, for those that don't know, is literally just when private individuals have the ability to trade amongst each other yeah yeah

yep the private sector meaning charity individuals and corporations it means that capitalism would be you as an individual decide that your labor has value and you decide what you're willing to exchange it for in socialism you don't get to decide what your labor is worth. You just get what's available. Central planners determine where your labor should be allocated. And to your point, this is why you constantly hear commies saying that real communism has never been tried because they're talking about a theoretical end

state which has never existed in the real world. They sure killed a lot of people trying to get there. Yeah, exactly. They did some heavy lifting to try and get there. Also, this is hilarious because they say communism works and and then they say real communism's never been tried. And how on earth could you know if it works if it's never been tried? Well, it sounds like they tried it for 100 years and failed. Yeah, they failed to achieve their end goal.

Sounds so weird for me to say. I think they could be right if you tried it with 150 people, and anybody in that group could leave whenever they wanted. But that would be communism because it's not course. No, it wouldn't be. Absolutely. Like a family is communist. We've talked about this in the past. It's like the valence levels of behavior in your family.

It's very communist to what it needs. In your city, it's socialist. You have firemen, and they work for the city. That's not socialism. And then the greater whole were more democratic republic. That's not socialism. Fire departments are not socialism. Fire departments are not socialism. Police departments are not socialism.

Socialism is when the factory is owned by the state. Like the fire department is owned by the city. So having some components of emergency services that are provided to you through social services is not socialism. It's not socialism. You can call it social welfare programs. This is what happens with Denmark and, you know,

Bernie Sanders is like, they're socialist. It's true. And then the prime minister comes out and he says, no, we're not. The prime minister flew to America

to remind, he's like, no, we are actually a market economy. We are a market economy that has a robust welfare state. Exactly.

Which is a nuance that is very much lost on Bernie Sanders who has converted the word socialism to mean sharing. So is the fire department part like welfare? Is it considered welfare?

I would say you could say that in a sense, yeah. Well, first of all, fire department actually varies quite a lot in the United States. About half of the fire departments in the United States are private voluntary organizations. About half of them are some combination of publicly funded and things like that. So the idea that all fire departments are a public government organization the same way like police departments are would be a misnomer. I don't know. I could kind of go either way on that because theoretically an army could be a mercenary

army, right? But we don't tend to have those. We tend to have an actual military that is paid for by taxpayers and things. You can have like bodyguards and things like that. Fire departments aren't producing things. They're emergency services. So I think it's fair to say there's a distinction between you open up a cracker factory and

the government's like, no, no, no, we control how this operates because it's going to be equal for the people. You would make the distinction between economic productivity or just economic production versus services. Well, not necessarily services because services could be anything. I mean, delivery services, the post office. I just think it's fair to say that the fire department is not socialism. The fire department isn't the means of production.

It's emergency services. So emergency services are different from services. The post office is not an emergency service. The post office, we could argue, should be privatized. You know, FedEx and UPS are better. I argue that quite a lot, actually. I guess occasionally people will call me from NPR and be like, you want to come talk about this? The post office, we could argue, should be privatized. You know, FedEx and UPS are better. I argue that quite a lot, actually. Occasionally people will call me from NPR and be like, you want to come talk about this?

There are some questions about why it's important the fire department be sort of nationalized, sort of private. A lot of areas that have volunteer fire departments, they do because they don't have the resources to sustain large salaried fire departments. But one of the issues with fire departments as to why it might make sense to have it be sort of like a you know look we're going to cover all fire is because fire spreads right and if the police department showed up and said this guy doesn't pay us we don't service him it's like what are you going to do put the fire for the buildings next to it not we're all too close to each other just put the fire out and we'll have to figure it out yeah that's i'm that those are negative externalities are a legitimate role for government in my opinion you know like like if you've got like smog smog doesn't obey property lines right so like that's a situation where it makes sense to have some

kind of adjudicating service but if i want to make and sell shoes having the shoe department where you've got to go apply at the government office and then pass some you know affirmative you know action test or you know diversity test and then they allow you to be a shoemaker, that's a problem. And if there were a federal shoe department and you and I came in and went, you know, we think the private sector could probably handle this, people would think we're monsters. If I said we should privatize the federal shoe department because the Milwaukee Public Factory makes way too many left shoes

and the Oregon Factory makes insufficient right shoes, so we're making people wear two left shoes. I think the private sector can handle this. People would go, you want people to walk around barefoot in America, and you're a monster. So the problem with the Department of Education, people want that ended, and I think privatized or at least sent around localized, is that when it's no longer federalized, then how do you organize it? How do you make sure everyone's getting like a similar shoe size? How do you make sure that your size 11 is the same as his size 11 if you're at different companies with no government on the side? Arguably, it's not doing it now, right? I mean, the federal government basically just tries to bribe state education departments with grants,

like with No Child Left Behind and that kind of thing. But the actual government or the actual curriculum is still done at the state level, and the funding is not at the local level. Yeah, exactly. I mean, the Department of Education has only been around since the late 1970s, so it's not as if this is integral to our public education system. And even if it was, it would still probably be bad because our public education system is horrible. Yes.

I think Massey said it would free up $400 million a year. Again, flip it. If the private sector, if we just had, like, charter schools, and that was all the schools in America right right now and we were looking at test scores people would go man the private sector's really failed we need to we need to change this but when the government does it we never go man the government's screwing this up we should privatize this yeah well so that's the way i describe it is with these social programs uh well i'll start by saying all laws should have sunset clauses you know all bills being passed through. And the same is true for all social programs.

I like the idea that we're like, okay, we've got a serious issue, right? We've got mass homelessness. We're going to need a major public works program. That's fine to me as long as it's got like a finite limit on when it expires. Because what happens is they come out and they say, we need a Department of Education. We need public schools because we need our kids to be educated. And then a few years goes by and the kids are suffering and doing worse and so the way i describe this is the united states with a festering wound they slap a bandage on it they say we'll just

cover that up with a nice little bandage and then a few years goes by and they look at it now it's smoldering and infested and worse and they say let's just put another bandage on top of that and just what they do is they keep dumping money into failing programs so you think they're fixing it but they're not really fixing it yeah right so they're saying hey we're going to fix it with this money and you go oh thank you and then you walk away and then they don't actually fix it they make it worse you can't falsify that either like if we're going to approach policy making scientifically you can't disprove a negative right uh like like if any any government program you ever put out there

fails the proponents of it and go, well, it was insufficiently funded. That applies literally to anything. Every single time, yeah. We failed, so give us more money. It would have worked if only you'd given us money. But there's never going to be enough money for everybody to have what they want. Yeah, it's hilarious. You see political leaders do this a lot, too.

Like, I didn't achieve everything I was supposed to in my first term, which is why you need to give me a second term. You know what? Sometimes it can be legitimate. I just want to mention this one Milton Friedman quote, that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. You know what? Abolish the government. Just get rid of it all?

Yeah. Let it fall? Old thing. Abolish government. Yeah. I want a boutique government. I want a little compact IKEA government. No government for anybody.

Nobody gets any government. It's going to fall apart. It's none. Am I the statist here? I did not see this coming. No, no. I'm kind of a statist, too. All right.

I think there should be a government. I just think it should basically protect us from bears and maybe communists. We need an agile government that changes when the technology changes. We should be working more online. The government is so slow to adapt. They're so happy getting their paychecks and just going to work. Here's where I disagree. I actually think the government is too quick to adapt.

I wish they moved a lot more slowly than they do. Powdered wigs. When was the first paper on graphene? That I ever saw? No, just like what you can think of. I think it was 2004 is when it was discovered. We're looking at

18 years. The U.S. government is not made of graphene? I've never heard someone in the government mention the word unless they're sitting across from me and I say it to them and they repeat me. It's crazy. You had your opportunity yesterday. Whenever we have a politician or Ian's like, graphene, now's my chance.

You guys should be looking at this. Use the best government in the world to produce the most miraculous substrate on the planet Earth. It's pure carbon. I'm somewhat kidding about the government being made of graphene, but I think it's a good example of Nancy Pelosi is how old? You know, 80? 98. Look, the left and the right agree on this, that we know there's an age of retirement and an age at which people start to deteriorate, yet our government is run exclusively by septuagenarians and octogenarians.

Maybe, with all due respect, these people should be given an opportunity to retire off into the sunset and just relax with a coconut and a cigar or something. Have you ever heard of El Presidente Salazar of Portugal? This is a very quick story. This is one of my favorite stories. Portugal had one of those presidents for life. I think it was in the 60s or the 70s, but he's like El Presidente, but he's a dictator, right? He has a stroke, and he is on his deathbed and the rubber-stamped parliament of Portugal goes, alright, enough of this nonsense. It's time to go back to

being a democracy. Let's join the rest of Europe. We're going to be a liberal democracy. Okay, everybody all in favor? We're a democracy now. But then he recovers and they go, oh, uh-oh. But he's okay, but he's kind of winded. So what they do is they send him to the presidential winter palace,

and for the next three years of his life, they don't tell him. He's been ousted. And they send in lying orderlies to come in every day and go, Ah, yes, Mr. President, we did as you said, and we firebombed Lisbon or whatever. And they just give him like a—he's living in Truman's show for the last three years of his life. I think it's a great thing to do with dictators. Give him a fake send-off. That's what they did with Napoleon.

They can't martyr the guy. Be careful you don't martyr the guy. He didn't think he was running Paris. That would have been funny. Oh yeah, he knew he was the left. That's why he came back. A lot of people recommended that, or a lot of the left was saying about Trump. Put him in a fake White House and then just film it and do a reality show where he thinks he's president.

Part of me thinks that's what's happening with Biden. You know, like he's sitting there thinking he's playing video games, but Kamala handed him a controller that's not plugged in and she's actually the one doing it. You have it backwards. Yeah. The American people are being shown a TV screen. It's so true. And we're being told he's the president. Yeah, yeah.

Well, exactly. I mean, I'm pretty sure things are being run by the people around him. The man can't finish a sentence. Well, I don't, you know, I've said this several times. I think the people around him are trying to do what Biden wants. But a man that incoherent makes it impossible. So they're all, you know, the joke is like they're all sitting around the table and, you know, and you've got Millie and like Kamala. And then Biden's like, oh, this is Ukraine thing.

Come on, man. What? Come on, man. And then they're all sitting around looking at each other like, what did he say he wants us to do? And then Trump was like, you got a Vladimir Putin. Get him on the phone and turn it down to a shot of pressure. And they're like, okay. And then they all get up and leave the room, and they're all looking at what are we supposed to do i have no idea what did he say and then they just

start pressing random buttons they're like we're working biden so they're technically the ones doing things but it's like without without a nucleus without a cohesive core guiding you like you know for all of donald trump's faults he was telling people to do things you know and they would do them and things worked out now joe Joe Biden is muttering to himself at the time, and they're just pressing random buttons, hoping something happens. Look, you look at the Afghanistan withdrawal. Who in their right mind would be like, we're going to withdraw from the Bagram Air Force Base in the middle of the night

without telling the Afghan security forces. Then we're going to try and evacuate people to the civilian airport once everyone's found out. Hold on. If our main goal is just to do it on the anniversary of 9-11 if that's the top goal it makes sense if you're just doing it for symbolic purposes if that's your top your top people i i think i looked at the 2020 election and i thought america had a choice between uh getting on a train that keeps getting lost or getting on a train that hits cows for fun. I thought it was a really, really bad choice that we all had to make on that one. This is the problem with first-past-the-post voting systems. Yes.

Yeah, you end up with two people, and everyone just hates the other one so much they vote for the other one. And you end up with, you know, look, in 2016, I was like, I'm not voting for Trump. And Hillary Clinton, yeah, right, like i'm not voting for trump and hillary clinton yeah right i'm definitely not voting for hillary clinton when 2020 came around with critical race theory and everything that was going on and then trump released his uh uh you know second term campaign positions i was like i'll vote for that you know it's it's not so bad what was can you like because i i'm i'm unfamiliar with your your whole arc i know that you used to be a bernie guy right oh

yeah so bern Bernie lost his mind. So, okay. So, like, I wondered if maybe it's just you're a populist. Probably. Is that it? Oh, Bernie Sanders in 2015. Open borders is a Koch brothers proposal. So, you know, look, I've always...

On behalf of the neoliberal shills, we rather like open borders. We've been in favor of that for a while. So, with Bernie, you've got a guy who's supported by a lot of working class guys. He says on stage at a debate, the gun control debate is an urban versus rural issue. And people in Vermont like guns. So it's not Democrat, Republican or whatever. There are Democrats who like guns. And I'm like, you know, I appreciate hearing this because I think and back then I was not a staunch, you know, to a absolutist for the most part. I was like, I think there's some reasonable discussion there. But it felt it felt reasonable because I know that people who live in rural areas have a different expectation on guns.

So I lived in rural, you know, outside of Miami in the Redlands back in, I think this was 2015. And so I understood what was going on in the neighborhood as to why people liked guns. There were illegal immigrants who were committing crimes and killing people, and it happened in this area. And so all of a sudden i'm like i i think i understand why people are having these conversations but bernie sanders you know just quickly went full-on neoliberal democrat establishment hillary clinton opened borders and i was like i don't even know the guy stands for at this point other than having a bunch of houses and saying if you want to have

several houses you can write a best-selling book too donald trump was a blowhard he was bombastic but uh with 2020 you have his push against critical race theory he banned not explicitly critical race theory but the tenets of crt which violate the 1964 civil rights act he banned that from government contracts and in government training which is really really good i knew biden would overturn that and once again bring racist, like overtly white supremacist ideology of segregation back into government under the guise of not being white supremacist. And they would accuse the people who are fighting for civil libertarianism of being the racists. So I'm like, that's one for Trump.

Trump set a timeline for withdrawing out of Afghanistan. I said, I'd like to see that followed through. Look at what Biden did. Hey, I was right to vote for Trump. Joe Biden screwed that up miserably. Donald Trump is also for school. Didn't Biden delay the timeline? He delayed the timeline and then he screwed up the withdrawal outright.

So Donald Trump surrendered. How do you think it would have been different than what Trump would have done in terms of Afghanistan? So there's a question. Why? Even Bill Maher mentioned, why didn't Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine under Trump? Donald Trump was a madman, is a madman, to the point where the left said he's a madman. And the right was like, he's a madman. And I'm like, I think we all agree he's a madman.

But, you know, in varying ways, right? The right was like, he's eccentric and he's going to do it. He's going to do shocking things. Trump said recently that he was talking to Putin and said, if you go into Ukraine, I'll hit Moscow, I'll nuke Moscow. And he's like, yeah, he believed me a little bit, maybe five, 10%, but it's enough, right? I don't like that idea that our president's going to be like, I'll kill 10 million civilians. But then you look at, you know, what Trump was actually doing during this whole conflict.

We saw the crushing of ISIS, which Russia was probably like, okay, well, you know what Trump was actually doing during this whole conflict we saw the crushing of ISIS which Russia was probably like okay well you know this guy's not crushing my allies like the the Obama administration was doing with Syria and basically arming the rebels in the Middle East when he was talking about withdrawing from NATO which would be very pleasing to Russia right so if I was Russia and the president was talking about withdrawing from NATO I would not want to antagonize NATO because I wouldn't want to give them a rationale except if you if you understand Trump you understand he plays what's called the big ask. What Trump was saying, and many argue he saved NATO, Trump went to NATO and said, you're not paying your fair share for military,

and you're expecting the American people to do it. I hear that, and I'm like, he's right. That is true. I'm absolutely sick of the U.S. being the world police. The reason that they all have the social welfare programs they have is because they don't have the military. We have the military. And if Russia encroaches on them, we have to foot the bill for them while the people here talk crap about us because, look at those countries and everything they get. It's like, yeah, because our troops are over there and they shouldn't be.

What ends up happening is they start paying a little bit more. What did Trump say when he went to this NATO meeting and he said, Germany, you're dependent on Russia. Why is the U.S. footing the bill for NATO to protect you from Russia and then you're dependent on their oil? You keep doing deals with them. He was right about all that. So the reason why I think Vladimir Putin didn't invade Ukraine partly is because Trump is a bit – what's the right word for unpredictable and a little crazy, right? Erratic? Erratic. Good word. Erratic. And so Putin genuinely, I would imagine to a certain degree, was probably like, I'm not sure what he

would do if I made these moves. Now, Biden, he's predictable. But with Donald Trump, you get the crushing of ISIS. Syria is Russia's ally. We don't like ISIS. The United States liked ISIS. The government did because it was destabilizing the Assad like ISIS. The United States liked ISIS. The government did because it was destabilizing the Assad regime and the United States and Western powers wanted to build a pipeline through Syria. So it was also convenient for the West to be like, oh, we accidentally gave weapons to a bunch of jihadis. Trump goes in and blows them all up. You can say for better or for worse, the drone strikes and all that stuff. But ISIS was decimated under Trump. So, of course, Vladimir Putin isn't invading.

The one way these leftists like to put it is they're like, because Trump was playing to Putin's agenda. And I'm like crushing ISIS, staying out of Ukraine's affairs and actually like allowing things to semi-stabilize like the Abraham Accords. Oh, it's no wonder Putin was so upset. But if you're like, that's Putin's agenda. What's your agenda? War? War in Eastern Europe?

War in the Middle East? I don't want any of that. I don't think we should be the world police. So when I saw what Trump was doing, I said, I like these things. It's enough for me to vote for. Trump tried getting our troops out of Syria. You know what happened? A high-ranking official lied to the American people about how many troops were in Syria

to keep them there. That's insane. That is our commander-in-chief saying the American people want our troops out and I'm going to make it happen. And they said, yeah, don't worry, Trump. There's only 200 left. Trump tried getting them all out and they said, we can't do it because of the oil. So Trump publicly comes out and says, we're going to keep 200 people in there, you know,

for the oil. And he blurts it out. And I'm like, good. Tell people what we're doing there and why we're doing it. You know what happens? One of the first things, one of the first reports we get when Biden gets back in office is that U.S. troops are moving through Syria again. Do you think Vladimir Putin was happy about that? Syria is an ally of Russia and Russia has a naval base in Tartus. So when the U.S. is in a country that Russia is allied with,

it's not surprising that Putin's going to be like, you know, fires the missiles or whatever. So look, Donald Trump, far from perfect for a lot of ways. I believe that he represents the worst of American culture, you know, talking privately on a bus or whatever about what, you know, women let you do it. You know, all of these things are crude and crass. He does not represent the office very well in terms of decorum. But when you look at how corrupt the democratic establishment has been and are today and how they've kicked off all of this conflict, I think Donald Trump would have been uh the much better choice i believe that if donald trump was still in office the afghanistan withdrawal would have gone i wouldn't say swimmingly but much much

better i don't believe those 13 gone much worse no it was i don't think it was a surrender he surrendered no no no u.s surrendered joe biden surrendered joe biden's administration abandoned the Bagram Air Force Base in the middle of the night without notifying the Afghan security forces. When the Afghani Marines were fighting for their lives, Joe Biden did nothing to assist them. In fact, they didn't even know what Biden was doing. Whenever I abandon an Air Force base, I always text. Always, every single time. I'm like, hey, just so you FYI. You didn't let them know.

FYI, 11 p.m, I'm going away. Andrew, it's considered proper to do it in person. You know what? I tend to ghost. I know you're not supposed to. I'm like, I don't really like Canada anymore. It'll figure it out. It'll figure it out. Take a look at Keystone

Pipeline getting shut down. So anyway, back to May I add a little bit to your Russian timeline here? So, first of all, to key off of something you're bringing up something that i'm very much bothered by in american discourse right now is the phrase uh putin apologist now i don't like putin and if you do like putin you're in a putin apologist and you're wrong and you deserve putin's a scumbag program yes very much so but like like if if you're just saying like i don't think it's a good idea for nato to inde expand, and because Putin would agree with you, you're a Putin apologist. If you were opposed to going into Iraq, are you a Saddam apologist?

I think in retrospect, we're like, that was a really bad idea. But I think a lot of the same voices that are kind of this neocon muscular liberalism are going, well, if you're saying anything other than my militant proposals, you are a Putin apologist. And it's like, no, there's more than two options. And one of them is like, it might be an imprudent idea. So I look at Russia, and I see this more from a realist perspective, which is that there are great powers. We're concerned about the interplay of powers, the power dynamics. Russia views Ukraine almost like we view Canada if all of our historic enemies had marched through Canada to try to murder us over 300 years.

And they were very upfront that, like, we will view any annexation of Ukraine into NATO as an existential threat. Very similar to how we would feel if Canada joined Russia in an alliance. We would have the same mindset here. By the way, all of these are amoral statements. I'm not saying Russia's good. I'm just saying this is how they're interpreting it outside of this. In 2008, George W. Bush, during the Bucharest summit, goes,

yeah, we're going to bring in Ukraine to NATO. Like, we're going to do it. We don't know when, but we are bringing Ukraine into NATO. Putin freaks out. What does he do? Later that year, two months later, he invades Georgia, the other country that was mentioned in that. Bush says, we're going to bring in Georgia and Ukraine. He brings in Georgia, starts agitating things. When Biden was vice president,

we start beginning this process of trying to pivot Ukraine to the American sphere. In 2014, their pro-Russian president is ousted. A new guy comes in that's pro-America. A day later, a day later, Russia begins taking Crimea. Where they have a naval base. Where they already had a naval base. There was no strategic reason to do that. I mean, that was because they were freaking out about all of this.

There's a strategic reason to take Crimea. They have a naval base there. It's their only warm water port. Right, right. Let me rephrase this. They already have the military stuff there that they need. So if it's additional moves that they're doing, it's because they are concerned about how the country is pivoting. And they're afraid it might go in a different direction.

And then you have in 2021 now that Biden's – so Trump did agitate Russia at one point because he authorized arms sales to Ukraine. And he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, hitting an airport. So he's not completely isolationist in that regard. Once Biden gets into office, we have Anthony Blinken as the Secretary of State. We also sign a U.S.-Ukrainian cooperation agreement, which is further attempting to bring Ukraine into our orbit. And then we seal the deal, I think it was in November of last year, by doing joint naval exercises with Ukraine in the Black Sea, which would, again, be like if Canada did naval exercises with Russia in Lake Superior.

And at that point, I think that's where the camel, the straws broke the camel's back. Well, there's a lot more to this. I think one of the reasons Vladimir Putin didn't invade Ukraine, one of them, is that Donald Trump stumbled upon the corruption of Joe Biden in Ukraine when he did that phone call and that perfect phone call, they say, or he says, when he said, look, you know, I saw this video about Joe Biden bragging about withholding aid or whatever. If you could look into that, what was that all about? And I don't think Donald Trump really knew what that was all about.

Just something he saw on the Internet. But they impeached him for it. Why? Well, as it turns out, the laptop story was all true. Joe Biden was involved with illicit dealings with his son through Ukraine. We've got the Burisma, which is paying Joe Biden's son $83,000 a month or arguably more, depending on which source you're using. And then there's the story about 10% for the big big guy i think when you look at politico reported this i don't know the 10 for

the big guy is that a biden reference there was an email um that came out where uh it was you know like devin archer and um hunter biden his associates i want to be careful here because i don't have the specifics pulled up but it was hunter biden his associates talking about how they're going to be splitting up one of their business dealings and they said and i'll take an extra 10 for the big guy or something to that effect and um everyone believes that's joe biden because you know it's joe biden's the guy who controlled all the influence we know that joe and hunter biden shared bank accounts and so right right away it's you know and then there's a text message from hunter where he's talking wait hold on actually i want to back up on that really because like oh yeah um i i look at the situation

i'm gonna be honest with you i have more of a mainstream approach to this so this is new information to me and i'm intrigued by this i looked at that and i went it appears that the president of the united states is extorting an ally or at least a cooperative power trump yes how is he extorting them uh by withholding defense money in order to try and get them to target that's literally what trump was investigating biden doing joe biden is on video saying i want you to fire this prosecutor. Otherwise, you're not getting a billion dollars. And they said, this is Joe Biden's quote.

He goes, they said, you can't do that. You're not the president. He goes, call him. Call him. You got six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired in six hours, you don't get the billion dollars. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. Now, you want to know. Sorry, I've got to finish this.

You want to know why Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired? The prosecutor, Victor Shokin, currently had at minimum 12 investigations into Burisma's founder, Mykola Zlochevsky. This is reporting from Matt Taibbi. And Shokin signed a sworn affidavit saying he was fired because Joe Biden was interfering in internal affairs in the country. And the president went to him and says, he's forcing us to fire you. Mykola Zashevsky is deeply corrupt. They had frozen his assets before he had fled the country before.

But as soon as this new prosecutor gets in under Joe, thanks to Joe Biden, dude comes on back. Dude founds a company where Joe's son works. At the very least, you say joe just didn't know that his son worked for the company joe says i never talked to my son about his business dealings then banks the laptop we learn that's not true joe biden shared a bank account with his son while his son was see the bank account bits the part that's oh yeah it's interesting because like you you could make an argument here let's theoretically let's say that uh hunter biden is getting money

um because he can just soak the cash up and they're basically trying to bribe Biden by giving money to his son. Well, you could be an impeachable person and have somebody try to bribe you by giving money to your son. But if they're sharing bank accounts, that means that that firewall is gone. Joe Biden could become embroiled in the FBI's probe into Hunter's finances. Experts say emails revealed they shared bank accounts, paid each other's bills, and the president may have even funded his son's 2018 drug and prostitution binge. Now, if Hunter Biden is getting money, working for an energy company in which he has no business, and he's sharing a bank account with his dad, and a prosecutor is investigating that company, and then his dad comes in and says fire him or i'm going to i'm going to withhold u.s allotted funding that is so beyond criminal and corrupt i am shocked

that when donald trump catches this on accident and has no idea what it is and says what's going on here they impeached him for it these people are deeply deeply evil look at this i mean come on man when to quote joe biden how about that come on man come on, man. To quote Joe Biden. How about that? Come on, man. Joe Biden is in photos with Hunter and Hunter's associates. And he lied and said, I didn't talk to my son about this stuff. No, I'll tell you what it is. Politico reported this a while back. It's called Biden Inc. That the Biden family fortunes track alongside his political career. When Joe Biden was put in charge of Iraq under Obama, all of a sudden his brother's getting these lucrative contracts for construction in the country. Now you have Hunter Biden working at a company in which everyone knows he has no business

working at, no expertise, doesn't speak the language, sharing bank accounts. Joe Biden comes in, gets the prosecutor who's investigating the founder, gets him fired, threatening to withhold funds from the US government he has no right to do beyond abuse of power. And then what do they do? The media comes out and lies. They get Trump impeached for it. And now here we are with many people in this country still believing Trump was the one who was wrong for trying to get rid of that corruption. Now, truth be told, I don't think Trump is a great detective who was like, I must do what's right and save this country over this. No, I think Trump saw a meme video, a meme that went viral of Joe Biden saying, son of a bitch,

guy got fired. And Trump's on the phone. He's like, what was that video about? If you look at the transcript, it's very much Trump bumbling into something. You have to ask yourself, why are so many high ranking Democrat family members involved in Ukraine's energy companies? I think it's because the U.S. policy on Ukraine was that we were, it's not just Ukraine, it's Syria, it's the Middle East, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline was, we are going to destroy Russia's ability to control natural gas into Europe because gas is too expensive and we're going to do it by any means necessary.

In 2009, it was reported by The Guardian, I believe in 2012, that in 2009, the U.S. government had stated, we wanted to invade Syria because Bashar al-Assad was blocking our allies from building a pipeline through Syria and Turkey, specifically because Syria said we are allies with Russia and we won't allow it. Then we ended up with our adversaries, I think it was Iran, saying they could tap the same gas field and run it through Iraq and into Europe and strengthen Russia's gas monopoly. So the U.S. has to do a few things. They need to control Gazprom, which runs through Ukraine, and they need an alternative source of fuel. Surprise, surprise, Syria falls in a civil war. The U.S. starts funding the jihadis. Russia's pissed. Then we start getting these pro-Western protests. Now, there's a lot of people saying it was a CIA-backed coup. I'm not going that far.

I'm saying the West, of course, is playing their influence game. The West doesn't want to pay these prices for gas. Russia doesn't want them to screw around with war and destroying their allies to undercut their energy business. But more importantly, if the U.S. policy on Ukraine was to gain control to reduce the cost of energy for our European allies, it appears that Joe Biden and many other high-profile individuals saw that and said, it's time to wet our beaks a little on this one. Get our family members in there so we can cut a profit while it's all going down. What is fascinating about this, what I'm very much enjoying about this,

in addition to learning a lot, is right now most of the debate happening in foreign policy circles in the United States is between realists, which is what I was talking about earlier, power, billiard balls, Otto von Bismarck, that kind of thing, realists, right, and liberals, which in an IR context, don't think American liberals, think institution builders, NATO, European Union, WTO, right? Those are the two big fights right now. One of the other schools of foreign policy that's not a big part of the American experience at the moment, and don't freak out when I use this word, but it's Marxist. So Marxist IR theory is that it's not about power, it's not about institutions, it's about money, that you can

look at international relations and you can understand them by looking at the ruling class of a country enriching itself. And this is fascinating, Tim, because I'm not trying to throw any socialist aspersions at you. I'm just saying like your heuristic window is more economically motivated. So you've got a very different interpretation of this than most of the other news I've been consuming lately. And I find it very interesting. Well, I mean, I absolutely look at the ideological backing of a lot of this too. Vladimir Putin very much wants to restore the might of the former Soviet empire. He wants the Russian empire back. He wants that trade union. So very much, he's looking at countries like Kazakhstan, for instance, and he's saying, how can I build up my

own block to compete with NATO? But ultimately, I think a lot of people have a simplistic view on things. I talk to my friends and I ask them, do you think Vladimir Putin is intentionally trying to kill civilians? They'll say yes. And I ask them, why do you think that is? Typically, people will say it's because he's a bad guy. You know, he wants to show the world how powerful and scary is evil. And I'm like, isn't that a little naive? You know, I certainly think Vladimir Putin is killing civilians. We have videos of it. And it's ridiculous to think that he's not. But I don't think Vladimir Putin gets up and says, I'm going to kill civilians today. I think he's like, this is a very strategic target for us in Kiev

where Ukrainian forces are using. It is a civilian target. Hit it anyway. I think it's more nuanced. It's things like that. I think any time you hear people going, he's mad, that's lazy. It's possible, but very unlikely. Generally speaking, when somebody who's previously made rational,

if immoral, unethical decisions, which they're not the same thing. You can be rational and unethical a la Darth Vader. When somebody has a track record of doing that, you're like, I don't understand what he's doing. He's probably crazy. That means that your heuristics are probably off, and you need to reassess what their motivations are. It's a complicated world we live in. It's not just oil. Yeah, you don't think geopolitics is just black hats versus white hats all the time?

Oh yeah, it's all this. You think it's more nuanced than that? The U.S. government can do no wrong. They've never lied to us. The mainstream media is honest all the time. A great example of that, Tim, is the fact that we only make allies based on liberal democracy. That's why we're such good friends with Saudi Arabia. You know that Republican-Democratic government with a high-hecking open market and individual rights?

And we're very anti-fascist, which is of course why we're absolutely opposed to the Nazis and the Azov Battalion. Yeah, and mercenaries. We wouldn't hire Blackwater to do a bunch of dirty work in the Middle East or anything. Here's what I tell people. I certainly think that for the elites in this country, they view cultural issues as somewhat secondary. I don't think Nancy Pelosi knows or cares all that much about what Gen Z thinks culturally. I think a lot of it is how can you control systems. But I think what I tell people is

when it came to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I would tell my friends, do you like it that you can work in New York at a media company where you write articles about Brad Pitt's junk and get paid $65,000 a year? Like, are you happy with the amount of money you make and the job you have? And they typically are like,

well, you know, I probably should make more and stuff like that. Okay, would you prefer it if you had to, I don't know, shovel coal for $5 an hour? Would that be a better life for you? And they're like, what? No, of course not. I say, okay, let me explain to you

why you get to work in New York City, why you get paid $65,000 a year to write articles once a week about Brad Pitt's junk. Doesn't that seem a little wrong to you? Like something's wrong with the system where you basically do nothing of value, but you're making, what is that,

seven or eight times what people in Mexico or Brazil make? Isn't that strange? Yeah, it's because of the petrodollar. It's because of the war machine. It's because the United States, its special interest groups are willing to destroy countries to get cheap fuel and cheap energy.

And the petrodollar helps us very much so in that we don't need to rely on exports for a strong currency. We just point guns at people and say, you better use ours. Again, this is interesting because this is Marxist IR theory. Like Marxist IR theory, there's a subset of it called world systems theory. And the idea in world systems theory is that there's an industrialized core of capitalist countries. There's a semi-periphery of cheap labor. And there's a periphery of subsistence-level resource extraction.

And if you're going with world systems theory, then, like, you look at Vietnam and you're like, well, Vietnam was about annexing or maintaining Vietnam as part of the American economic supply chain. It didn't have to do with containment theory, right? And, like, how you're interpreting this would fall in line with that. Yeah, yeah, no, I'm not surprised. I mean, there's a reason why I went down to Occupy Wall Street and was interested in it. I think class-based issues are substantially more important than race or identity-based issues. One of the problems we have right now in the country is that the left has adopted critical race theory,

which it pits regular people against each other, poor people against each other. You end up with people like Serena Williams, who is one of the wealthiest people on each other, poor people against each other. You end up with people like Serena Williams, who is one of the wealthiest people on the planet, most famous, and most celebrated, and she's a victim, and she's oppressed. And you'll get a homeless white veteran who is an oppressor. Now, that system clearly does not make sense. Class issues matter substantially more than these ridiculous ideas about privilege. Now, I certainly think racism exists.

I think the problem with the left is they see things too much at the surface level. White privilege is not what it is. It's majority privilege. In any country in which you're the majority, you're going to have some benefits because people think, look, and act like you more so than other people, immigrants or strangers. But they just say it's white privilege, which is extremely reductive. When you have someone who's white from South Africa or a white person from Ukraine, Luke Rutkowski, who's on the show every so often, he's a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Polish guy.

But according to the critical race theorists, he's a person of color. Absolutely. The coalition of communities of color say that Slavic people are people of color, even if they're white with blonde hair and blue eyes. No joke. I'm English-Scottish Clydesdale. I think the 23andMe test was off. Oh, then you're white.

I'm straight up, I'm just a jar of mayonnaise. I feel like you can reverse engineer critical race theory to look at it as critical theory to see the class structure ripped away because what happened is when slavery ended in the United States, a bunch of people were just descendants of slaves and slaves were dumped onto the streets with no education, no money. So their kids had no education, no money, most of them.

Then their kids tend to have low or little education and money. And so we're looking at like the seventh generation now. A lot of those families, irrelevant of the skin color, they just happened to, in this iteration of slavery, come from, irrelevant of the skin color, they just happened to, in this iteration of slavery, come from that area of the world. Redlining go on as well, which would be the best way to accumulate multi-generational wealth is home ownership, and that was basically precluded up until 30

years ago, 40 years ago. And you could argue there is systemic racism in this, but it is a class system. Yes, but the economic fallout is the main factor. I'll also add this, to introduce more complexity to what we're talking about here, it wasn't necessarily just a straight line of this group of people not gaining wealth through the generations. It's actually the case that prior to the 1960s,

there were fewer black out-of-wedlock births than there are today by a significant margin. And we know one of the best ways to prevent poverty is to ensure that you're married before you have children. And so there are things that were done to the black community. Some say the war on drugs, some say the war on poverty. The Brookings Institute has actually said legal abortion is a big part of it. But there are policies that came much later. Yeah, I think there are. So I think systemic racism is it absolutely exists. But there's there's there's an issue of how the left interprets it what they think it means and how far and extreme they go with it so i'll give you an example you'll talk to one of these critical race theorists about systemic racism and they'll tell you today

you know that all police are racist or whatever and i'm like okay you got to stop you got to stop right the average person is substantially less, leaning towards not even racist for the most part these days. That's the average person. But they'll tell you the whole system is racist. The way I explain it to people is that in Chicago, easiest example, we had two big problems, blockbusting and redlining. Have you ever heard of these? Redlining, of course, is very famous.

It's where you have the redline trains. The real estate companies would isolate certain areas where they would only sell to black people and they wouldn't sell outside, creating these segregated areas. Blockbusting is one of the dirtiest and most evil things I've ever heard about. It's where these companies would go to a white neighborhood, buy a house, move a black family in, and then go door to door to all the houses and say, there goes the neighborhood. You better sell to us before it's too late. The people would panic sell at a premium to these companies who would then kick the black family out and sell the whole neighborhood back to white people for a profit. That was made illegal.

Redlining was made illegal, but only in the 80s. That means there are people my age today who are just now the first generation getting out of overtly nowadays illegal systems that caused damage to people based on their race. So what I could say is, yes, obviously today remnants of that racism still exists in the system. Are individuals racist? Some still are. But for the most part, we've done a lot to change that. The solution, however, is not to go to a poor white person and say, you will not be granted access to this. We will take money from you.

That makes no sense. Now that we've changed the laws, the solution is class based, because if the left believes that the black community is disproportionately impoverished, then class based issues will still disproportionately favor them. But it won't leave behind Latinos, Asians or white people who are also negatively impacted. I have an ex-girlfriend who, when we were dating, her father lived, I won't say where it is. It's not out her, but her father, if she wanted to call him, she couldn't because he didn't own a phone. She was white, by the way, so was her father. But if she wanted to get in contact with her dad, she had to call her neighbor and have her neighbor walk over to get her dad because her dad was that poor.

And I think that's a good example of, like, I don't really feel like saying he had massive privilege really counts. Like, that guy that couldn't afford a phone I feel like is economically underprivileged. And I'll give you another example of systemic racism at work in government that's still there. When you look at almost all zoning laws, I am most familiar with Los Angeles. To plug it, I wrote a book called Los Angeles is Hideous, Poems About an Ugly City. So if you don't like L.A. and you like funny stuff, it's a funny book. I'll get your copy, Tim.

That sounds good. It's a fun book. I don't like L.A. Yeah, I don't know. It's just an asphalt carbuncle. But in the process of researching these poems that I wrote about Los Angeles, the reason that Los Angeles is the massive, sprawling city that it is, it is accidental, but it's not unavoidable.

The reason that it's so sprawling is that Los Angeles during the, I guess it would be the 40s and 50s, basically, like many cities in America, but I'm most familiar with that one, went, oh, no, black people are moving in. We should basically outlaw apartment buildings because it was racist. It was overtly racist at the time. And the thinking was, well, if we make people live in homes and houses, white people can afford houses more than black people can. So already there's going to be an advantage there.

But the way law is set up in California is that houses in certain neighborhoods have what are called neighborhood covenants where you own the property, but if you have to sell it, the neighborhood itself has to write off on that. They have to sign off on that, meaning that you have to be a morally upstanding person of our skin color, right? And so that was intentional. So you look at, like, Los Angeles today,

80% of the real estate in Los Angeles now, you can't have more than one family living in a place. You have to have a house. Even though it's like, what, the second biggest city in America, you can't build up legally. You can't build up. You have to build out. though it's like what the second biggest the biggest city in america you can't build up legally you can't build up you have to build out so it's pancaking do you know the story of st louis so st louis isn't actually one city it's i think it's a 99 plus smaller jurisdictions all cluttered together really st louis is a city don't get me wrong but the greater st louis area that people refer to is actually a collection of a whole bunch of small cities.

And so what happened here was a long, long time ago in St. Louis, we ended up with, for a variety of reasons, desegregation comes into play. And there were many white people. And you've got to understand that back in the late 50s and 60s, this country was what, like 92 or whatever percent white? So you have these white communities, overtly white, start seeing black families moving into certain areas. And so they decide to start leaving. What they did was they moved outside of the city and created their own communities with covenants like, you're only allowed to have 10 houses in this city. Can't build any more to make sure no one else could move in.

Long story short, by today, we have 90 plus jurisdictions, each with their own police department. What ends up happening is that many of these areas that are impoverished, and there is a tie between the black community and historical poverty for a variety of reasons, like blockbusting and redlining. And we know that homeownership is one of the ways that people transfer wealth, making it very difficult for them. What happens is this system that is not, I wouldn't call – today, I wouldn't say it is racist,

but it was created through racist ideas people have. I mean, what we would call systemic racism, right? Like it's a great example of like those of us with more like libertarian inclinations can go, great, I don't like regulations, and this is a great example of regulations being racist that we can kind of unite out and root them out. So what ends up happening is for racial reasons we end up with all these jurisdictions today and so i went down i was in ferguson during the michael brown rights and uh i worked in a documentary i produced a documentary about what was going on there's something they have called going on tour so what happens is you are uh in one of these neighborhoods

that is predominantly black. You're lower income for a variety of reasons. You have a vehicle and your plate is expired. Now, it's 20 bucks to get your plate re-registered, but you're poor. You've got debt, you've got credit cards, so you decide, do I eat, do I pay gas, or do I get my plate fixed? You say, well, look, I got to eat, I got to pay my rent. I can hope I don't get pulled over for my plate. You drive from you. So in order to go to work, you're likely going to drive through two or three different cities because there are these small jurisdictions. We saw this with a ton of people. They would leave their neighborhood and while they're driving, they get pulled over and the cop says, your plate's expired. Here's your ticket. Have a nice

day. They start driving again. They get pulled over 10 minutes later. Plate's expired. In a different jurisdiction. And it keeps happening. Then, finally, when they're like, I couldn't pay the 20 bucks. I can't pay the 100. What happens is they'll get arrested. And it'll be like a two-day thing.

You couldn't pay the fine. It's two days in jail. What happens when they get out of jail? The police from the next jurisdiction are waiting for them to take them to the next jail. And they might have lost their job during that time, too. And they usually did. Now, a lot of people say, well, they shouldn't be driving with expired plates. Perhaps that's true.

For a lot of these people, it's like, yo, I have to drive to get to work. I live in the suburbs. But another issue we saw was people who would get tickets for their headlight going out. And so you're driving. You don't even know your headlight's out. You get pulled over. This is one of the stories we heard. And the guy's like, so I say, okay, I'll go home.

I've got to drive through two or three more cities where I get pulled over and end up with four tickets all for this. Do the people say, like, they shouldn't be driving with expired plates? Why do we have those? Like, I get having a serial number on your car that identifies you own it makes sense to me. You should have that, right? But the little tags, that's just a regressive tax. That's all that is. It doesn't do anything. The reason we do that is because poor people are the easiest group of taxpayers to militate against.

It's a lot harder. Try doing a tax on yoga and see what happens to you. You're not going to get a bunch of upper middle class white people to let you do that. Same with cigarette taxes. With a lot of these people, because of past racism, we see a disproportionate amount of people who are impacted by a lot of these policies being black. The left today, even though we've already passed laws outlawing all this stuff and we have court precedent outlawing it, they look at white people and they turn it into a racism issue they can't let go. I certainly understand there were racist white people who made racist laws, right? But the challenge now is, if we're going to do away with racism, we can't have other people being racist. More racism doesn't stop racism, it's just making more racism. That's why I keep telling people the solution to these problems is class-based, meaning if your income level is at a

certain rate, then we provide you with certain relief because like I said if they genuinely believe that systemic racism disproportionately impoverished black communities then a class-based solution disproportionately benefits black communities without leaving behind Latinos, Asians, or white and you can have laws which are colorblind which I think is a lot of the reason

we have so much animus going on in the country right now is to our great credit most Americans aren't racist most Americans actually really abhor the concept of racism. And a lot of the fight we're having right now is that we have dueling definitions of racism. So I would say, and I think you guys are probably on board with this, that attributing rights, privileges, or guilt to someone based on skin color is inherently racist.

So I don't want to do that, right? But a lot of people would disagree with this. They would take more of the equity approach. So like we're talking kind of about... Which is racist. Yeah, which inherently racist. So I don't want to do that, right? But a lot of people would disagree with this. They would take more of the equity approach. So like we're talking kind of about – Which is racist. Yeah, which is racist. So we're going for like equality of opportunity, and we could acknowledge that not everybody has the same starting position,

and we need to be trying to rectify that. But see, that's a trick. When these culty leftists ideologues come out and say that, you know, I think, you know, we have to solve this problem of racism with equity, they don't really care about the issues of racism. They just know that people in America don't like racism, and they found a way to exploit something that is morally repugnant. What they offer them is, I'm going to call you anti-racist. Will you support that? And the average person says yes. Then they say, okay, be a racist and support segregation. And these weak-willed people agree

to it. They agree to, we've got, in Dearborn, Michigan, we had the non-POC and the POC segregated digital cafes. Up in Wisconsin, we have the non-POC, POC equity trainings. In California, they actually tried to repeal their civil rights legislation from their own constitution. Right. So going... And California, to its credit, went, wait a minute, you, like, just to be clear on this, the government's asking us if we want to authorize giving rights and privileges based on skin

color? Like, literally, that's what the government was doing. It should be like a red flag. But they literally said, we would like to discriminate on the basis of race. And the California people were like, yeah, no, we're not going to allow that. But it was close. So when they come out and they say, we oppose racism, they're lying. That's not true.

They overtly support it. Or the ability to disconnect anything. Like, I don't like this thing, so I'm going to declare it's racist. I don't do that. I'll give you an example. I think minimum wage is counterproductive. What I mean by that is I would love for everybody to be making more money. I'm very much against poverty.

I think minimum wage, what you're really doing is you're just outlawing labor below a certain threshold, which means if you're not on the second rung of the ladder, we kick out the bottom rung of the ladder and we go, we fixed it. I don't think that works, right? Now, I could go, you know, the first folks in America that were proponents of minimum wage were overt white supremacist racists. It's true. And they literally said, we don't want to have white people having to compete with black people.

This is them thinking black people can always work for less because they have such low standards of living, so we've got to protect the white people. That was racist, right? But today, if you're in favor of minimum wage, I think you were mistaken. I don't think you're doing it because you're a secret white supremacist. All gun control is racist. Shout out to Maj Touré.

Black guns matter. He makes a lot of really great points about that, and a lot of people really do need to understand this. Even, it was Adam, you ever see Adam Ruins Everything? He had a really great segment, and I think he gets a lot wrong, but he talks about how actually, yeah, gun control, modern gun control was racist.

Basically, the white folks were afraid of the black folks getting guns. The Black Panthers. Yeah. They didn't like the idea, and I think it was Reagan. It was California, and they were like, we should have gun control. And it's funny because I get these lefties, these leftists, overt leftists, who are like, Tim Pool talks about – someone tweeted at me because I said something like more guns for everyone. And someone replied, and they were like, yeah, but as soon as the Black Panthers have guns, you start complaining. And I responded with, I want the Black Panthers to have all the guns.

Tell them to come by. Yeah, come by. Yo, I was like, I hope they get all the guns in the world. And then the leftists responded, based. What does based mean? I've seen this recently. On point, correct, savvy. By the way, you're 36 yeah

i'm 38 and i you where are you at the relationship between us right now like if we were at a mall people would think you're my nephew explaining tiktok to me you want it's all that college in your reading you want to know oh yeah absolutely biotrust thank you very much you know you know what i would love to see i would love to see you know you know we had that um what's that what was that coalition in georgia with all it was it's the black coalition. NFAC. NFAC. Yes, not effing around coalition. Yeah, not effing around coalition.

Have you seen this? No. Hundreds of guys marching through Georgia with guns. Terrible trigger discipline. Terrible, yeah. My only issue with them is there was an accidental discharge more than once. I'm like, come on, guys. Other than that, I'm like.

If you're going to have a gun parade, you really can't accidentally fire the right my my criticism two stuff my criticism these guys only had one gun each they should have two constitutional rights i'm not worried about these guys hurting me i like that they have guns and i think regular people having guns is a good thing so you want to talk about racism i think gun control is overtly racist i'm not surprised the democrats have been the ones pursuing it i think it was also a little bit weird where the the country for about four years was like guys we are literally fascists we literally have a fascist president we need to hide our jewish friends but also we should take everybody's guns and give them to the fascists wait a minute here like if you actually thought a fascist was

in control of the they're like like you know like january they're like well we'd never there'd never be a reason to have an uprising uh nationally and i'm like didn't the president contemplate like you know basically sending in the national guard on january 6th and things like i don't know i gotta say like that's the kind of thing that maybe we would need to have guns leftists are pro-gun liberals are not like traditional liberals are not pro-gun they're anti-gun yeah if talk to any socialist, they're pro-pro-gun. Really? Until they gain power, and then they'll probably take the guns away from you. We should define liberal, too.

There's the American liberal, like you were saying earlier. Traditional liberal. The liberal economic order. They kind of twisted the word liberal. Yeah, the traditional liberal is different. Can I give you my map of this? Because I brought on Adam Gopnik from the New Yorker onto the political orphanage. He's a great guy.

I really like Adam Gpnik right um i think you could look at say like you you can look at the democratic coalition and broadly speaking it is a coalition of leftists and liberals and the republican coalition is um a coalition of classical liberals the the libertarian what we would call libertarian generally and also liberals uh and social conservatives and and like growingly like populist nationalists right you look at the libertarian party that is a coalition of classical liberals and anarchists and the the interesting thing is that like constitutional conservatives are are intellectual cousins with liberals but like leftists are completely different intellectual lineage like, leftists are a completely different intellectual lineage, right? Like, leftists are a whole different ballpark.

Whereas, like, I don't know, Mike Lee and Adam Gopnik are both coming out of that. Adam Smith, John Locke, they're coming out of the Enlightenment, right? Right. So, like, liberals are, like, they have that Enlightenment background. And the distinction between liberals, broad libertarians, and conservatives tends to be, are we prioritizing, like, egalitarian over meritocracy? And are we, like, what are we prioritizing like egalitarian over meritocracy and are we like what are we prioritizing but they're operating that same space but yeah like leftists are a completely different ballpark is that the liberal economic order like 1946 they

start this that's the that's the leftist no no i would say like leftist like because like liberals and i'm again i'm using this like making i'm getting real granular here right like liberals as opposed to leftists are believe in a market economy and rule of law right like like they they're like they're they're coming at their capitalists um the the difference is that they're probably more bullish in terms of the efficacy of government regulation than say like your average conservative but like they're they're kissing cousins they're in the same ballpark right whereas like leftists would be like no capitalism's inherently exploitative like that like like capitalism's a bad thing whereas like uh liberals see government as facilitating capitalism yeah so it's interesting you know we try to define the two

umbrella factions in the culture war they say left or right within the right sphere of influence it's amazing because of how vast and wide-reaching it is. You've got the politically homeless, which are – these are not classical liberals. Dave Rubin likes to say you're a classical liberal, a classical liberal. And I think he means that colloquially, not in terms of the actual philosophy of classical liberalism. I think – maybe not today, but initially I thought he was – I think what he was really referring to is a liberal from like the 90s, a 90s Democrat of Bill Clinton or a Donald Trump. And so a classical liberal to a lot of people because I had this conversation. He means liberal comma classic, like classic coke. That's what he's referring to.

I think nowadays he more so understands. He talks about right libertarianism and classical liberalism, classical liberalism like you're saying like Loc Locke, the Enlightenment, etc., civil libertarianism. But the politically homeless we see, a lot of these people are social liberals, which is a center-left libertarian position, which is where I am a little bit. And that's where I can say things like, I believe there's systemic racism. I just think the leftist cult of critical racism. You're very much against censorship, right? Go ahead.

So we also got to make sure we're talking about the nuance here. I'm opposed to censorship in terms of political opinions, political discourse. Course of government force suppressing opinions. But there's a big challenge there. Some people have opinions which border on... Well, I'll put it this way. You're allowed to have the opinion and say the opinion, but censorship can be good. Yeah. You don't think so?

I'm pulling you into a trap, by the way. Sure. Okay, so can we make a distinction here, too? There's a difference between cultural censorship and government censorship. I'm going to say with government censorship, to the extent that you are suppressing a willful, active call for

violence, in the sense that, like, if I tried to literally have people come kill you, that would be something you could... You're not expressing an opinion. You're just precipitating a crime, right? What about content? Huh? If it's... I think, as far as the government is concerned, you have ultimate freedom of expression and

ultimate freedom of opinion. Any opinion you have is legally valid. The government should never suppress your opinion. Now, that's different than a culture, right? A culture's a little bit more different because culture's like, well, maybe I don't want to have you on my platform because I just don't like you, right? Or maybe it's bad for my bottom dollar. I can give you a really good example, and it's

thanks to our good friend Ian, who's enlightened me a lot on this stuff. The graphite guy? The graphite guy. Graphite, too. See, Ian was a censor. Yeah, I worked at Mines. I co-founded Mines and did administrative stuff for five years. Right, but that's not any government censorship, right? No, no, no.

That's a private phenomenon. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's a combination of cultural and government. When people are posting graphic images of children in sexual positions, censors are extremely important. It's illegal, so that's government. The government sets the legalities and then the culture kind of begins. Then they set their own terms, so like Twitter can ban you

for things that aren't illegal. Technically, they can all ban you for any reason without, for no reason at all, which is crazy to me. None of that would run afoul of my criteria that I established of expressing an opinion. You have to express your opinion about whether child pornography should be legal or not. Like when people post a picture of something saying, this is my opinion,

the picture says it all. That's not really someone's opinion. You're writing text a picture of something saying, this is my opinion. The picture says it all. That's not really someone's opinion. You're writing text on a page. That's not really your opinion. That's text. My point was just simply, I think when a lot of people say censorship, there's a sort of colloquial definition that is a narrow view of what censorship is. And that is someone expressing their opinion, having a discussion, and they get shut down by one of these platforms.

And yeah, we agree that's bad. But you could say, I think that child porn should be legal. I don't think that. You should definitely. But you can say that. Obviously, none of us think that. You can say that. That is legal to say.

You're allowed to have a reprobate opinion. Yeah, you can say that on social media. You just can't show the stuff because it's illegal. But isn't that also – but here's what – isn't that – is that not also a call to violence to take that position because you're saying this inherently violent thing should be allowed to be done to children? What do you mean? You're allowed to say that in the United States. If you're saying it in that statement.

No, no, no. It's not an imminent threat of violence. If it was imminent, if you were like on Thursday at 2 p.m., you should fill in the blank, then that's illegal. I think if you were to take that logic to the nth degree, if you think a zygote is a child, then you would be able to suppress pro-choice rhetoric because it would be killing children, right? Yeah, and I do believe a zygote is a child. I think that if someone's speaking pro-choice talking points, it makes sense to have an argument, especially because a lot of people aren't as informed on the science there. But when it comes to directly saying that people should be able to do things that directly harm children with respect.

But if I was an abortion doctor and i said i think we should have abortions right i in your worldview i would be saying we should be killing babies yeah absolutely should my opinion be legally suppressed that's a really good question i think there's a difference that's actually a really good question i'm going to think about that but i think there's a difference between that and arguing in favor of cp no like if you're actually pushing to legalize it when it's not already legal correct we're pushing to legalize something that's already illegal well you're allowed to say it should be violent yeah but if you say do it and you there's an imminent yeah can i can i back up a little bit because i want to talk about the culture war briefly yeah um i i think that it

is a complete misnomer to even discuss the culture war in terms of left left versus right i think that this is a trick that corporate media does because it knows it can get people fired up because we have been taught to embrace what I call teeter-totter thinking. Teeter-totter thinking is if I say something negative about Biden, I must be pro-Trump. If I say something negative about Obama, I must be pro-George W. Bush.

Sometimes they all suck, right? Shout out to Michael Malice. When he tweets something bad about Biden, they're like our support drums and our anarchist friend right who thinks all government is illegitimate is not a fan but i just love it when people tweet at him he'll say something about biden and they'll be like well trump did this and he's like okay right it's again it's not a teeter-totter you can have but but like but but the uh it's easier to make money by getting people to go on red versus blue all the

time right the culture war is not right versus left it's never been make money by getting people to go on red versus blue all the time, right? The culture war is not right versus left. It's never been right versus left. The culture war is between pluralists and authoritarians. We've had so many conversations trying to assess and break down the culture war. I do think left and right are just terms we use socially to describe parent factions. Like leftists and traditional liberals for some reason are aligned it's very strange and then you have social liberals libertarians and social conservatives aligned very strange like dave rubin a gay married man hanging out with uh you know a conservative jewish man ben shapiro yeah and uh they're because they agree

on more important things than certain issues that have been you know overshadowed by the culture war i'll argue that the left please but i was going to say you said pluralist versus authoritarian They agree on more important things than certain issues that have been overshadowed by the culture war. I'll argue that the left – oh, please. But I was going to say you said pluralist versus authoritarian. Yeah. I actually think it's really hard to define. We've looked at it a few ways. A lot of people have said authoritarian versus libertarian thinking.

I think that would be a good stand-in, although I like to use different terms. But there's also a lot else in there. We had Stephen Marsh on the show who wrote the book the next civil war and he said within the united states there is a multicultural democracy and a constitutional republic and they can't coexist and that's really interesting too because you could say that the left culture war faction is a multicultural democracy and the right is a constitutional republic and that actually explains the disparate political opinions better than left or right. Yeah, elaborate on that because that's fascinating.

Well, so you look at someone like Dave Rubin, a gay married man, and Ben Shapiro, and they get along, and it's because they're in the constitutional republic. They look at America and its values, and though they disagree on social issues, their core fabric is well within a framework they understand. The multicultural democracy doesn't believe in things like republicanism. You know, electoral college is a really good example of this. They want majority rules. They want open borders, multicultural thinking. And that may be an easy way to explain it. There is another way that I've explained it too.

The Judeo-Christian moral framework versus the fascistic moral framework. How we would describe the left is to quote the late David Graeber. They've adopted tenets of fascism that there is no truth but power. Whereas the Constitutional Republic believes in inalienable rights and a lot of values that are rooted in a Christian moral framework, whether they realize it or not. For example, the right to, you are innocent until proven guilty is, it actually comes from the Bible. So I was fascinated by this and I read the history of, I believe this is the Fifth Amendment, right? Fifth Amendment has a couple other provisions in it. But I was reading about why is it that in the United States we take very seriously you are innocent until proven guilty. Well, it actually comes from a quote from Ben Franklin.

It is better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer. That value came to him through Blackstone's formulation. It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer. And Blackstone's formulation is based on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If there is but one righteous person, I will not destroy the city. And then I think ultimately God does wipe them out. But only after he evacuates the people.

And so people like Bill Maher I find interesting because he's secular. He's an atheist. But his moral values are built upon a Christian moral framework whether he realizes it or not. I'm not saying he has to believe in God or he does because of this. I'm saying the values that were born out of Christianity, he retains those despite not believing in the actual religion.

The leftists don't believe in that religion at all, and they have no core moral framework, which is probably why they flip-flop on issues, and there seems to be no cohesive moral pattern to what they do. It's why they'll say only white people can be racist, and Candace Owens is a white supremacist. There's no clear logical pattern there because there is no root moral framework other than there is no truth but power, which is what David Graeber said. He said this a few years ago. He didn't like being called this, but they called him the anarchist anthropologist, and he said that a certain sect of the left has embraced fascistic tenets. Can I outline my theory for you just to convolute this a little bit more? Oh, do it. So as I said, I see it like – I know you've brought up on the show before the political compass, right?

So like the X-Y axis of like economic versus social, left libertarian, and so on and so forth. I would posit there's a separate axis, which is how do you react to negative opinions? Or how should society govern negative opinions? And if you're coming towards the top of that, you're on the side of pluralism, which is to say, like Dave Rubin and Ben, who I think are a good example of this, I disagree with you, but our society is big enough for people I disagree with. We're not going to crack down on that.

Error is okay within a pluralistic society. You're allowed to be wrong. I'm an atheist. You guys are Catholics or whatever the thing is, right? We can do that, right? If you're not a pluralist, you're an to be wrong. I'm an atheist. You guys are Catholics or whatever the thing is, right? We can do that, right? If you're not a pluralist, you're an authoritarian, your line of thinking is, no, society has to be on the same page. And I think there's a spectrum to it.

I think that the people that are authoritarians tend to be, they self-soothe through compliance, where when there's a pandemic, it's very important to march around and go, you've got to wear your mask right now, because I am going to self-soothe myself by doing this. Or alternately, you can never, ever say that, whatever the thing is, you can't say that. So one of the things too, in all this, to build upon this, for the constitutional public faction or whatever you want to call it, it seems like we all believe in something greater than ourselves. When I say that Seamus has rights, it's because I believe that I am not God.

I am not an all-powerful entity. I am not deserving of this world. We're entitled. I believe that an individual has equal rights to me because there is something that exists outside of me that I don't control. We are all within this one universe.

I don't necessarily think that's inherently rooted in Christianity. It's rooted in an idea that the universe is bigger than you. But you look at what the modern left tribe or multicultural democracy view is, and it's, if I can take the power, I should. And so it seems like their moral framework is not built upon whether or not another person has individual rights, which is why, once again, there seems to be no logic to whatever morality they claim to have. It seems like they're willing to just say what they need to say to gain power, which is why you end up with Instagram accounts or Twitter accounts like Defiant L's, where you've very, very often will get a tweet from a mainstream left personality saying, you

know, we should do X. And then, you know, a tweet from them later saying, you know, X is evil. You'll get people saying, you know, war is wrong or Donald Trump is going to lead us into World War III as a madman and we need to impeach him. And then Joe Biden absolutely should be implementing a no-fly zone, even if it starts World War III.

There's no logical consistency there other than if it gains me power, I can do it. My worldview is I have no right to usurp power from other people by force or through manipulation because there is something bigger than me. Well, since we're fans of convoluting things, I want to convolute this even further. Yeah, I'll go after you. So when it comes to this idea of a political compass and the culture war, part of where it gets really confusing is that it seems to me as if right now and for the past several

years, it has more or less been the case that at least when it comes to many social and economic issues, the left is more authoritarian. The right tends towards something a little more libertarian, but not necessarily fully libertarian. But it seems as if whichever group on the right or left has power will become more authoritarian. And so it's something that each side will jump to and from. And also what a person views as being authoritarian or non-authoritarian is totally informed by whether they're on the right or left. So for example, when you're talking about the masks and the vaccines and these other COVID lockdowns, someone on the left is going to say, well, that's not authoritarian at all. I'm actually protecting the little guy. Or if you look at even something like economic

issues, they'll say, well, by increasing taxes on large corporations, I'm actually protecting the little guy. Or if you look at even something like economic issues, they'll say, well, by increasing taxes on large corporations, I'm not telling people who are voluntarily exchanging goods that they're not allowed to do that and acting as an authority. I'm actually protecting the little guy because he doesn't have as much leverage. So for me, it's difficult to separate the left and right from authoritarianism slash libertarianism, but also it's difficult for me to define exactly where they're connected but let me just say there's a reason why when you look at polls independents and moderates tend to have similar world worldviews to conservatives it's very very simple who would

you say is uh the most prominent progressive left personality aoc in In terms of like media punditry, not politics. Interesting. In terms of, gosh, I don't know. Anybody have any talking heads? Yeah, let's say someone with a couple. Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert. He's like an establishment liberal though. That's fine. Is that what we're talking about? Yeah, so let me ask you a question. If you were sitting down and you had

Stephen Colbert on one side and Ben Shapiro on the other, who do you think would tell you the truth and nothing but the truth? You know, I actually really like Colbert. I don't think he'd lie to me. I disagree with his politics. I do think he's a decent man. He lies.

He lies a lot. Tell you what, could we— I never lie, folks. Okay, okay. I never lied, and I would not lie to Stephen Colbert. I disagree with Ben Shapiro's politics. You know, not all of them. But when I watch him argue, I'm politics, not all of them.

But when I watch him argue, I'm like, well, what he's saying is true. I see his assessment there. I'll disagree with him. I've seen him be wrong. But I have seen mainstream left personalities outright lie every step of the way. I mean, I run the list. I think every day this week I've run the list on all the mainstream, not all of them, as many as I can count on one hand. It's so easy to do.

I have to put on my Pollyanna hat for a minute. I don't think that there is a political ideology in the United States that is just inherently prone to lying or immorality. I think most of the people in the United States, be they on the left, the right, the center, independent, whatever, Most people are wanting to live in a free, prosperous, peaceful society. The argument is how we achieve that goal. Should I start counting? No, no, no. Hold on. But I just got to say, I think you're completely wrong. Trayvon Martin's story was a lie.

The mainstream news, NBC, I believe, edited the phone call from Zimmerman to make it sound like he was racist. The Michael Brown story was a lie. His hands were not up. Hands up, don't shoot is not true he was racist. The Michael Brown story was a lie. His hands were not up. Hands up, don't shoot is not true. Jussie Smollett, obviously a liar. Do you think that's the institutions that are lying, or do you think just people prone to the left are liars? Like, do you think it's something inherent to the political philosophy?

Yes, there is no truth but power. So we've seen this rising over the past decade or so. And that's why I cite David Graeber, because he was the anarchist anthropologist. He was a left anarchist who who tweeted this out that they have adopted this tenet of there is no truth but power so you can actually see them come out and and and overtly lie every step of the way and it's not just the activists who are now being indicted on fraud on more than one occasion or the blm offices which apparently didn't exist and no one was there and the money is who knows where the woman who's got multiple houses or the woman in Boston who's being indicted on 18 charges of fraud.

Don't get me wrong. The right has their liars and manipulators because grifters and con men and con women exist across the board. But when you have consistently Russia gate's fake, Ukraine gate is fake, the Covington kids thing was a hoax. The Kyle Rittenhouse story fabricated. The left was actually putting up stories saying he crossed eight lines of the gun to hunt down black people, which was totally fabricated. You can go through almost every single story about some graffiti vandalism hate crime. And it was a tweet between Matt Walsh and Matt Walsh put up with him and Andy Ngo. And they said, I can't think of any example in recent history in which this turned out to be true, where a white supremacist person was racist and sprayed a swastika or a slur.

It always turns out to be a hoax across the board. Ahmaud Arbery is one that really, really gets me because the conservatives bought into it, too. You know the story? The guy was jogging, they said, and then the three white guys lynched him or something. This is the guy that got shot, the jogger? Well, he wasn't jogging, but sure. So he ran up to the truck where the two guys were and then tried to take the shotgun from one of the guys. And then it went off and hit him in the chest. And he was a felony burglary suspect.

Look, the guy shouldn't have died. But when you get even conservatives like Fox News coming out and just playing along with the establishment's lies over and over and over again, you got a problem. But yeah, I just got to say, if I talk to Ben Shapiro, he might be wrong about some things, but he tries to be factual. And that's not, I'm not saying Ben Shapiro is a perfect human being. I'm sure he gets things wrong. I'm sure there's things he can't talk about. But I keep seeing this as a tendency. It is the, on the uh on the right the rule is typically honest and the exception is sometimes people lie or get things wrong on the left the rule is they lie all the time and the exception is some of them sometimes are honest crystal ball is a progressive she's fantastic jimmy door is a leftist he's fantastic kyle kolinsky also fantastic i think most people

lie we we do we do differ on that and that and i. And I'm not saying gay left, but I think it's dangerous to live in a Manichean world of my team's the good team and we're the holy people and the other team are evil. They're not my team. I'm not a conservative. Sure. But the reality is – The idea that there's like black hats and white hats. One of the things I notice in politics of late is there is a view of the problem is bad people and then the other system is the problem is bad systems. I'm a system thinker, right?

So I think that if you take a bad system, you put in good people, you're still going to get negative outcome. I don't think that if you just root out all the bad people, all of a sudden everything works well, right? So I'm very bothered by the increase in manichean thinking in the United States and the idea that there's a bad team and a good team, and if we could just defeat the bad team. So what if the bad team is the institutions and the establishment? And another one will rise up. If you burn it to the ground, another one will appear. I think they're separate, and I don't think within the American context that liberals,

the Adam Gottmicks we were talking about earlier, I don't think that they're inherently liars or anything like that. I'll give you a hard example. The Gordon Sondland testimony over Trump and quid pro quo. There's an image I have on my Instagram showing two TV screens. I think one is CBS and one is Fox News. One is overtly lying and one is closer to the truth, Fox News, as it turns out. CBS says Sondland confirms quid pro quo. Why? Well, Sondland was asked, did Donald Trump engage in a quid pro quo? And he said, well, Trump told me explicitly I

don't want anything for this no quid pro quo, but I said, well, Trump told me explicitly, I don't want anything for this no quid pro quo, but I kind of think he wanted it. So CBS reports confirmed he wanted it. Why? Because some guy's opinion wasn't. Fox News went with the factual statement, which is Trump said no quid pro quo and Sondland's opinion is not relevant to what the president actually requested. Now, when you have those two screens showing the exact opposites and one is based on the opinion of a guy, irrespective of the fact that Trump said no quid pro quo, that is a lie. But it's an anecdotal lie. It doesn't necessarily make it emblematic. And at a certain point, you have almost every single Black Lives Matter major story that resulted in mass rioting, the defense of the mass rioters, every single lie from the mainstream media, mostly peaceful protests while the police department's burning down.

At a certain point, if you say these people aren't inherently bad people, then I think you're actually running defense for people who have been proven time and time again to lie about everything. Do I have to say, if I've got a neighbor that's a Democrat, do I have to say he's an inherently bad person? No, of course not. The average Democrat voter is probably just not aware of a lot of these issues. And the bigger issue is that organizations like the Daily Beast, for instance, lie about everything. But when you see just the other day, the New York Times finally acknowledged that the Hunter Biden's laptop was real. NPR said, not a real story. Facebook and

Twitter used this reporting from mainstream outlets to suppress factual information that was very, very pertinent to this election that was coming up. They do this all the time. And when you see these activist organizations on the left working in tandem with them at a certain point, you have to be like, yo, they're all in alignment. They're consistently lying to us and they're destroying and harming people every time they do this. Kamala Harris helped bail out people who are ridinging and burning down buildings. Joe Biden launched his campaign on a lie, claiming that Donald Trump defended white supremacists, which he didn't do. The media just lied about everything over and over and over again.

Now, Fox News is not perfect. Hannity is very much a warmonger. I'm not a big fan of Hannity or Ingram. I think Tucker is actually a bit, he takes things a little far. He gets a little angry sometimes. Fox News' basic reporting, like Bret Baier, it's actually not that bad. And if you watch The Five, Geraldo Rivera may as well be a Democrat. They've got a good group of voices kind of arguing with each other.

But you turn on CNN or MSNBC, and I'm sitting there just like, wow, it's all lies. It's just over and over again. Take a look at this. Just recently, the Daily Beast claimed that I pushed Kremlin propaganda about US funded bioweapons labs. Literally, I've never said that. In fact, the segments we've done in the show is me saying the story is probably not true. They're not bioweapons labs. These maps don't even line up, yet they just fabricate the information. The amount of fake stories that were fabricated by the Daily Beast about me are absolutely insane. It's insane to watch. But look, outside of me, outside of anecdotes, if you have 800 or 1,000 anecdotes of all of these

throughout for the past dozen or so years, they've all kept doing the same thing. At a certain point, you have to say, I think this might be data, right? So you start with the beginning of Black Lives Matter, Trayvon Martin, fabricated story. Zimmerman's not a white guy. He's Hispanic. He didn't just walk up to Trayvon and kill him.

They were actually fighting. Trayvon was at him on the ground. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah. When you say that you have all this data, clearly you do. Is this data going into a binary framework? Like, is it the right, the left, and everybody's on that?

Do you think there's multiple? Like, for me, I look at it, I think there's like 15 different political tribes in the United States. And we falsely lump them into left versus right. And that lends itself to this mannequin thinking of good versus bad, blue versus red. Everybody's in one or the other. Like, paint your worldview for me. There's two parent spheres of influence. What we could describe as the left sphere of influence and the right sphere of influence.

Within each of these are other disparate factions often that don't even agree with each other. Progressives very much don't like the establishment Democrats, but they're in the same sphere of influence based upon the news they consume, their tendency towards lying, and how they're willing to manipulate to gain power. On the right sphere of influence, you have a sort of value and moral honor-based system that credibility is earned through being honest with someone, allowing them to fact-check it, and then making your case. What was the left one again? The left sphere of influence, like the traditional Democrats, the media. Sure. I mean, like you said, the right is like moral and honor-based.

What was the left one? The left is fascistic. And I'm not saying they're fascists. I'm saying they adhere to the tenet of there's no truth but power, which is literally what Black Lives Matter and critical race theorists, activists, actually say. So you do, I mean, this is something we disagree on. You do have a fairly Manichean worldview of there's the good people and there's the bad people. I didn't say anybody was good or bad.

Okay, well, I mean, it's honor-based and moral-based sounds like the good people and there's the bad people. I didn't say anybody was good or bad. Okay. Well, I mean, it's honor-based and moral-based sounds like the good people to me. If I didn't know what the terms were. I didn't say good morals. I said the right tries to win over people

by proving how good of people they are and how respectful they are. No, I don't agree with that. I think they make fun of people and try and browbeat people into being their submissive. Everybody does that. Everybody does that.

Okay. I agree with that. Everybody does that. Okay. I agree with that. What I'm saying is when you look to like a Ben Shapiro, his method of influence is here's the facts and I'm being honest with you about the facts. Now here's my argument as to why my worldview is correct and my opinions are right and my policy are the answer. You can agree with that or disagree with that. The left disagrees with that.

If you agree with that, then you are more in tune with a lot of the right sphere of influence. The left believes there is no truth but power. They literally will tell you this. They write it in their books. David Graeber pointed it out. They will say by any means necessary, which is actually the name of an organization that engages in overt acts of violence to gain power. They will come to you and they believe they have a right to lie to you if the means are worth it. So what will happen is you'll get someone who will come out like Jared Holt, who I've been really ragging on because he wrote this fake story about me. And he'll say, Tim Pool was pushing Kremlin backed propaganda about US bioweapons and shady labs in Ukraine.

Now, it's not true. He knows it's not true because he showed a clip from this show where we said it was not true. So why would he lie? Because this is in line with exactly what David Graeber and many other people have pointed out, that the left operates under the tenet, there's no truth but power. It's fascistic, but it's very much in line with,

you know, the blank slate ideology or social constructivism or whatever. They believe that if they just create reality by saying things, then they can – if they can just say lies to formulate a base reality, then ultimately the systems they want will start to exist. The right says – it's sort of like this. In the right sphere of influence, here's what is and here's my argument about it. And the left is, I will tell you whatever I need to tell you to convince you to follow my lead. So I've got a different map. Mine is not binary. Mine is multiple Venn diagrams and kind of multiple, almost like different

species, right? There's different genuses that are coming out. Like, I don't like binary thinking, and I think applying it to politics is too reductive. And I'll give you a kind of a parallel example to go back to religion, right? Like if we had a worldview of all religion is either Protestant or Catholic, that would be incoherently reductive. Like if you went, well, what are you? I'm a Jew. Oh, okay.

Well, if you're a Jew, could you say there's secular, there's, there's atheists and there's theists. That's a way to look at it. Yeah. But like, again, like if you're just one component of the big picture of religion? Well, let's bring up Buddhists. I mean, Buddhists are... God does not apply either way in Buddhism.

You could be a theist and a Buddhist. You could be an atheist and a Buddhist, right? But if you were to say you're a Jew, okay, well, in the Catholic versus Protestant world that we live in, you're very Catholic about tradition, but you're very Protestant about papal infallibility. It's like, no, it's a separate thing.

It's a different phenomenon. I argue like classical liberals are different than European conservatives of the blood and soil variant, which are different than leftists. But we're talking about the United States and the media, the parent spheres of influence and their underlying disparate factions. I think there's clearly two major parties.

There's truly electoral blocks, but they're basically illusionary. There's a top-down construct that's being placed on what are actually lots of different tribes of people. I don't know, eight and ten, whatever it is, right? This is exactly what I'm saying. It sounds to me, though,

that you've got a fundamental DNA to both. That there's like... One group has like a wellspring of might versus might is right and fascism or fascistic thinking and the other one is honored and moral based they all kind of spring from that so they're they're sort of two broad species those are just tendencies of the parent factions right obviously within the right sphere of influence you actually have social liberals who will argue systemic racism or things that i've said that clearly people like you know conservatives might against. We don't all completely agree on everything. But you take a

look at, you know, there's a really simple way, you know, to break it down. Well, I should say there's probably not. We try to find different ways to understand what these two spheres of influence are because they clearly exist. You know, clearly, Jimmy Dore, he's called right-wing even though he's socialist and it's confusing. People call me a conservative even though I'm like pro-progressive tax, pro-choice and think systemic racism is bad because left and right signify

that you are in line with a certain worldview. And I think it's one easy way maybe to understand it is in the right sphere of influence or whatever you want to call it, there are people who say prove it. And in the left sphere of influence or whatever you want to call it there are people who say prove it and in the left sphere of influence there are people who say tell me what to think i i refuse to be put on a spectrum defined by dead frenchmen like the whole left versus right thing like i i think but i think you're looking too much into it just because the french revolution

created this concept of left and right doesn't mean that our use of a word to describe a concept is is not you know relevant to to how i don't you're saying the people on the right say prove it and the people on the left are like tell me what to think but what about religion i think the people on the right tend to be the ones that are religious so like where's the yeah yeah yeah the left is very religious but also i don't know where's the proof show me the proof you know i'm on the right in in the uh as peter bogosian argued the the woke intersectionality critical race theory is a non-theistic religion. I'm talking about God, Christianity, Judaism, people on the right, conservative people. Where's the proof?

They don't need proof for that. They believe it just at hand value too. I think – see, this is a – The human mind is tricky. We were actually talking about this earlier because I was playing some Dido music because sheamus and i were working on this bit and uh it auto played uh one of us by what's her name joan osborne you know what if god was one of us and i remember when i was little they said there was like a controversy around it and i asked sheamus if this song was a fence or whatever i have no idea he's like i've never i've never really heard well no i i don't know the lyrics

i don't know but but uh you know what came up was me saying, like, I keep hearing. I'll give you an example. There's a meme, and it shows a guy at a podium yelling to a bunch of people, how many of you think abortion should be banned? And they're all like, yay. Or it says, how many of you think adoption is better than abortion? They all cheer. And then it says, how many of you are willing to adopt?

And all the people are sad, like, and I think that's fascinating because when I actually will, you know, read articles or read about pro-life organizations, turns out they adopt like crazy. Turns out the people who are pro-life actually do adopt and do donate and do try to help kids. So why is it that these Democrat voters or pro-choice individuals believe that pro-lifers are out there trying to ban abortion without supporting adoption, which is just fundamentally false? It's because, once again, it falls back into the trope of activists who want something, when it applies to the left sphere of influence, are willing to lie to you to convince you they're morally just or right, whereas the right doesn't do that. There's another thing to point out in this as to why it might be the case.

Jack Dorsey said this when I was on with Rogan. He said, conservative journalists follow liberal journalists and conservative journalists. Liberal journalists only follow liberal journalists. It's entirely possible that they're making up their view of conservatives in their own mind. I do think that's true. So something that I've noticed the last few years, we're going to reproach now. I do think that in the American context, generally speaking, if a conservative – actually, I'm going to add this.

Conservative, libertarian, and liberal, although libertarian and conservative are more similar to each other. If a conservative disagrees with you, they think you're crazy. If a libertarian disagrees with you, they tend to think you're ill-informed. But it's kind of similar. It's a failure of information, right? If a progressive disagrees with you, they tend to think you're ill-informed. But it's kind of similar. It's a failure of information, right? If a progressive disagrees with you, they think you're evil. I've thought about this really hard.

I think that it's structural. I don't think that it's innate. Like I talked to Jonathan Roche, who wrote the Constitution of Knowledge about this recently. His theory is that human beings are innately tribal. We innately castigate the other as morally defective, whereas our group is nuanced and good, right?

So I think what's happening is me being from Oklahoma, I'm from the middle. Most of my family is conservative. Most of my friends are conservative. Being in the middle, they're consuming content from the coasts all the time. So they know that they really like Tom Hanks or George Clooney or whoever. They know he's a Democrat, but they like him. So they can sustain a worldview of I like this person, but I disagree with them. But I don't think that's happening with progressive media as much because they're not going to church or NASCAR or whatever.

The thing is they're not going to Nashville for country music. So they don't have media they're regularly consuming of counterexamples of someone that I disagree with who I like. And so they're able to facilitate these cartoon characters of mustache twirling evil capitalists. Why do they want to get Tucker Carlson pulled off the air? Well, we can speculate all day and night. I would argue it's because Tucker Carlson is a conservative

who has conservative voices on his show and he regularly invites the left on to debate and they do. There's a reason why many of the people on the left who spread lies all day won't come on this show because we would show that they're lying. I'm from Chicagoago i grew up in a city run by democrats for 80 years i grew

up with leftist is it working in chicago yeah absolutely not okay and so what's fascinating is i got called conservative because i said democrats suck and i said oh yeah i think republicans suck too but perhaps it's that growing up in a city that's been run by Democrats for 80 years, you really get mad at this overtly corrupt group that's been lying to you and is just has been BSing you the whole way. But I will say when I was younger, I voted for I voted for Obama. I was very much I went out vote and we vote Democrat across the board. And I was I was totally in line with all of that thinking. And then as I started to move out and travel around the world and actually meet people and start reading what

people were saying, I said, hey, wait a minute. When they claimed conservatives were outraged about that, I talked to conservatives and that's not true. A good example is I hung out with a bunch of atheists, secularists, and they would make a bunch of arguments about Christianity and what conservatives believed. And then I would be like, huh, yeah. And then I would go talk to a conservative and they would be able to – a Christian conservative and they would be able to give me answers and actually explain their ideas. And I would go, oh, those people were lying to me about what you thought or at least didn't know. And so what ends up happening is I work for Vice. I work for an ABC company, ABC Univision.

And then I actually see how evil these people are. You know, when I worked for Fusion, this is an ABC Univision company, the president told me, side with the audience. And I said, does that mean if there's a factual news story that would be offensive to our audience, we don't report it? And he says, I think that's fair, yeah. Like they outright say, look, our audience are young and progressive. So we're going to take their side, take their side. I'm like, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to report what happened. And that's, that's about what I can do. I'm not going to frame it or side with them. The siding with them means if I go to a

rally and I watch a fight breakout between a Trump supporter and Antifa and Antifa started it, I got to side with Antifa and say it's the Trump supporters fault. No, I won't do that. I'll say, Oh, the Antifa guy threw the brick first. Trump guys started fighting. And that tends to be what happens. They don't like it. They call me a liar. I've been doing this for some time. I got started with the hacker community, which got me more involved. I used to work for nonprofits. I was very much involved with a lot of hacker community stuff. And, it leads me into on the ground on the ground at Occupy Wall Street. And then it's really, really simple. I've never been a

conservative. I'm still not a conservative. If anything, I'm a libertarian centrist leaning slightly left. And I read the news all day, every day. And at a certain point, it becomes fairly obvious. The establishment lies and has lied my entire life to get us into war and for power. They've been exploiting leftist ideals because it's an easy way to get youth to pitch in and give them their power. The media and the left all have embraced lying to gain power. And then I look at, you know, prominent conservative media and they have a tendency to get the story correct. So it's a tent. So that's why I say on the right with all these outlets, I can pull these things up

and then run a fact check. Surprise, surprise. This is why they call Matt Taibbi right wing. Right. See, I find that I am center whatever you're not. Whenever I'm talking to anybody, all my Democrat friends

think I'm center right, by which they mean I'm a conservative because I'm not whatever they are, but I'm palatable. That's what center means. But when I talk to my conservative friends, they think I'm center left. Which I take on my end, I take to think that the system that they're using,

that spectral thinking is too reductive, right? But I find that I'm always the center version of what the person I'm talking to is not. Well, it's because you're to the left of someone on the right and to the right of someone on the left. Could be, yeah. One interesting way to look at it is in a physical sense. Or actually another thing I'll add to that, because I do think – I'm not trying to fight with you, Tim. I'm just trying to understand where you come from. I have just kind of – I think by virtue of the fact that I'm from Oklahoma and I have all these conservative friends and I lived in New York and I have all these liberal friends that I recoil from villain-based thinking.

And so I tend to go to systemic thinking, right? What about – that I recoil from villain-based thinking. And so I tend to go to systemic thinking, right? Well, what about... But I think it's part of the reason people get mad at me is, you're not doing this right now. But a lot of the time when other people are like, hey, how come you don't hate this other thing? Because I don't like hating stuff. I'm confused, though.

What about how I described either group would make any of them a villain? They sound rather villainous when you describe them. That's your moral values, not mine. Okay. If the left says overtly, and they do, there is no truth but power. When they write books saying truth is a social construct, 2 plus 2 equals 5, I'm not making that up or assigning moral value to whether or not they're doing something right or wrong. You are.

If you say that sounds villainous, that's your morals. Do you think it's villainous? Because you said they were evil a minute ago. I mean, it sure sounds like you're attributing those moral values i think that well when i describe the group i didn't say well you've got good people and evil people i said no the right tries to stand on a moral ground like they're standing tall with their chest out saying i'm going to be honest and and be respectful of you and prove to you i am a good leader and the left says two plus two equals five. It's right.

Get in line. Have you heard of a guy named Eric Grossman? Because I think he'd be interesting to check out. He's not saying what you're saying, but it's sort of adjacent to what you're saying. So the theory he has is that, and Trump is a big exception to this. But basically, over the last 50 years, that the Republicans both organize and think ideologically or think in terms of abstract values. Right. Hence, the fights in Republican primaries tend to be who's the real Republican, who's the real conservative, who's the rhino. Right.

And then when you think about like if we were going to break down the Republican Party, it would be ideological. Right. It would be. Well, here are your neocons. Here are your libertarians. Here are your social conservatives. You're right. Democrats organize and think coalitionally. So Democrats, when you look at how they organize, they're not really looking at it as progressives versus centrists. They're looking at it like, well, we've got the union. We've got you know, we've got Latin Americans. We've got gays. we've got all these. They're thinking in terms of the component structure. I think a lot of crosstalk happens because when progressives look at conservatives,

because they think coalitionally, they see conservatives and go, well, all this ideological stuff has to be a smokescreen. You're really just in it for the white guy, which is not true. They're ideological. I think a lot of the time conservatives do that when they look at progressives, where they go, because we think ideologically, you guys must be lying to us, and you must be secretly reading Marxist literature and stuff. Whereas I don't think Biden is that ideological.

I think that he's thinking in terms of unions. He's thinking in terms of all these things. But I don't think he's an ideologue. I've got to be honest. I think you don't know enough about Joe Biden. You weren't aware that he was sharing bank accounts with his son i think when you when you look at all of the stories over the past you know seven years related to his family and the the illicit dealings he had to assume that joe biden is thinking in terms of the working class is completely out of line with the reported character

that is joe biden well i'm not making a character statement i'm just saying in terms of how he thinks like um an ideologue isn't somebody who's like, I have a theory. I'm really philosophical, that kind of thing. I don't think he's super philosophical. I think that if he were here, he would say he's pragmatic. Now, we could disagree as whether he's effective or not. But I don't think that he's like reading John Locke or reading Lipinski or something like that. I just don't think his mind operates.

I think kind of the same way. I don't think I don't think Trump was an ideologue either. I don't think I's mind-opening. Kind of the same way I don't think Trump was an ideologue either. I don't think Trump was thinking of that. I don't think Joe Biden, when it comes to how to get elected, has anything to do with unions or Latino voters or anything like that. I think Joe Biden is thinking, what can I do, period, in terms of getting power? I want my son to have these special jobs where we can share a bank account and make money. Get me elected. Figure it out.

Joe Biden is the kind of guy who just throws money at the consultants and the organizations and says, figure out how to make it work. I don't think, you know, you look at Donald Trump and I think he was a guy who was like, how do I get these people on my side? And he didn't do a good job of it.

It's one of the reasons in 2018 the midterms flipped Democrats because people who voted for Trump in 2016 didn't come out and vote for Republicans because they didn't care. It wasn't Trump. Trump was ineffective at getting those people to stand up for a kind of movement. I look at Pelosi and Schumer

and truth be told, like Lindsey Graham especially, Kevin McCarthy and McConnell, they're all very much cut from the same cloth. They don't actually care about any of these groups. They go to the consultant and say, figure out how to get me elected. I think Lindsey Graham is proximity to power. I think Lindsey Graham wants to be in the room where the stuff's happening. We've got they go to the consultant say figure out how to get me elected proximity to power i think lindsey lindsey graham wants to be in we got it the stuff's happening we got to go to super chats and we went a little long so we'll go a little long with super chats my apologies but been having fun so uh smash that like button if you have not already

subscribed to this channel share the show with your friends and let's just read what people have to say all right not so stealthy yeti says fauci caught covet and had to hide is that why he's been gone well fauci came out uh and he was just like it's a new variant ba2 i think it's called oh boy all right michael brogan says andrew loved your churchill video with whiskey tribe thank you informative and funny would you ever do something like that again? So for people that are unfamiliar with this, Whiskey Tribe is a really fun YouTube program. They're really into whiskey. They invited me on because they wanted to see if we could drink and smoke

as much as Winston Churchill in a day. And I agreed to do that and consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol and about five cigars over the course of the day. My voice is not fully recovered from it yet. It was super fun. I could not lead a world war. I could maybe lead Belgium. I could lead a tiny country while doing that. I definitely

couldn't lead anything United Kingdom or larger. I would be interested in doing something like that. I wouldn't do it super often. A couple of people have suggested Hunter S. Thompson. I know I could not handle Hunter S. Thompson. So maybe, but I'm going to take a breather for a minute. Churchill could drink a prodigious amount. so this is actually funny

we had the window open last night in the studio and I was recording with Seamus we were doing some bits and people watching Chicken City were like whoa it sounds like someone's getting yelled at because what they really heard was me yelling as Dr. Fauci

so it was a brutal it was like 40 minutes I think of me doing Fauci's voice. It was pretty great. I thought I was going to hack up blood doing his voice. Because it's, you know. He actually did hack up blood. I was like, Tim, the show must go on. You don't get to step away from this right now.

We got a time. All right, all right. Let's read some more. Mikkel Isaacson says, coming soon, Sweden joins NATO. NATO troops come to Sweden just in time when it comes out that Sweden helped. Well, I can't read that. So NATO troops take Sweden. Oh, also China is going to find bio labs in Taiwan when they evade in a couple of days, weeks.

I think, are you referring to like justifications or something? Sorry, YouTube blocks actually some of what your super chat was, so I can't read it. All right. blocks actually some of what your super chat was so i can't read it all right the lore lodge says hey tim know you've been doing some more entertainment focused stuff and we would love to be a part of it uh well i'm not familiar with what you guys do but we definitely are working on some uh entertainment based stuff for sure we're doing uh the vlog is going to be shenanigans and comedic bits nice so we have uh some comedic bits we got shamus this guy helped with some of that this makes jokes yes that's right every now and again

daft end says socialism is the ideology communism is the pure implementation or socialism respects some existing private property and communism eliminates private property i i hear what you're saying but i do think we kind of hit the nail on the head in terms of socialism being an economic system and communism being the ideological system, though. All right. Let's grab some more stupid chips. Let's see what we got. Can I move on to scotch while you're doing that? Yeah, go ahead.

Don't give it away. Because we're about halfway through, three-quarters through. We're mostly done. So I should start drinking right now. Yeah, we went a little long, so we've got 15 or 20 more minutes. We'll read some more stupid chips. Oh, great. No, I'll get drunk. Yeah, go for it. We'll mostly done. So I should start drinking right now. Yeah, we went a little long, so we've got 15 or 20 more minutes. We'll read some more. Oh, great. No, I'll get drunk.

Yeah, go for it. I'll be good. I'll be funny this latter half. All right, there you go. Rob Short says, Seamus will grow potatoes for everyone so there is no food shortage. Yes. On this, the day after the feast of St. Patrick, you make a racist comment towards me, an Irish-American, when I'm just trying to express my opinions.

I was surprised no one did anything on St. Patrick's Day for you, to be honest. I thought something was going to happen. I wore green pants. Apparently, your audience is more respectful than you thought. No, no, no, no. I mean, like, I thought someone here

would get a cake. That would have been nice. Like a green cake with like a... No one here cares that much about me. I'm sorry. I wore these. What? Happy St. Patty's Day. There you go. Green pants. I wore these. Happy St. Paddy's Day.

They're not really green. I wore them yesterday and today for you. I do appreciate that, I'll be honest. I didn't know it was St. Paddy's Day until the day of and I was like, oh, really? But it would have been fun to have gotten a green cake with a leprechaun on it.

It would have been fun to heckle me for my ethnicity. We can do that any day. I'm Irish, I contribute. Hey, me for my ethnicity. I'm Irish. I contribute. Hey, I'm Irish too. I am too. Are you Irish? A little bit. A little bit. Everyone is a little bit. But I have to wear it because my name is Seamus. You guys have passing

privilege. You have passing privilege. You can go other places and tell people your name and they won't know your ethnicity. Isn't Timothy Daniel Irish? Yeah, but Tim is a name that a lot of people who are not Irish will still use because it's more normal sounding. No one has named their kid Seamus in the United States for 80 years.

Not one person, just you. Not one. I'm the only one. We've checked. You can say Seamus and say you're the only one. I could. I mean, people do when they read my name off of paper. We're McGills on my dad's side of the family, which is a Scottish name. And I looked into McGill.

McGill means son of a stranger. Yeah, I was like, oh my. The McMaster family. We're the McMasters. Why did we keep that? That sounds so much cooler.

That's great. No one's going to try and sack McMaster Castle. Deliopolis says, Tim, do you ever get the feeling that in about 12 months you'll be talking

about Zelensky the same way you talk about Dr. Fauci now? He is the Andrew Cuomo of 2022. He is indeed. deliopolis says tim do you ever get the feeling that in about 12 months you'll be talking about zelensky the same way you talk about dr fauci now he is the andrew como of 2022 he is indeed without spoiling a joke that seamus wrote oh boy yeah we so we're working don't you worry we are working on a cartoon about it now of course we are so that one was actually really easy we recorded that like five minutes yeah and then the other one took a half an hour it's funny because the second one we recorded is going to be much less intensive with respect to the animation work, but it took a long time to record. All of the work was in the audio.

Right. It was me doing the voice of Dr. Fauci. But, you know, Seamus is directing, so I got to keep doing the line over and over again and getting the nuance and everything right. I'm a diva as a director. But it sounds. So there's like a rough edit. It's hilarious.

Sounds perfect. Yeah. Oh, man. But I actually think the other one might end up being funnier. What? Just be... Excuse me? They're both your bits.

Yeah, honestly. They're both... After we laughed and laughed while recording it. It's funny. Listen to it. All right. Donovan Davis says, Currently reading Plato's The Republic.

Oh, gosh. And it covers the topics to a T. Reference the section Socrates is discussing the hypothetical city and the regime's rulers of said regimes. Note that he says the rulers should be philosophers. Of course they should, and good luck reading The Republic.

Gosh. Centralized power is bad. That's just about it. You know, every time you get someone who thinks they know how to make everything work, they end up just killing everybody. The problem is extreme in any direction is bad. That's just about it. You know, every time you get someone who thinks they know how to make everything work, they end up just killing everybody. The problem is extreme in any direction is bad because extreme pluralism, you were saying earlier, is to the point where it's like live and let live,

to the point where communists or some dangerous entity can come in and set up shop and no one stops them because everyone's so pluralist. So you need authority. You just got to find that balance. We're like those philosopher kings. Like, this is all government, but in particular people that are prone to philosopher king thinking no government on the planet ever has been able to mandate what you

should want in your heart right governments can do they can do incentives they can't do intentions and like the philosopher king people never ever get that where they're like well we're you have to be nice to these people now like it doesn't work that way like you have to uh everybody in your company has to make x you're like fine i'm gonna fire the bottom half of the company i have to read this next super oh boy you ready for this one rye lion says i think if i were a woman and i just listened to tim explain the biden ukraine corruption i'd go get a pregnancy test whoa what that's some deep knowledge. That's wild.

Yeah, that was a bit intense. That information will start again. That was a good joke. And, of course, I'm going to read the compliments for myself. Yeah, of course. All right. Sultry Sears says, Tim, do you think the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to explosives such as fireworks?

Yes, absolutely, 100%. Fireworks? He's talking about nukes the other day. Yeah, I know. Can you buy a such as fireworks? Yes, absolutely 100%. Fireworks? He's talking about nukes the other day. Yeah, I know. Can you buy a cannon in America? Yes, you can. You can? You can. Do you have a cannon? No. You should get a cannon. Yes. Look, I've got a Civil War rifled musket over there.

It's the same principle. You know, you're going to stuff it with powder and then put the ball in. It's funny that Joe Biden's like, you can't buy a cannon. And Biden's like, you can't buy a cannon. And it's like, you could always buy a cannon. You could still buy a cannon. I think you could crown. I think your supporters would buy you a cannon.

They're not that expensive. A couple hundred bucks. If you ask people to buy a cannon. How much is it? A couple hundred bucks. For a cannon? Yeah. So I could buy a cannon.

Yes. I'm going to buy a cannon. Do it. That sounds great. What do you think? I can't let everyone know. It's so loud. You're talking about technology.

I'm going to have a long cannon. You have lost your tactical advantage now that everyone knows. No, this is great. Because I live in Texas, right? Yeah. I don't own any guns. So when people are like, yeah, what kind of gun are you? I'm like, I own a cannon.

Like, this is the only one. You have that? It's a cannon. Bring it out for the Fourth of July. Yes, that's what my grandfather did. Really? Yeah, he did. How much does a kayak cost?

Two, three hundred dollars. Now imagine going back several hundred years and crafting one. I'd imagine it would actually be substantially more buying power. Because, you know, like someone would take a long time to build you a vessel. They probably handmade those kayaks. Now they're just a plastic mold. So same thing with cannons? Yes.

So literally, I'm just going to go buy a cannon when we're done. I'm going to hop on eBay. I'm just searching buy cannon right now on Brave. Let's see if it will come up. Yeah, it's a big hunk of metal. It's not complicated. I'm going to get. Okay.

So now hold on. You want to get a howitzer? All right. Now we're talking. I want an ornamental. I want a cannon. We're like, theoretically, if somebody's invading me, I can irritate them briefly. That's what I want.

I want to be able to like. Goal of life. I want to be able to put a hole through a Volvo. That's what I want. I'm not. I'm not. Steencannons.com. Just a place where you can look at cannons if you're interested. I just first one that popped up. You hole through a Volvo. That's what I want. I'm not SteenCannons.com. Just a place where we can look at cannons if you're interested.

I just first one that popped up. You can buy a tank. What? You didn't know that. These tanks are nice, too. Okay, this is my new goal for the political orphanage is to get my people to buy me a tank. I thought everyone says you're on the center when you argue with them.

Yeah, but I really love novelty and owning a tank. I don't even care. The tank would be cool. Well, we'll paint it pink or something so i'm a centrist it'd be great so uh i got in trouble because i said that uh second amendment covers nukes and biological weapons it does it's not it's not it's not an opinion it's a fact now some people might not like that it does and might argue that we shouldn't allow people to have nukes second amendment absolutely does cover any weapon that anyone could have and this is easily proven halliburton and the private organizations lockheed martin they're private institutions that have these weapons they're not the government do they control nukes no i don't know about i

don't know who who uh but look the government doesn't make their weapons they buy them from contractors so boeing makes the planes boeing owns them and boeing does the tests on them they I don't know who, but look, the government doesn't make their weapons. They buy them from contractors. So Boeing makes the planes. Boeing owns them, and Boeing does the tests on them. They control it. They fly them. That's privately owned weapons. I'm going to be honest with you.

I don't want to buy a nuke. I just, like, I see what you're trying to do. I thought you liked novelty. No, even if you paint it pink, I'm going to get the tank. A nuke seems like everyone's going to want to come over and touch the nuke. I'm going to have to get, like get an alarm system for my nuke. I don't want to do that. I just want to get a tank.

All right, let's read this from Art Vandele. It says, Ian, you need to read Thomas Sowell. In the 1960s, black people had 90% of white per capita income and 80% two-parent homes. Lyndon B. Johnson, LBJ, and the Dems, great society program that put this in reverse, and no one talks about how this destroyed families. I've heard a lot of stuff about a great society and know very little about it. Thomas Sowell is a national treasure. It is a shame that he does not have a Nobel Prize in economics.

Right? Oh, my gosh. Amen. Oh, yeah. We can all agree on that. Thomas Sowell is amazing, except for Ian. I can't agree. His tank is great. Oh, yeah.

And he didn't paint his pink. And you know what? I don't think he had a problem with it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. His tank's see-through. It's colorblind. It just applies to geophysics. You can buy a cannon.

You can buy a tank. But thanks to the National Firearms Act, it's very difficult to get a crew-served 50 BMG. Gosh, darn it. Maybe you wouldn't do 50. I think people were saying there's another caliber for crew-served machine guns. I just want crew-served. That's all I care about. What caliber for crew-served machine guns. I just want crew-served. That's all I care about. What's a crew-served machine gun?

It's like when you have that big mounted gun and then one guy's holding the belt and feeding it to another guy. Butterfly trigger. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes. What Nancy Pelosi wanted on January 6th. That's right. Yeah, she asked for it and they were like, are you nuts?

Wait, what? Yeah. You wanted machine guns? Well, she wanted crew... I think she said belt-fed, but everyone was like, crew-served. I had... Wow, okay. That's wild, crew... I think she said belt-fed, but everyone was like crew-served. I had... Wow, okay. That's wild, right?

I think she requested it specifically. She was concerned, yeah. And they told her, like, you're crazy, we're not doing that. Yes. Like, what are you going to do? Riddle the walls of the buildings in D.C. when guys are like...

I typed in best crew-served BMG. It came up with the Sig Sauer's MG338. Have you ever heard of that thing? Heavy machine gun? I think someone sent that to me,G. It came up with the Sig Sauer's MG338. Have you ever heard of that thing? Heavy machine gun? I think someone sent that to me, actually. It says it bridges the gap between the crew served M2 Browning heavy machine gun and the M240. Well, you know, sometimes. I can't wait for my homeowner's association to have to talk to me about the cannon I put in my front yard.

Yes. And they look awesome. Damn it, Gerald. It has nothing to do with a fence. It has nothing to do with a pool. You don't have any jurisdiction here. I'm keeping the cannon in my yard. I pay my dues. That's right. I it, Gerald. It has nothing to do with a fence. It has nothing to do with a pool. You don't have any jurisdiction here. I'm keeping the Canada by your arm. I pay my dues.

That's right. I pay my dues. Yeah. Show me I can't own a Canada. That's right. You can. Yeah, one of the stories I was reading about that I love to tell is when a guy was in his tank firing a full auto.50 caliber

into his own lake, and the cops showed up, and then he stopped, and he's like, what can I do for you? And the cops were like, is this your tank? He's like, yes, it is. And they're like,, and then he stopped, and he's like, what can I do for you? And the cops were like, is this your tank? He's like, yes it is. And they're like, is this your land? Yes it is. And they went, have a nice day. And they just drove off.

You know what you have to do? You just have to get a bunch of cannons by every single window, and then have them half poking out like a pirate ship. No one's going to rob you. And let's see if that HOA tries to come after you. Let's see if that HOA is going to come pick a fight. My blazer collection will be safe.

Yes, I love it. All right, let's read some more. Blankout says, member here with an idea request. Please read. You know the Biden Burisma better than most. Create a high-quality docuseries walking through the evidence with visual aids. Clear citation. Video news clips.

I will increase my monthly member fee for it. That a good idea let's do a cartoon let's do an educational cartoon on it but that would be like 20 minutes but honestly you'd be surprised we could talk about it later but i've been working with the foundation for economic education for like five years to compress these really complex ideas into short cartoons so we might not be able to get all of it in there but i think we could get a really good comprehensive thing done. I kind of feel like there's people – well, I have a good grasp of like an overhead view of a lot of these issues. And then I read Matt Taibbi's reporting on this, and he got into the nitty-gritty, and he pulled up some facts which were absolutely astounding, notably that Victor Shokin, the prosecutor, was investigating Mykola Zlachevsky, which the media denied over and over again. And then he came out and said a cursory review of Ukrainian court documents show, I think it was

legal documents, that there were like 12 different active investigations and several that had been suspended but were still active. That had been on hold, but were still active when Biden came in and did this. So we have to pull up a lot of that old research and stuff

and make sure we get all the facts right, but we could do it. That'd be cool. Yeah. That would be a good 20 minutes. That'd be really entertaining. If it was well animated, I would sit there and watch it for 20 minutes. That was just great listening to you earlier. We couldn't, I mean, if we were going to do,

we could do multiple versions too. Like if it was 20 minutes, it would have to be some infographics type thing. And even that's a stretch, but I'm telling you, you can compress some really complex things into short videos if you know how to do the visuals right. Yeah. Austin Walters says, simplest way to show the truth divide. Go to

CNN or MSNBC and look for external links. There will be none. Then go to Newsmax, Fox, or Daily Wire and you can see the citations. Same with Water with Crowder. Yeah, they cite everything. Yep. Yeah, it's fascinating. That's why we use NewsGuard. Have you ever heard of them? No. They're very biased, but they give ratings to various news outlets. It's fascinating. That's why we use NewsGuard. Have you ever heard of them? They're very biased. But they give ratings to various news

outlets. It's a good idea. Well, I like using it because when people are like, Tim Pool pushed this story or whatever, I'm like, take it up with NewsGuard. It's their certification, not mine. I wonder how they feel about it. They get accused

of bias all the time though from the left and the right so i'm imagining it's not an easy business to be in trying to be like no site is good the site is bad but look they give the daily wire a green rating uh they give fox news when when they gave when news guard gave fox news a green certification the left lost their minds they're like fox news is lying and fake news and the news guard people were like no they're not like fox news legitimately reports the news. You just don't like their opinions. I used to work at Fox Business.

And I've said there's a difference between Fox News and Fox Opinion. And you can take your difference with Fox Opinion, but that is opinion, right? The actual people that are writing the stories. And we were rigorously fact-checking things as well. If I put something in a script, I had to be very careful about the facts going into it. Oh, wow, that's interesting. Vasht says Mac is Gaelic for son of. So it's neither Scottish or Irish in origin.

Same with MC, it's just shortened. So MC is generally the Irish spelling and MAC is generally the Scottish spelling. So we're saying he was son of. But no, it is son of. Oh, we're still bastards. I can't speak for you. No, we for sure are. Yeah, you're like, oh, no, I can tell.

Yeah. All right. Matthew Headinghouse says, this has been the best conversation and debate I've heard in years. I mean, literally, just awesome from everyone on the show tonight. Solid 20. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think this is actually a blast. That's why I went a little long, because we're having a good time.

No, it was great. And can I say what Ian said about religion? But everything else was solid. Yeah, I want to go. It sounds like not tonight, probably. It's also, Tim, it's really refreshing to be able to have a conversation like this with someone. Right. Where we can come in like, I still like you.

I'm having a good time. And to be able to kind of like. But you're close. You're close. It was enjoyable because it was one of those nights where I'm like, I'm not saying much. Seamus isn't saying much. But you guys were in it. And it was really good.

I'm going to rewatch it, too. I think it was mostly me going off. Yeah, but the Ukraine stuff is key. You guys screamed at him. You smacked him. Yeah, you remember? And also, talk to him about... I threw a bottle at him at one point. Did you guys cut that out? Talking about how looking at things from two polarities and looking at things like... I think you said, what was the different circles

that are all connecting to each other? What do you call those? The Venn diagrams. Yeah, Venn diagrams. I have a Jackson Pollock painting in my mind. Well, Ian, you just believe in that for no reason. I'm a big Venn diagram guy. Well, anyway, it was Yeah, Venn diagrams. I have a Jackson Pollock hanging in my mind. Well, Ian, you just believe in that for no reason. I'm a big Venn diagram guy. Well, anyway, it was fun. Thank you. I enjoyed that. There are interesting

visualizations about, like, how YouTube groups the left and the right. The funny thing is there was this researcher who did an assessment of YouTube channels, left and right,

and there were a small handful of channels that were separate from all. There was left, center, and right, and then exclusively critical of left. And it was funny because I was like, why do you think that? channels that were separate from all there was left center and right and then exclusively critical of left and it was funny because i was like why do you think that you know how do you come up that category and it's like well you're only criticizing this one group and i'm like it's it's just weird

that that idea is born like that worldview is born out of – how do I describe this? If you can't understand that there are people who are on the left that are critical of critical race theory and that kind of stuff, you're confused by what you're watching and it doesn't fit your worldview. So you have to give it its own isolated – I was like, is it simple enough to just say we are centrists? We are people who have left-wing political views and are critical of people that are supposedly on the left. So that's not an exclusively critical of left thing because we also espouse left-wing views. Yeah. I want to make a point here because this is really, really important. It's a massive part of the puzzle. There are people who exclusively criticize the left, but that is a very different thing to do from a left-wing perspective versus a right-wing perspective. So Jimmy Dore criticizes to do from a left-wing perspective versus a right-wing perspective. So Jimmy Dore criticizes the left from a left-wing perspective and says they're not really standing

for the values that they claim to be standing for. They're hypocritical. I criticize the left from a right-wing perspective. It is totally different. But we're criticizing the same group, but for different reasons. So to lump us in the exact same category and say we're ideological allies is ridiculous. The weirdest thing to me was that... Even though i would agree with him on some things you know jimmy door is i i think jimmy's a socialist you know i always say i think because i don't want

to put words in his mouth but i'm pretty sure he's like pretty left and it's weird to me that i'm not left enough for the left to be forced you know when they when they talk about jimmy door they call him on the left and put an asterisk next to his name because they're like but he's a you know shill for r Russia or whatever they're saying about him. And for me, I'm like, I made a video supporting the Green New Deal. What is that bug? I don't know. He doesn't have a stinger on him or

a proboscis, so I don't think he's going to suck your blood. There's a weird giant bug that looks like a mosquito. That's from Texas. I'm sorry. I brought that with me. Oh, thank God, Andrew. Alright, let's see. And bad bug. Sorry about that. me. Oh, thank you, Andrew. All right, let's see. And bedbugs, sorry about that. Oh my gosh, Andrew. There's one more thing

I want to mention with respect to this. Often people saying that they aren't a member of a particular group can, at least in some circumstances, indicate that that group's values it can indicate that no one believes in it anymore. It can also indicate that that group's values have become so ubiquitous that people hold their values without acknowledging it.

So oftentimes people will say things like, you know, I don't believe in feminism, but I believe X, Y, and Z, referring to more like classically feminist values. And what they're essentially saying is I give assent to all the things forwarded by feminists 100 years ago. I don't like this current version. But in some sense, they're still promoting feminist assumptions. I think the issue is – And it's the same with left-wing assumptions. When people criticize the left from the left, they're still promoting left-wing assumptions. So is the same with left-wing assumptions when people criticize the left from the left they're still promoting left-wing assumptions so it's not the same thing as being on the right at all left and right don't actually

describe politics they describe tribes so when someone says tim pool's clearly on the left it's because they're referring to tribe not policy when people say jimmy door is you know a leftist but he's a he's a right winger and they're confused by it it's because his politics are too similar to theirs but he doesn't like this you know he doesn't like i think you're right about that we're living in a really really tribal time it's a very tribal time by design by design uh like i i think that the political parties and people in power know that it's a lot harder to win elections based on actually coming up with solutions to problems it's a lot easier to get people to vote out of fear and hate, and so they're doing that.

And we live in a weird period where people don't really care about what you think. They care about the word choice you use to describe what you think. Did you say patriot or social justice? That's all I care about. Dude, I saw the Jussie Smollett sentencing, and the judge was like, the word that starts with an N, and then he went on, and I'm like, like you can't even in a court of law you can't even say that word out loud like this is what the world is coming to

that's a great example of secular versus non-secular thinking right like so I'm going to make the case that like uber progressives tend to be like religious right yeah absolutely so like like and I'm saying this is the friendly low wattage agnostic here, absolutely. I'm saying this as the friendly, low-wattage agnostic here in the group. I'm saying

this as the secular person at the table. I think that there's a tremendous amount of people in the United States that would have been what we call religious 100 years ago, and they've taken that religiosity and applied it to politics. A good example of that is do you believe in the concept of magic words? A magic word

would be, I would say, to your point, Ian, there are certain words you can say in a court of law, and it has no moral opprobrium associated with it. Yeah, opprobrium. Or if you're in your basement and you say it by yourself. But there are other people who are like, no, it is a cosmic affront to morality to ever utter a certain word in the same way that you can't say, like, Jehovah. Because that, like, right?

So that's that division between secular thinking and religion. And there are people who completely disagree with that worldview who know the people of institutional power and believe in that worldview will destroy you. Look at Joe Rogan. Yeah. They came after him. I think you're right. Joe Rogan, like, what did he get? He initially got in trouble because he was bringing on different voices regarding vaccines and whatnot,

which, by the way, is how you challenge ossified orthodoxy. When you've got an opinion that becomes not only ubiquitous but unquestioned, that's when you make really bad decisions. You need to have people asking questions that challenge orthodoxy, and a lot of the time they're cranks and a lot of the time they're they're from the periphery until they're right because like the the heliocentric worldview was crank until it was challenged right he got in trouble for that it didn't stick and then what did they do they went and found examples of him saying the n-word that i were taken out of context and and then went well he's racist you have to cancel him now right and

then he he caved you know we had Papa John on the show and they really, it's all lies. Do you know Papa John's story? Papa John was on a private phone call. He was having, it was like a business meeting. It's been years since I talked about it. But he was complaining

about how Colonel Sanders used the N-word and no one seemed to care. But he actually said the full word. So he was castigating somebody for using the N-word. And they destroyed it it they destroyed his life really they kicked him out of the company they took his name off of schools they they they they news stories are publishing he used the n-word that the news stories about joe rogan were that he used the n-word no no he

said it descriptively in criticizing the use of it context and intention matter intention matter. But this is why I say, look, at a certain point after 10 years of living through this, you've got to recognize there is, in whatever factions they are, one is lying all the time. The right falls for it sometimes,

truth be told, but I can, look, if you go through, name a story from Black Lives Matter with one of their riots that turned out to be the way they described it. Anything? I don't know. I'm

drinking now. I mean, look, the latest example being Ahmaud Arbery. You said, oh, that guy who was the jogger. He was not jogging. Objectively not jogging. And even the prosecutor in the case against the guys said he was a felony burglary suspect who was being pursued. The question

is, did they have a right to pursue him or not? The jury decided they didn't. That's why they were convicted. Now, they also got the hate crime charges. But get this. The guy who filmed it got convicted. Yep. All he did was saw Arbery running and started filming what was happening.

And they said he was in on it, so he goes to prison, too, for the rest of his life. What? He was in a car following behind. And because he was following behind, they made it seem like he was pinning the guy in when he was just so here's i'll give you the like like the primary evidence they have in this was provided by that guy yes and now he's going to prison yep for the rest of his life clearly they lied when when you're locking up the guy who presented the evidence it sounds to me more like they they're saying you embarrassed us so you guys can all go you know go rot for all we care but what's the

official narrative that a guy was jogging 20 miles from his house in work boots and that some racists pinned him and then killed him the real story is a neighborhood plagued by burglaries the police went around and said here's a picture of the guy security camera footage showed him committing felony burglary because people need to understand i don't know if it was felony burglary, but people need to understand that burglary is not breaking into someone's house and robbing them. It's breaking into someone's house. We're learning this the hard way right now. So when they had evidence of him entering a home, it's not trespassing. The police then say, here's the guy. A gun was stolen. A couple of weeks later, they see him.

These guys should not have chased after him, in my opinion, but they decided to. They cut him off. They went past him on a different street and stopped. One of the guys got out. He had a shotgun, probably because, I could be speculating, but this guy they believed may have stolen a gun. Perhaps it's wrong to make that assumption, but someone did steal a gun and this guy was a suspect, so it's not illegal to stand in a street with a gun. Ahmaud Arbery then ran around the right side of the truck and then as soon as he got to the front of the truck,

jumped left and attacked one of the McMichaels, the younger one who had the gun, fighting for the shotgun, trying to take it. It's called dual possession. The shotgun went off, shooting him in the chest

and killing him. The guy who filmed it is going to prison. These two guys were, the media said they lynched a guy who was jogging. The real story is much more nuanced than this, And the reality is a couple of guys who were probably dumb to do what they did were trying to stop what they thought was a burglary.

And perhaps they were racist in their assumptions about them. But either way, if the cops go to your house and say, this is the guy, someone's running around in work boots, having been seen on security camera after a gun was stolen. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the neighborhood freaked out about it. It's tragic, man. But what needs to be brought up is Ahmaud Arbery attacked them. You could argue that he was justified. If you surround – if there's a guy behind me in a car and two guys pull up and gets out with a shotgun, maybe I'd attack them too, right?

My interpretation of this is – My point is, just real quick, is that the media lied. Media lied. If everybody in that neighborhood had had a lawn cannon, which is what I'm planning to get when we conclude this show, I don't think that would have happened. Just a single lawn cannon? I thought you were going to put them in the windows. In all seriousness...

What I could afford my own home instead of a duplex. Just a single cannon. Hey, hold on. You've got those cannons sticking out of your window. But in all seriousness, whoever was burglarizing the neighborhood, be it Arbery or otherwise, stole one of their guns.

So it's like even when these people had set up security cameras and were armed, it was months of this going on. And it's much more complicated than that. So you can argue these guys were in the wrong and it shouldn't have happened. And personally, I'm sad that anybody died. But that's not what the media said. And to this day, the left will tell you a guy who was innocently jogging was lynched. That has been every single story. Remember, hands up, don't shoot.

That was a lie. Michael Brown did not have his hands up. The coroner's, I think it was Obama's Justice Department found that he was actually had his hands down and he was lunging towards the cop, Darren Wilson. But they've lied and they've lied and they've burned. I mean, look at the George Floyd story.

Everything they said about that, man, boy, did it turn out to be false. Should anybody die in these situations? No. Are cops responsible? In many of these cases, yes, but they just keep lying to us and they justify violence and destruction. I'm going to keep ranting about this because I do so often. We'll wrap it up there. We've gone a bit long.

I don't know if you guys have anything you want to say before we bounce out. I mentioned before that the Catholic Church had killed Galileo. In fact, no, they just put him in prison for saying that the sun was the center of the universe. So it was fake news at the time, and they tried to cancel him. He did die in prison, but the church didn't actually kill him. I wanted to clarify that. Also, the Brave search engine, which I've been experimenting with, I've been in touch with business ops over at Brave,

and there are ways you can go to search.brave.com slash settings and fix your Brave search engine from there with your Brave browser. All right, everybody. Head over to timcast.com. Become a member. Thanks for hanging out this Friday night. You can follow the show at timcast.irl. You can follow me at timcast. You want to shout anything out, Andrew? Sure.

Again, I had a fun time. Yeah, this was great. Tim, any time... How was the scotch? It was good? It was very good and very strong. Which one did you pick? I'm pretty sure I got the cask strength one because my head is swimming. Did you take the uskwabak or whatever it's called? Yes, the one of the blue ceramic jug. Yes, that's the one I took in. It is hitting me hard.

Goodness. Tim, any time somebody can make me think, I view that as a really good conversation, and you made me think tonight, and I'm have to like uh kind of uh mull with some of the stuff you said but i very much enjoyed it i appreciate you letting me come on anybody that enjoyed me go check out the political orphanage uh thank you very much lydia and i'll say like at least going back to like the foreign policy stuff i'd recommend the last episode i did it's called uh how to prevent or provoke stupid wars and i what I basically do is just get into underlying theory about realism, liberalism,

Marxism, social constructivism, and try and get past kind of that surface level partisan noise, get into the fundamentals of what's happening. And welcome people to come check that out. What's your Twitter? You have Twitter too, right? At Mighty Heaton. Love it. Come hang out. I mostly just do

horse jokes on Twitter. I don't really get into political fights on Twitter. That's just funny stuff on Twitter. Awesome. Go check out my YouTube channel right now. Freedom Tunes. Go look at it. We disagree very much. Even Ian, with whom I disagree on a number of things, endorsed the latest video.

Seamus, you've got to give me more roles than just Fauci, man. Come on. Look, Tim, I know you have to keep the lights here on, but if Fauci's not in the news, I'm not going to violate the artistic integrity of my work. I was thinking about that, though. I was like, now that Fauci's out of the news cycle,

I was like, I'm not going to be on Freedom Tunes anymore. You're not going to make any more. I swear you're Bill Gates. You're Bill Gates is next level. Roll with it. Lean into it. But I'm just ripping off Family Guy's impression of Bill Gates. It's even better.

It's better. Hello, and I'm Ian Crossland. IanCrosland.net. Hit me up there. I think that's everything for tonight. See you guys next week. Graffine. Graffine. And follow Graffine to the moon. Buy Graffine stock. Yes. We'll be riding space elevators tethered with Graffine amalgams. I just wanted to say during this conversation

about crew-served machine guns, children are perfect for training to serve machine gun functions. So if you want to have a family, that's a great reason to do so. Or send your orphans to me. I'll take them. Perfect.

I've got all those cannons I'm planning to get. I love it. That's a great plan, Andrew. Thank you. You guys may follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sarah Patchlets. All right, everybody. I just want to point out I didn't kill that bug. Some people were saying to me, killed the bug.

I tried to. I missed. It survived. Heroically. And I just want to make sure you all know that thanks for hanging out we'll see you all next time

bye guys wait wait wait wait go to youtube.com search for chicken city subscribe to chicken city and watch chicken city live okay

it is chickens being chickens and chickens are funny and we'll see you all next time bye guys