Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #509 - Elon Musk Twitter Buyout EXPOSES Shady Dealing w/Michael Knowles & Jeremy Boreing

Episode Date: April 15, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia join Daily Wire anchors Jeremy Boreing (co-CEO) and Michael Knowles (commentator) to discuss Elon Musk's crazy Twitter antics, the response of the Saudi Twitter oligarch, Elon Musk's feelings on underpopulation, and Florida's pro-life legislation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk has just, I don't know how you describe this, nuked the culture war. And it's really exposed some rather shady dealings, which I find particularly interesting. Notably, a Saudi prince is rejecting the buyout offer because they're one of the biggest investors, saying, no, no, Twitter is worth more, even though most reporting shows that Twitter is failing stagnant growth, and it was failing years ago. Trump is the only reason, as far as I know, that it started to come back. So why are these companies so interested on retaining this power? Elon Musk is no longer the largest shareholder. Vanguard just bought more shares and it seems like they're not going to go for the buyout either. My opinion? You know, the Saudi prince is right. Twitter is more valuable

than $54.20 per share. It's the political influence you wield when you silence those who disagree with you. We've talked about this before, and I think this may play a role. Naturally, you have many Twitter employees freaking out. The media is freaking out, but Elon Musk ain't backing down. He's actually put them in a difficult position because if they go against the will of the majority of the shareholders, they're violating their fiduciary responsibility, and it opens them up to liability. So this may be one of the most epic and craziest moments in the culture war. We definitely got to talk about that. And I got to tell you, man, almost there's just too much to go through because this is huge. But we do have the RNC pulling out of the Commission on Presidential

Debates, which is also equally massive, and a bunch of stories about abortion being banned, which is seemingly just escalating. And of course, many on the left are freaking out. We'll get into all that. Joining us today is the intrepid duo, Smokey Mike and the God King. Yeah. Who's first on billing? You, Jeremy? Well, Smokey Mike gets first billing because when one is known as the God King,

they don't care about things like this. How do you follow a God King? That's right. Michael, go first. Who are you? Well, I'm Smokey Mike. I'm a well-known guitarist and sitar player and 1970s rock icon. So it's good to be here.

I do, in my free time, I have a show called The Michael Knowles Show at the Daily Wire, which is fun. It's kind of like a little amateur side project. Not your passion project. But it's not, yeah. I mean, the way I pay the Daily Wire, which is fun. It's kind of like a little amateur side project. Not your passion project. But it's not, yeah. I mean, the way I pay the bills is with my acoustic guitar and my psychedelic cool licks.

In all seriousness, maybe people don't know, you were on, I don't know if it was last time, but you actually played a song about your book for our members only. So good. Hey, you know,

I really have to thank you guys because seriously, I go on Tim's show, I come on the podcast, and all of a sudden everyone in the super chats starts plugging my book. And I think one of the main reasons that book hit number one nationally is because your listeners, Tim, were so relentless about promoting this book, which is why I'm so happy to say paperbacks out in June, baby.

Let's do it. Speechless coming back up. What's it called again i just want to point out speechless speechless it is true they were promoting it but actually i think they were trolling me because what they would do is they would start the super chat and i would get into reading it and then it would devolve into promoting michael's book so they got me but it helped so you know it did great job guys keep it up june 2022 really appreciate it it's good we do have the god king himself, but small g, right?

Lowercase g, lowercase k. I am the man to whom Michael Knowles owes everything, except apparently the success of his last book. Yeah, I'm the co-founder, co-CEO of the Daily Wire and also 70s rock icon. For those who don't know, Smokey Mike and the God King legendary performance at the Ryman Auditorium last year. How will we ever top it? And the answer is, we don't know. I have an idea. I'm on board. The Garden?

The Garden. Madison Square Garden. Because we've already played the Mother Church country music, so you're saying that would have to be the elevation I suppose I mean I don't know how you pull off filling out

what is it 60,000 seater or something oh that's easy no that's easy it's like this guy doesn't even know a good joke when he hears it

yeah yeah I don't know the garden that's easy but it's like you know you gotta get on a plane put on the dumb masks

they just extended that another two weeks so we gotta work out wait well hold on you don't have a private jet you're right we gotta get those albums. Is that the rock icon himself, Fly's Coach?

Well, after what happened to Skinner, we said, you know, only commercial from now on. What we said is only commercial for Smokey Mike. Did we mention your name, Jeremy Boring? Oh, yeah. My name is Jeremy Boring. There may be, you know, somebody's listening and is like, God, King, like, who is this man? Who is that handsome Dan? That handsome Dan?

All right. We also got Seamus. Seamus Coghlan. I run a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes. We just released a cartoon today. Very happy with it. Very excited about it. It's about groomer teachers.

You guys are going to love it. And guess what? We are at 796,000 subscribers. Let's get to 800,000. We can do it. Go over there. Hit the subscribe button. We just released one of our best videos ever.

You guys are going to love it. Ian Crossland up in the house. What's up, dudes? I'm just a wild animal, and I'm happy to get rolling, so let's go. Awesome. I am just excited to be here. As always, in the corner pushing buttons, love to have Michael and Jeremy both back within relatively short order. So let's get this party started. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com. Become a member if you would like to support our work and all of our fierce and independent journalists as a member you will get access to exclusive segments of this

show monday through thursday at 8 p.m and guys you made all this possible we are eternally grateful for your support and we look forward to challenging the system i used to say you know don't forget to smash the like button subscribe to this channel and share this show with your friends and the reason i would say that is because if everybody listening shared this, we'd be bigger than CNN. Well, we're bigger than CNN Plus. So I don't know what else to say other than we did it, guys.

Thank you all so much. Because granted, I think the real issue is that CNN Plus is just in the gutter. But, you know, good job. No, what a great business strategy. They're like, no one's watching our network. Let's make them pay for it. Well, let's talk about this.

I don't even know how to begin with this story because we've just got so much going on with the Elon Musk nuclear bomb on Twitter. So as many of you may have heard, Elon Musk this morning announces he wants a full buyout, 100% of the platform at $54.20. Full disclosure, I own 22 shares of the company, not a whole lot. I would like to see Elon Musk fix it. And if that means being bought out and getting rid of all the shares, I'm fine with that. Elon Musk is right about a lot of the problems. The top 10 users, barely any of them tweet anymore. Several haven't even tweeted this year.

But something strange is happening. Even though $54.20 is above market rate, it's a premium on the rate of the value of the shares. And even though Elon Musk is saying if he can't affect positive change, he might actually sell off his shares, which would be detrimental to the company. These powerful interests don't want to sell. I wonder why that is. So here's the first story we have in this because what we're seeing is Elon Musk exposed what appears to be some kind of shady dealings.

Cameron Winklevoss says, Twitter is considering a poison pill to thwart Elon Musk's offer. They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs. This shows you

how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse. Scary. It's a win-win. Elon Musk responds, if the current Twitter board takes actions

contrary to the shareholder interests, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty. The liability they would thereby assume would be titanic in scale. What a freaking stud. It's just great. The thing that's most inspiring about this is generally speaking, mo' money, mo'

problems, right? Generally speaking, we were talking about this is generally speaking mo money mo problems right they're generally speaking we were talking about this a little earlier as people get money and get and influence and power they they just they get timid they they get risk averse and this guy is gambling 41 billion dollars on a really important, politically significant troll. I think it's more than that, though. You know, he called the Babylon Bee when they got suspended. And the story apparently is he said, did you guys really get suspended over this joke? They said yes. And he goes, I might have to buy Twitter.

Well, also. I think. Wow. I mean, sorry, just Elon Musk has got. I'll put this way. He's got $280 billion towards his net worth. If you had $280 and someone was like, hey, this really important thing is $50, you might be like, it's $50. It's a lot, but for him. Well, it's even better than that because it's not as though it has no value.

So he buys it for $50, which he's not going to have to do. I think his actual plan is offer them $50. They're going to say no. he sells off his 9.2 percent he crashes the price of their stocks now he comes in and buys it for 20 bucks takes it private fixes it relists it on uh the new york stock exchange a 12 18 months later doubles his money so So he gets to both do the greatest probably social good for free speech that anyone's done in our lifetime and probably double his cash on the whole affair. Yeah. And I also want to say when Twitter is threatening to self-immolate and destroy their company, we have to take that seriously because we've seen them do it before.

Like we know they're capable of it. Twitter? Yeah, just completely destroying any value within their own company. My understanding is that before 2016 twitter was losing users they had changed their their metric for how they calculated users from like something like daily active to monthly active so that you know because the average person was using the platform less they said okay well if they use it once in the month then but it's been a while so you got a fact check man that one because i haven't been tracking that as much.

But when I see this idea that Twitter would self-immolate, I'm like, yeah. Because I think the real issue for these investors is power, political power. It's more valuable than cash. Well, it is political. That's the word we have to use. You know, we always make fun of this sort of build your own Twitter, build your own Google. No, they're ensconced in power. There was a time at the beginning of social media when there was competition.

We're way past that. They've exploited legal liability protections. They've teamed up with the government and they've defrauded their users. So we're stuck with these guys. So now there's this third option, which is don't build your own Twitter. Just buy your own Twitter. And, you know, when we talk about political power, we usually think about the government. We live in a republic. In a republic, you govern yourself

with speech. You engage in speech in the public square. If some bozo in Silicon Valley is controlling all the speech in the republic and censoring very important people in that republic, you don't have free speech, You don't have free speech. You don't have a republic. It's the most important thing for our form of government in years. Yeah, there's an important, you know, this term fiduciary duty may be not common to everyone who's listening. Essentially, what it means is if you are in a position of responsibility for someone else's investment, then you have a legal obligation, not just a moral, but a legal obligation to put their interests ahead of your own interests.

And in publicly traded companies, this typically means the executives and it means the board of directors. These are people who, because they represent in a sort of lowercase r Republican sense, they represent the average investor, the retail investor. They have obligations. Our friend Vivek Ramaswamy, I think, is so good about this. He talks about these companies. Part of the story is that today Vanguard took an outsized stake in Twitter so that they would actually be

the biggest shareholder and Elon would no longer be the number one shareholder. Vanguard, along with BlackRock and one other... State Street. Yes. They own $22 trillion holder vanguard along with blackrock and one other state street yeah yes imagine they own 22 trillion dollars worth of the s&p 500 worth worth of the top 500 uh companies that are traded on the on the stock exchange what they are essentially is using your money money from your 401k from your roth ira money from your your pension account They're using your money to amass power for themselves to act against your interests.

And I think Vivek rightly points out it's actually probably the greatest abuse of fiduciary responsibility in all of human history. And I think that's part of what Elon is, I mean, very clearly up against. He's up against the, you say these deeply entrenched powers that be, or these deeply entrenched powers against free speech. It's literally three entities. So The Daily Wire, you know, you're launching kids content. Are you insinuating you're going to launch financial investment and holdings companies to challenge this machine? There is nothing that we will not do. I'm imagining it's like 2070

and people are like, oh, I've got to run to the Daily Wire to cash my check. When you're out, can you go to the Daily Wire to pick up a large pizza? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I'm going to stop at the Daily Wire to fill up my tank before I go. Meanwhile, down in the Caribbean on an island called Godkingia.

Ben has been offering me payday loans since I started at the company. 50 points on the day. If they were to refuse this buyout and then maybe do their investors wrong, what could they expect? What kind of reprisal? Well, I think that heretofore, none. It's never occurred to any of them that they could be held responsible. I think of all the tweets that Elon Musk has put out in the last several weeks about Twitter, this is the most interesting one, because he's essentially saying,

I am one of the people they have a fiduciary duty to. By not joining the board, Elon did not place himself in a position of fiduciary responsibility, which leaves him with the actual legal right to act against the financial interests of Twitter. And I think what he's telling them is, I will personally sue them out of existence if they violate their fiduciary responsibilities. But it's a lie. You know, I mentioned the Trump thing, the platform dying, because when Trump joins, the platform goes nuts.

All of a sudden, people have a reason to use it and be on it. Alex Jones, for instance, they have banned people to the point of irrelevancy. It's not fun anymore. I stopped taking the platform seriously. I post such absurd nonsense half the time. But back when there was a real – You have one million followers on the platform.

It's weird to me. It's weird to me, too. I posted a hairless rabbit once, and I'm like, why are people following me? But they do, and it's fine. I just – maybe that's it. Maybe the irreverence and the uh you know the the absurdity is something worth following but my view is i used to use this platform as a utility for journalism right and now because of how how nuclear how radioactive

the platforms become how awful it is it's it's effectively worthless but i think maybe twitter realized what or i should say assumed what a lot of media companies did that culture war is money as much as the left likes to accuse any one of us of being grifters yeah the left has been doing what's called mission-driven storytelling long before any conservative right-wing or libertarian person figured out what was going on all of these digital media companies in the early 2010s realized if we get political we make money and then they have the nerve to call everybody else grifters here Here's the thing. That's fine. You know, obviously, at the Daily Wire, we we have a point of view. We have a series of biases, but we own those biases.

If you look at the tradition of journalism in America, you know, the Tennessee newspaper used to be called the Tennessee Democrat. If you go back to the time of the earliest presidential elections, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, they wouldn't run for office. They would have looked down on that. Instead, they owned and marshaled newspapers to actually be their political instruments. That's always been the history of journalism in this country until the post-war consensus and then we came up with this absurd notion of like objective journalism which which is a paradoxical kind of concept in and of itself i think it's very good that the new york times is so far left it's very bad that the new york times won't just admit and own their biases right if they would just tell us yes we're on the left and the left, and that gives you a series of expectations when you read our content,

it doesn't mean that it's okay to be completely polemical or to actually be propaganda outlets. You should tell the truth, but you should let us know from what point of view you're telling that. I agree, except the issue is when big tech platforms embrace that. Well, but again, if Twitter would own its biases, if YouTube would own its biases, that would actually create a market for alternatives. But the problem is that they lie about their biases. I disagree. I think conservatives know Twitter hates them. And what do you do? Parler, Gab, Mines, Getter?

Yeah, no one's going there because there are only two reasons to be on Twitter, and they matter. Twitter is the smallest big tech platform it's why elon can make this kind of play on even though he's the richest man in the world still takes a lot for one guy to take down a big tech platform yeah there are two reasons to be on twitter one is to get into fights with celebrities it's super fun it's great anyone can do it the celebrities fight that's the one reason the second reason is because it sets the news cycle so not a lot of people actually use twitter and they never really have but all the right people do all the right people do and so it's look i'll own it that's how i write a lot of my shows i see what's trending on twitter i it's and it's how a lot of news articles are

written now and all of the blue check journos are on there and so if you can control the narrative on twitter you're really controlling the narrative throughout most of the mainstream media speaking of you mentioned vanguard state street and black rock as three entities essentially controlling the world if you really look into it you start to see that they own each other that there's a lot of the same people this is from wall street zen uh state street is the largest individual shareholder of, or let's get this right, Vanguard is the largest individual State Street shareholder with 34.26 million shares. So Vanguard owns 9.36% of State Street. Wow. And it gets deeper and deeper the more you look into it.

Let's pull up some of this absurdity, oddity, shady dealings weirdity. So we have this tweet from alwaleed talal he says i don't believe that the proposed offer by elon musk 54 20 cents comes close to the intrinsic value of twitter given its growth prospects being one of the largest and long-term shareholders of twitter kingdom khc and i reject this offer let me elon musk responded to this in a very powerful way but the first thing i want to do is give you some context. In a story from Reuters, published by Yahoo Finance, they say something very simple. Let me scroll down.

Serial underperformer. Twitter's lower than expected user additions in recent months have raised doubts about its growth prospects, even as it pursues big projects such as audio chat rooms and newsletters. Yes, anybody who knows anything knows that Twitter has constantly struggled. That's right. So what about Elon Musk's premium offer is a bad deal? Well, for the prince in Saudi Arabia, maybe it is a bad deal. Elon Musk responded, interesting.

Just two questions, if I may. How much of Twitter does the kingdom own directly and indirectly? What are the kingdom's views on journalistic freedom of speech? Whoa! Elon Musk is a brave man in going after some of the biggest companies and political leaders in the world, but he

makes a really good point, and I'll throw back to the point I made earlier. I believe the prince Al-Waleed is correct. $54.20 doesn't come close to the true value of Twitter, which is controlling the American news cycle, especially if you're dependent upon the United States for weapons and you like a lot of the U.S. foreign interests when it comes to destabilizing the region. No, it's true. And so people talk about the fact that Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. And it's definitely very funny. There's a lot of great memes that have

come out of that. But Elon Musk owning Twitter would obviously make him significantly more powerful than any billionaire who happens to own a single publication. Well, this is also how Elon Musk, I think, makes almost all of his decisions. He thinks, what is Jeff Bezos doing? How can I do it better? That's his actual. Oh, you make phallic rocket ships? That's cute, Bezos. I'll take us to Mars. I think before the show you made it, you framed itallic rocket ships? That's cute, Bezos. I'll take us to Mars.

I think before the show you made it, you framed it in the best way possible. Who was it? Was it you, Michael, who said, or maybe Seamus, Elon Musk is the first rich person to do something cool with their money? Yeah, that's not an original thought from myself. I think it might have been Cerno who said that. But then you said Jeff Bezos. How did you frame it?

Jeff Bezos does cool things and makes them uncool. No, you said he's interesting as a boring person. Yeah. Something like that. And his rocket ship looks like a penis. It was really, really good. A big one, too. It's like, oh, man, it's the greatest joke ever, but if only you were there, you would have heard it.

Interesting in a way a boring person is, basically. Yeah, you said in a way a boring person is like, he makes a rocket, but it's not cool. It looks like a penis. Did you see Elon and Jeff were on Twitter talking back and forth about turning Twitter headquarters into a homeless shelter? And Basil's like, actually, it's a great idea. We converted

half of the Amazon headquarters into a homeless shelter and the employees can volunteer. So uncool. It's like converted half of the Amazon, I don't know if it was headquarters or something, into a homeless shelter and that the employees can volunteer. This is the best part about it. So uncool. It's like the way that this has become a very hostile takeover kind of situation. What I love about it is every time Elon does something new and he is rebuffed, whether it's by the Saudis or whether it's by the board or Parag Agrawal,

they say okay they got elon now oh too bad it was gonna as if elon just woke up one day and said hey bye bye bye bye you know it's it's hard to buy nine percent of twitter you know you kind of have a plan going into it and you don't become the richest guy on earth on accident you know you generally speaking you're pretty smart about these things. And Elon, not forget about Plan B that he talked about today. I bet you he's got Plan C and D and E.

He's an engineer. That's what they do. The ultimate thing about Elon Musk that I've been saying for a long time, he's the greatest living American. He is the only person... I'm right here. He's the only person on Earth right now with a positive vision for the future of humanity that actually involves the dignity of the individual.

It actually involves freedom. And it's constructive. He's not a guy who's lamenting the past. He's not a guy who thinks it's all over. He doesn't believe we're at the end of history. He's a guy who's like, let's make things cooler than anybody's ever made them. Let's go further than anybody's ever gone. Let's go faster.

The greatest answer maybe in the history of, well, the greatest answer in the history of media is when Larry King asked Vice President Dick Cheney if we should bomb Iran. And Dick Cheney said, for what? The second best answer in the history of media is when Jay Leno was trying to jab at Elon Musk for putting bulletproof windows on the Cybertruck. He's like, why would you do that? Why would you do that? And Elon said, because it's badass. You know what I like about Elon Musk? All of those things you mentioned.

But $54.20. Everybody's saying he just wanted to put $4.20 in that. He wanted that to be in the news. I bet he did. He posted the next Twitter board meeting is going to be lit, and it's him smoking pot. He's just having fun. He's a troll.

He's like Ben Franklin, man. Ben Franklin wanted to make the turkey our national bird. The ultimate troll until Elon. I think people like turkeys. I love turkeys. I don't know about trolling. I will say that Godkings don't look up to many folk,

but I will say that everything we do at The Daily Wire is basically trying to emulate this kind of an attitude, to say that our best days are ahead of us, we can build alternatives, we can do good things, we don't have to just sit in a state of perpetual grief because things aren't the way that they used to be,

that we can take the great ideas of the past and build better things atop them. Even the same kind of financial, pardon my bluntness, stupidity, you could just take your money and run. You could run right now and have a good life. And you, stupidly, have reinvested your money and are building all these new companies. What an idiot. Certain kind of stupidness to do the right thing. your money and are building all these new companies. What an idiot. Certain kind of stupidness to do the right thing. Putting money into doing good stuff.

Buying Twitter. Oh, man. You know, but the funny thing is that most rich people feel that way. And that freaks me out. I want to give a shout out to Elon because everything he's doing, I'm inspired by. And I'm somebody who grew up with no heroes. I mean, there were pro skateboarders.ers I was like that was a great trick but I never looked at anybody and said I want to

do that and now I'm watching everything he's doing and I'm just like I need 300 billion dollars so I can buy Twitter too so I can so I can shake things up I once tweeted at Elon Musk why haven't you built an Iron Man suit yet and he responded building Starship and I was like

that's an acceptable response what's so weird about him is that politically he's responded building starship and i was like that's an acceptable response duly rebuked yes yes so weird about him is that politically he's got generally the right ideas because all these guys look i don't care about cars i really don't care about electric cars i don't care about going to space i never watched star i just watched star wars not star trek i just don't shame on you i know i know everyone knocks i don. Like, none of that interests me whatsoever. But you know what I do care about? My republic

and my government and my politics. And all these futurist guys are always lunatics. All these billionaire masters of the universe always want to enslave all of us and put us in a prison colony on Mars. And he's the one dude who's saying, no, I actually want you to have your traditional way of life

and your freedom. Or at a minimum, he's who the government will have to pay to get to the prison colonies on Mars. That's the long game. He is African American. He's from South America. South Africa. So do you guys think that we should at some point maybe amend the Constitution so a non-American citizen can run for president?

Well, at least an African American like Elon Musk should. The question is, do you really think Elon Musk would do more good as president as opposed to what he's doing now no way yeah not unless he owns twitter well and i'll say this i haven't really paid close attention to him not enough attention to say i uh am a huge fan but stuff like this really makes me like him what i really appreciate is the fact that he is countering the overpopulation narrative we were discussing this before the show a little bit. He says that we're not going to have enough people, that underpopulation is going to be a serious problem.

He's absolutely correct. And how unbelievably refreshing it is to have an elite who isn't misanthropic, who doesn't say human life is fundamentally bad or at the very least needs to be mitigated in some way. Shout out to Elon's mom, dude. That woman is amazing. But, you know, while we're all getting ready to, well, I'll keep it family friendly and just say,

pat him on the back. Only to end world hunger. I would only ever do that. But there are questions about his statements on China. Sure. So I could be wrong, but wasn't he going on, like, Chinese social media and praising the Chinese Communist Party or something to that effect?

If that's the case, that's very disappointing. Could be wrong. I don't want to, you know, call out the dude who I think is doing rad effect. If that's the case, that's very disappointing. Could be wrong. I don't want to call out the dude who I think is doing rad stuff. But part of me is concerned, maybe the dude's got a big play to make a bunch of money and he's just... It's still flipping the bird to the system, which I can respect, but is the end goal like you mentioned?

Here's what he does. He tanks the company, he buys it, he turns it private, changes some rules, lists it, makes a quick billion. But that's not a bad thing. First of all, Elon Musk doesn't need money. He's the richest person not only in the world but in the history of the world. Even when we talk about the $280-some billion of net worth that he has, you have to keep in mind SpaceX hasn't had a public offering.

So we're not really contemplating any of the value that exists in the only access that the United States has to space. Neuralink is probably only just getting started. Hasn't gone public. We've never seen in our life, not since Rockefeller, have we seen a figure like Elon Musk. The guy

very likely could be the first trillionaire to walk the earth. So we can't even really contemplate the amount of money that Elon Musk represents. So listen, everybody likes to make a quick billion, but Elon Musk isn't, there's just no way

that he's motivated in this by that. More what I'm saying is that the positive aspect of economic incentive is that it allows you to do good and do well. And so I think that Elon Musk is doing a good thing missionally with what he's doing with faith with twitter and he will also likely make a lot of money i don't see those two things being in

so the fear is with the metaverse and with neural link is someone like zuckerberg being in charge and letting him get access to your brain would you go into the metaverse via a neural link if it was elon musk who was the you know god king of the metaverse no i don't he's saying he's going to open source the code of twitter of the algorithm which is the first step to trusting the device or the software you're using if you can reference the algorithm see if it's spying on you or not if you have a device that lets you enter the metaverse and it's not spying on you that's the only way to go yeah and so you you mentioned uh some statements that he ostensibly made about china this This is also part of why I'm

sort of withholding a little bit. I don't know a huge amount about the guy, but part of the reason I was making the point that I made is because it is really disturbing that the fact that he is against the overpopulation narrative, it's very disturbing that that sets him apart from virtually everyone else in power. But I also think that speaks to what you're discussing, which is this idea of being optimistic and having a plan for the future. I think misanthropy is the greatest indicator that a person doesn't have a plan for the future. And there are just a horrifically jaded pessimist. Listen, the other aspect of this is that he's probably wrong about China and maybe isn't a great dad. I don't know. Maybe he's a great dad. I don't I'm only saying Elon Musk is a human being and all of sin and fall short of the don't know. Maybe he's a great dad. I'm only saying Elon Musk is a human being

and all of sin and fall short of the glory of God. And it's not what is common about us that is noteworthy. Definitionally, it's what's noteworthy about us that's noteworthy. And so I think about like George Washington, right? And everybody says, oh, George Washington owned slaves. I'm like, yeah, he was a planter in Virginia in the 18th century. They all owned slaves. That's what's average about him.

That's not notable about him at all in his time and in his place. What's notable about him, among other things, is that he freed his slaves. None of the rest of them did. So does that justify slavery? No. Is that an excuse for slavery? No. It's only to say that it's not worth bringing up that George Washington owned slaves.

That's not actually an interesting thing about George Washington in his time. He owned 300 slaves, and it was not interesting about him. If I owned even one slave, it would be remarkably noteworthy, because in my time and in my place, that would be the incredibly strange, peculiar thing that reveals something about me. And so for a billionaire industrialist to believe in free trade and be dependent somewhat on the Asian markets and probably on Chinese manufacturing. Elon Musk isn't who outsourced

all of America's manufacturing. That happened 50 years ago, 60 years ago. But he is dependent in many ways on that manufacturing. Although he's doing something about it and trying to manufacture in America. But all of that to say, those aren't actually the interesting things about him.

They may be negative things about him, but they're not noteworthy things about him. What's noteworthy about him is that he's the only guy in that space who, to your point, seems to be pro-human.

He's the only person in that space who seems to be pro-speech. These are the actual noteworthy things. The pro-human thing part is so important because it is the weirdest aspect to me, especially of Bill Gates. Bill Gates will not shut up about how there are too many people on the planet. And it's just a lie.

Overpopulation is completely made up. Most notably, there was this book, The Population Bomb, in 1970, 71. It said that within 10 years, even if we now coerce abortions, which the book called for, coerce sterility, even if we do that rightce abortions which the book called for it coerce sterility even if we do that right now we're screwed there's going to be 10 in 10 years mass famine everywhere and it was completely made up we're 50 years later the world population doubled malnutrition is at an all-time low let me let me pull the story we actually we actually have the story from music today it's from december elon musk says there aren't enough people birth rate could threaten human

civilization and i think what people don't realize is that the only reason we have the level of December, Elon Musk says there aren't enough people. Birth rate could threaten human civilization. And I think what people don't realize is that the only reason we have the level of technology we do is due to the specialties of human career, human jobs. So let's go back in time. We're all living in caves. Human beings, it was possible. It was possible for a human being to have the summation of human knowledge in their brain. It was possible because we knew so little as time went on we began to learn more and more and it came to the point where you know way back when you could be a jack of all trades master of all because the only jobs

were hunter and gatherer master of both don't forget shaman shaman but you so you were you were you were uh let's say you were in your 30s so you are spiritually physically mentally uh at your peak and you're like i am the best human there is because we didn't know much but eventually got to the point where we discovered uh mining um we used animal labor eventually one person says i've dedicated my whole life to learning how to tame these beasts and some other guy said i only learned how to grow these crops. All of a sudden, now the summation of human knowledge splits. And it's only due to the fact there are more people able to support each other. The more people we have, the more specialty jobs there are. I watched this great TED talk.

Guy made a toaster from scratch. I love referencing this. He could not do it. Plastic was impossible for him to make. He had to quote-unquote mine it by digging up waste and then melting it. All in all, he made the toaster. It worked for about 20 seconds before frying out. And he said, it's amazing how this toaster cost $10 at Walmart but a single person struggles

to make it. There's a book, I think it's by... Lydia, help me if you know. It's No One Knows How to Make a Pizza. Isn't it by Julie? No One Outside No One Knows How to Make a Pizza. Isn't it by Julie? Julie? Well, I mean, no one outside of Chicago knows how to make a pizza. It's a casserole.

It's not a real pizza. How dare you? The idea is that all of the elements of a pizza come from so many different places. That's why we have conquest, a big part of it. Right. I started thinking about this in terms of to simplify the whole discussion. Think about a meal like a pad thai. The amount, an American pad thai, sugars, fats, oils, the rice noodles, the meats, if you're going to put squid in it, how all of these things come from all over the world.

Or maybe even chicken tikka masala. To us, it's like you go to the store and you're like 15 bucks and they hand you the bowl. But all these ingredients come from regions all around the planet, especially in winter, where the chickens might come from the north, the tomatoes come from the south. The more people we have, the more unique things we can create, like spaceships. Yes. I think about this a lot when people try to tell, like hippie dippies in LA would always try to tell you

about the natural diet that they're on. And again, what's the natural diet? Whatever it was, they were describing you some, describing a way of eating to you that no human being who lived in nature could have ever accomplished, and certainly not in winter. Right.

Like, what, well, we evolved only to eat, like, Tempeh. Kale. Well, I think the issue is, I think overpopulation is an issue mostly in density. And I had this conversation with Michael Malice because I, you know, I think that you've got to get to the nuance of things. Often these arguments don't explore the deeper issues. And I said this conversation with Michael Malice because I think that you've got to get

to the nuance of things. Often these arguments don't explore the deeper issues. And I said, I think overpopulation is a problem. You've got dead zones in the Gulf.

You've got garbage patches. You've got the windshield phenomenon. Bug populations are in decline. And all of these things seem to be tied to pollution, to which Michael Malice responded, yeah, but that's an issue of density in cities. And I'm like, I'll absolutely accept that because I think that's the root of it.

And I'm and I'm willing to say, you know what? Perhaps the solution is people shouldn't live so close together in concrete blocks that smell like sour milk. That's right. But it's also there are so many problems with cities and in terms of our politics and pollution. But there's a bigger issue here. The better point you're making, in my opinion, is that as more and more humans are born, more and more complexity is added to humanity.

And that complexity actually drives things like innovation. So yes, you get a spaceship, but you also get super wheat. Like Alex Barlow is the name of the guy who invented Norman Borlaug. Norman Borlaug, thank you.

The reason that we have more people now and we can eat unlike what they predicted in the 70s is because we innovated. Because now there was a need for something that didn't need to exist before that. So yes, the more people you add to the world the more complexity is added to the world the more people you add to the world, the

more complexity is added to the world, the more problems are added to the world, and the more potential solutions are added to the world. So, colonized space, yes? Yeah, and pestilopsis, there's a mushroom that'll break down plastic and turn it into sugar, which you can actually eat. It's called pestilopsis microspora. And if enough people know about that, we can

recover like what Boyan Slat's doing in the Pacific with the garbage patch. He's actually recovering it. Break it down and eat it. You can alloy it with it. You can turn it into chemicals and things. Can I – real quick point. We did an interview with Ben Shapiro, and Ian really shined in his moment because Ben mentioned in a lecture that these charts and predictions about climate change never consider mitigation factors, to which Ian enlightened Ben on carbon capture graphene production. Yeah, an adaptive technology that will eventually,

what you can do is you deposit carbon dioxide onto a palladium copper alloy, and then at some point we're going to be withdrawing so much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and producing graphene, this new building material, that we'll actually be competing with trees. And if we don't do it right and start now and start organizing, we're going to overcompensate and start starving the trees of carbon dioxide so it's we're going to eventually work view of it is more of a global cooling perspective because people don't consider the new technology that comes out that could actually threaten the inverse which is graphene is this wonder technology

that ian never shuts up about thank you and you know i got him a little vile for for christmas the year before last but But production requires carbon capture. And that means we might start mining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make graphene, which is like a super material. It can be manipulated in many ways. It's like a superconductor. A supercapacitor. It's a conductor.

It's like a touchscreen wallpaper you can make out of. You can make clothing that's like a touchscreen computer. Batteries, wires. I'll put it this way. It sounds like hell. I don't want to wear that at all. It's pure carbon. It's organic. In ten years, the conversation on climate change may be totally inverted to,

these graphene companies are cooling the planet. Well, we've seen it before because the narrative was initially that the planet was cooling and then it was that the planet was getting hotter and then it's just that we have climate change, and so it can go in either direction. That's why you can... Sorry, go ahead.

No, I was going to say, didn't they tell people to drive their cars as much as they could back in the day, like in the 70s? You know what they'll say now, too? The libs and the alarmists will say, oh, the global cooling thing, that was just a brief media phenomenon. No scientific institutes ever really pushed that. I have half a chapter of my book just devoted to outlining every major scientific institute that was pushing this stuff. They pushed it for years and now they've completely memory hold it because it's inconvenient.

So, of course, it's going to happen again. Of course, they're going to go in the other conservatives love post apocalyptic stories like we love Walking Dead. And I say we because I count myself among the people who loves things like The Walking Dead. And I say we because I count myself among the people who loves things like The Walking Dead. But the truth is my worldview informs me that it isn't possible. Not only that the zombie aspect of the zombie apocalypse isn't possible, but the entire idea of the complete collapse of human civilization is impossible because we are humans and we innovate. Because if there really was a zombie apocalypse, I would be the god-king of zombie extermination, and I would be looking up to Elon Musk, who would be killing trillions of zombies somehow.

We are a highly, highly adaptive species, and when a need presents itself, we find ways to meet that need. Elon did make a flamethrower. Oh, I love it. Maybe he knows something we don't. About melting zombies. I discovered that that same flamethrower oh i love it he maybe he knows something we don't about melting zombies i i discovered that that same flamethrower is terrific for melting harry's and gillette razors

was that the elon flamethrower it was of course jeremy boring was going to use the boring flamethrower in his video yeah so i i look you know my view on climate change is i have no problem when you know the the establishment or mainstream narrative is that we're burning lots of fuels. It's resulting in a lot of carbon. It's warming the planet. I say, okay, all of that follows as far as I can tell with logic. But I think Ben is right about mitigation factors. And also, if you want to talk more about the heating up of the planet, it looks like there's evidence that we're still in an ice age and that what happened 13,000 years ago is a comet shattered over North America, peppered the glacial continent, caused a global flood. But we're still in the ice age and that what happened 13 000 years ago is a comet shattered over north america peppered the glacial continent caused a global flood but we're still in the ice age we just

prematurely melted a bunch of the ice off so we're going to continue to melt the rest of the ice and warm so you oh that sounds that's not a utah state i think it's interesting because when people talk about overpopulation it's almost as if at the societal level what we are in the west is that unbelievably wealthy couple with no children who happen to be debating whether or not they can afford one. It's just an unbelievable failure of optimism, ultimately. It's funny, I was at a bar after I graduated college with my father, and he was going around asking young people,

are you optimistic? And they would all answer yes. And he'd say, do you want to have children? Oh, no, I couldn't have children. I couldn't have kids. And that stuck with me because people like to conceive of themselves as optimistic. They like to say, I have an imagination, but then they're not interested in investing in the future that way. And not only that, but they will actually, because it's okay if you're not married, if you're not in that position yet, but they will shame other people for having children and being optimistic and wanting to bring life into the

world. And that's a very ugly thing. So my question is, if, you know, Elon Musk is the one guy on the other side of this, what's the motivation of people like, if Bill Gates is wrong, if all of these billionaires are wrong, why do they want less people? You know, there was a great comment that Charlie Kirk made the other day, and everyone made fun of him for it, and it was so smart. He said that tall buildings turn people into libs, and Media Matters made fun of him, and he said we need to develop horizontally more than we develop vertically. And everyone made fun of him, except he's completely right.

Going back to the Tower of Babel and to the present, there was a line that Chesterton observed. He said when you're in the heights of a building, of a really tall building, people look like insects. Everything seems really, really small. When you're down in the valleys, looking up at great things, when you're on your knees praying, looking up, only then can you raise your eyes to heaven. Only then can you raise your eyes to hope. But when you're at the top of that building, you just feel like God and you're going to act like God or what you think God is. I think that's what happened to Gates and to all these other lunatics who are so anti-human. Well, and it's funny because the left will, you know, the left has this hyper fixation on media critique and i think it's good to critique media but they'll take the most insignificant elements of a property and argue that it's influencing human behaviors in ways far more profound than i think a reasonable person would acknowledge but then when you look

at architecture which surrounds us at all times they be they act as if it's ridiculous to even insinuate more beautiful architecture creates a more beautiful cultural or results in better attitudes i hear what you're saying michael but I guess my question would still be, even if they think they're God, why less people? I mean, certainly if you were God, you'd want more. Because they actually do see people as an impediment to nature, and they see nature as being supreme. So you'll actually read these people say things like,

Elon Musk is going to go to Mars, and he'll just pollute it the way we polluted the Earth. Who cares? He's going to go mine an asteroid, the beautiful, natural, pristine asteroid. The asteroid has zero value if there are no people observing it. How dare you say that

people, you're saying that people are supreme. I'm actually saying that God is supreme and that God made people, and yes, people are supreme to nature. Real quick, just because just because I want to lose this point have you guys ever seen or read Watchmen I've seen it no was it a movie a long time ago

not that long the graphic novel is considered like the better form but there's an element to the story where Dr. Manhattan who is the one being with godlike powers but he's, I am not a god. I can only see my own past and present or my own past and future. He leaves Earth to go to Mars.

He's tired of humanity. And he makes this big machine, clock-like. And then there's this young woman he was previously in a relationship with who wants to talk to him. He brings her to Mars and he says, look at Mars. It has existed this way for eons with not a single human or life. Would you say to me that this planet would somehow be better with a shopping mall or parking lots? And then ultimately what it concludes with is he says to her, you continually demand I see the world your way, but you refuse to see the world my way.

And so she lets him, using his powers, see her entire life, basically from start to finish, the way he sees the world my way. And so she lets him, using his powers, see her entire life, you know, basically from start to finish, the way he sees the world. But in that moment, he sees her past. And in her past, this woman's mother was almost raped by a man. And then she went back to him later and conceived this daughter. And Dr. Manhattan says, seemingly impossible, a woman who had every reason to hate this man chose to love a man she should have hated. And after all the billions of years and the energy all coming together, the only thing that exists is you. I was wrong. Miracles do exist.

It's you. You've convinced me I'll come back to Earth with you. And so thinking about that line, brilliant writing. Who was that? Alan Moore. Alan Moore who wrote that. Man, that guy's amazing but i thought about that and i'm just like humanity is each individual human is so insanely unique in the billions of years it took to create one person that person will never exist again no

matter how similar or you know they may be to another person without people it's a rock that's right well i i actually beg to differ this is something called the Blood Falls in Antarctica, and you'll want to pull this up. As the glaciers have been melting and fresh water is pouring into the ocean, we're like, oh, it's going to create dead zones. All of a sudden, this blood-red water river comes pouring out of Antarctica. No one knows what it is. So it turns out it's iron. Yeah, it's ferrous algae. What it's doing is it's fertilizing the ocean.

It's something called iron fertilization. When you introduce iron, iron oxide into the ocean, it grows plankton, which then allows food for fish. And then you see a fish boom. So the earth looks like it's preparing for a flood, a freshwater flood, by fertilizing ahead of time. We're not alone here as humans. No, but we're the only thing of value here.

The fish don't matter without us. That's correct. But we can't eat without the fish. I think they matter. I think we matter the most. We exist in nature, of course. We're symbiotic in a sense with nature. But nature was given to us by God.

The fish has no concept of the fishes. There's no existential crisis for a fish. Anything that we think about a fish, only we think. The fish doesn't think it. But the fear is that if the ocean were to flood freshwater, we'll lose our fish population and starve. There'll be giant, and it looks like the earth is protecting us. But that doesn't change Jeremy or Michael's perspective. I would view it sort of from a more secular perspective.

You know, you can say we're gifted in nature by God. I would look at it like the various forms of life effectively form a foundation for what humanity is creating. That doesn't mean to say that I think humans are the superior, in this context, better than any other form of life, just that we're the most adaptable and smartest and more prone to survival, which from a secular perspective, the strongest survive,

and everything else functions as sort of support. Even from a secular perspective, you'd have to say, we're the only being on the planet that has a moral code of any kind. So in some sense, you could say, well, we're the most evil because we violate our moral code. And that's true. A lion eating a gazelle isn't evil. It's just a lion. So we both conceive of the concept of good and of the concept of evil.

All of that lives in humanity. Do we see animals pray after they kill prey? Pray, P-R-A-Y or P-R-E-Y? Humans often... Pray before a meal. Well, they'll pray before a meal, but it also stems back to after killing, giving thanks to what they have taken away, sort of acknowledging that they're receiving something else's life. I mean, maybe there's a case I haven't heard of, of animals recognizing the suffering and the pain

of some other animal that they have claimed their energy to themselves. I just look at it this way. For the entirety of life on the planet, you have this constant battle between evolution or whatever your view is. If a lion is trying to chase a gazelle and it's too slow, it starves. The gazelle becomes faster, so only the fastest lions make it. And that's natural selection. But then humans come along and all of a sudden have a new ability, adaptation, through intelligence, through toolmaking making and now nothing can compete with us this means that everything on the planet we are the ones able to leave the planet we are we are in complete control of the

planet we have dominated the planet in every way and it's not a moral judgment on the value of life at all it's just a mathematical equation and it's a great responsibility, too, because if we abuse our stewardship of the planet and of all the creatures, then that's, I think, intrinsically wrong, and that would also be very bad for us. So it entails a lot of responsibility. But to this point here of,

really, humans are kind of what it's all about on Earth, we don't prosecute the lion when the lion eats the gazelle. It would be absurd to do that. And that's why they're not open to this transcendent moral order. Different question. If someone owned a gazelle and a lion jumped in and ate the gazelle and then fled, would we go after that lion, track it down and kill it?

Probably if he were going to come back and eat another one. I don't think so. I actually think that if someone had a ranch in the Savannah, and they had gazelle and a lion broke in, ate the gazelle and left, they'd be like, ah. I'd go kill that lion. Knowles has a very angry, wicked soul. When you look at ranchers, for example,

in Montana, who have a problem where wolves who've been reintroduced into the population start eating their livestock uh they have to defend their livestock they defend their livestock because of the word live like right the the the more important life isn't the life of the stock it's the life of the stockholder but will that that is so they're defending themselves when you know we we get mad when westerners go over and kill lions in africa but like the local tribes are pretty happy about it because they have to live with those lions but

so my question is do we do we hunt down those wolves or we create do we do we create preventative measures or do we seek retribution right i'm not trying to get vengeance on the wolf right i am trying to solve the problem right yeah yeah i Well, the reason I bring this up is because in the instance where a human kills a human, we hunt that person to the ends of the earth to lock them up or, in many circumstances, depending on the severity of the crime, put them to death. I'm not convinced we do

that to the same degree with animals. No. I would kill the last panda bear on Earth to save the most reprehensible human on Earth, even though there are 7 billion other humans on Earth to save the most reprehensible human on Earth, even though there are 7 billion other humans on Earth. That's a great point. Why?

Because the life of any human is superior to the life of the entire species of panda. Now, does that mean that I don't think we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of the Earth, or that I think we don't have a moral obligation to look after the panda? I'm not heartless. I'm not Matt Walsh.

I don't mean to panda harm, but I am saying saying that you know dennis prager has been asking this question for literally for 30 years now every year he asks if your pet dog were drowning in the same river current where a total stranger is drowning which which one would you save? And he says, 30 years ago, everyone said the stranger. And today, the majority of everyone says their pet dog. That's a great question. Really?

Is that good, or is it mental illness? It's not good. Would they say their painting, their wealthy painting, or the foreigner they don't know? This is interesting, because I actually tweeted something. Let me see if I can pull it up

so I can pull up the results. Oh, yeah, that poll? Yeah, because I was thinking about something similar. Let me see if I can pull it up so I can pull up the results. Oh, yeah, that poll? Yeah, because I was thinking about something similar. Let me see if Twitter... Okay, yeah, definitely Twitter can pull this up. Let me get this poll for you guys. It's an interesting question in line with this. I am scrolling down, and here we go.

There you go. Would you kill someone to stop them from killing your pet? 77.4% said yes. 22.6% said no. I would, but i don't think that these are related they're not unrelated questions but they're not the same question right killing killing a human to stop them from committing a barbarous act against you in the and as a proxy your pet is a proxy for you in that situation is different. Would I kill someone who was starving to keep them from

killing and eating my cow? No. Would I kill the intruder who breaks into my home and as an act of evil is going to kill my dog? Yes. That's not he has forfeited in my view. He has forfeited his life because

of his act of evil. Not because the life of a pet is superior to the life of a man yeah that's not that's a a distinct question i i agree too and i think the the instance here with this question also implies that you know my view this question is not that you're like i want to kill this person it's they're they're they're they're seeking to cause harm to me my life perhaps your pet is more than maybe it's your dog you need for your farm. The point is, it's not that you want to kill the person. No.

It's that you're put in a situation where they're attacking you. And it's that people exist in a moral framework that animals don't. And he is in violation of the moral framework. This is, I think, an incredibly important question generally about human beings is at what point is someone outside of the law, right? That's what outlaw actually meant historically, that you're no longer subject to the protection of the law. You've forfeited the protections of law because you've acted in contravention of them. But again, if someone broke into my house and my house caught fire and I had to make a decision of who will I go in and save, the man who was committing a bad act or my dog, of who will I go in and save the man who was

committing a bad act or my dog I would have an obligation probably to save the man but if the same man were trying to kill my dog I would have the right to kill the man yeah well this is just real quick just to say that it's a fascinating point because I hope everybody really thinks down deep about the love they have for their pet their dog their cat turtle whatever and then imagine seeing a stranger in a current screaming for help and you being like i ain't saving that person i want to save my pet i i think of that question and i'm like wow you know i'm thinking of my pet you know our cat bocus everybody loves him and if i saw bocus frantic in the water and i saw someone i didn't know i'd go for the. And then I would be tearing at my heart that my

pet died. Yes. Yeah. But Jeremy is correct when he says it is not the same question. I answered that yes, I would, because someone who is willing to kill a small... In my instance, it is a cat who loves me very much like a dog. If someone were willing to kill an animal, then you have to ask, what else are they willing to do?

Which would inevitably, I would think, extend to humans, which is something that I think would be better without the world would be better without but but again too i think the the the main issue and the nuance of the question is typically in any circumstance of defense you don't want to kill someone you want to stop them by the way i would also kill my dog whom i love very much if he were attacking a child yeah who i didn't know right yeah so i want to make this point that's part of the difficulty with the framing is just sort of the nuance of self-defense self-defense isn't about saying i want to kill this person i have a right to kill this person

it's saying i have a right to stop this person if deadly force is necessary and they die that's unfortunate but it's an unintended consequence what if there's like a thousand people that are dying of starvation that redirect your water supply because they need to survive? Do you go kill them? No. Do you just die? Well, do I die? Yeah.

Yeah, what would you do? The question is, am I dependent on the water supply as well? Oh, yeah, I'm taking my water supply. Yeah, well, if it's what's required to support yourself and your family, then it's different. Even if they don't know who you are, and as far as they're concerned, they're just innocently redirecting water? Well, we're taking innocently redirecting water?

I'd probably just take the water back. We're taking it to an extreme and saying, were there other options? Were there diplomatic options for resolving the question? Yeah, clarifying if there's no malice involved. They're just doing what they need to do to survive. Like you said, stealing the cow, killing your cow to eat it. But Ian, it's simple.

You just go and explain to them then. There's no malice. You say, I'm really sorry, but this is the water that I need to survive, and you're hurting me. And then if they choose to escalate and aggress upon you, you've got a situation what if they just say no well now they're killing so this is actually very interesting in almost all modern sci-fi if humans go to another earth dies the last spaceship full of humans goes out into outer space we land on a planet and we bring some sort of you know disease

or something to the planet and now bring some sort of disease or something to the planet. And now there's a battle between us and the and the native people on the planet. The morality of every modern piece of fiction says in the end, we have to lose. We have to lay down our lives because we didn't belong here. This wasn't our place. But that's actually not the correct moral answer. The correct moral answer is if I take my family to another planet and I'm an existential threat to the people of that planet, they are an existential threat to me. I have a right to defend my life and the life

of my family. I am not asked to subordinate that impulse, not only impulse, but that right simply because my existence is a threat to someone. Well, plus they're aliens, right? I mean this only half

flippantly they're aliens slaughter the aliens i don't give a damn they're foreigners right i mean if we're talking about you know really then we're talking about questions of colonialism and it's the same answer today the the explorers the conquistadors you know they were terrible awful people cortez should have lost and it's an important example because cortez is one of the most incredible, great men to ever walk the earth who took down a demonic empire called the Aztec Empire

that slaughtered 80,000 people, women, little babies, children in the span of four days by ripping their still beating hearts out of their chest and kicking down a pyramid. So, you know, the particulars matter there

and you can actually judge the moral question on these, the particular people in the particular time and what they're doing. Why do you think Jesus didn't rouse his followers to fight back? Well, he does say at one point, he says, sell your cloak and go purchase a sword. We've discussed this before. Do you think it's just propaganda that he never really let himself get caught and killed? No, that Jesus isn't. Jesus is not a political figure. He's almost the only figure in human history who didn't, who isn't political in the sense that the work that he was here to do.

Well, he's the king. I mean, he's the king, king of kings. At the time, he challenged the political power structure of the time. But he was primarily challenging the authority of man over the soul and uh the the authority of death over man he wasn't the the the battle that christ was here to fight was a battle against sin and death well that's a great point jeremy because actually that that is in this ultimate sense political the the political battle because the the only political power that anyone has is the fear of death, and Christ conquers it on the cross.

Is there anything you would sacrifice yourself for or your family for, if God called it or whatever? For Christ. Well, and not only for Christ. It's very easy to imagine a world where you are called into conflict, called into combat. Many in our generation were, and they laid down their lives for their ideals, for their family, for their country.

There's a noble place for all of that. It doesn't, though, mean that you have an obligation not to defend yourself. I would go so far as to say those Aztec who were horrible, evil, demonic, I'll grant you all of that language, they also had a right to defend themselves against Cortez. So in an ultimate moral sense, I agree that Cortez was in the more moral position. They should have just laid down their arms.

But yes. Let me expand upon this conversation. If there was a rapid and your wife was caught in it, but, you know, equally distant was a child, who would you save? It's not my child? Not your child. My wife. Would you agree? child, who would you save?

It's not my child? Not your child. My wife. Would you agree? No, I would save the child. Interesting. I'm not bringing it up because I think there's an answer. I'm just curious.

It's an impossible question. Right. I had this debate with my aunt when I was a young man. I said, if your husband and one of your children were drowning, which would you save? And she said her husband. I was, if your husband and one of your children were drowning, which would you say? And she said her husband. Well, I was somewhat outraged at the time, but now I realize it's just an impossible question. Just the point real quick is when Ian asked, what would you sacrifice your family for?

You would sacrifice your family to save the life of a child or a member of your family. I also, I don't know. You don't know what would happen in a situation. But I have mentally attempted to prepare myself to lay down my life for a stranger. Like if I were in a 7-Eleven and someone came in and started robbing people, would I put myself between the gun and an old woman who I don't know? Or a young woman whom I don't know. I don't know.

I don't want to claim virtue that I don't possess. But I've tried mentally to prepare myself for the fact that it would be my, I believe, moral obligation to lay down my life for a stranger. What concerns me is that some people, and this is maybe, this is an interesting thing for me to say, but that some people are evil and some people are good. And some people are, if you would sacrifice your good wife for some evil child that you don't know, it turns out to be evil. We're all evil, aren't we? Well, first of all. Evil child.

No, no, no. You continue. Cute, adorable little demon. I think a part of the difference between the answers is that Knowles' wife told him she's going to be watching a show tonight. I would save my wife, honey. There's a great sketch in this scenario of a guy being like, I'm sorry, honey, I have to save the child. And then when he pulls the kid out, you don't see the kid's face. But then when he puts the kid down, it's got a Hitler haircut and a mustache.

What have I done? The reason I ask is because are some people better than others? Are some people more valuable to the species? I do believe that that's true, and for whatever reason, maybe the other person's toxic, maybe they've eaten toxic foods,

maybe they were raised poorly, but if you don't know ahead of time... Yeah. In a triage situation, right, the example we keep using is this acute emergency. There are are two people in the rapids in the current drowning. You're you your primary responsibility in that situation even if you would lay down your life for the stranger I like to think that I would at least that you have a responsibility of loyalty and as the head of your household to go for the wife before the stranger even if it's little baby Hitler and and arguably too well arguably too with your wife you

can have more children yeah so that's it's tough. Again, it's an impossible question. I'm interested in what Michael's saying, that you certainly as a husband, as a head of a house, you have an obligation, a moral and spiritual obligation to your wife. At the same time, I believe that my wife would want me, would want to sacrifice her life for the child as well. Yeah. Not Elisa. She's a killer. She killed the kid herself. All right.

All right. Hear me out on this. She's a killer. She killed the kid herself. All right, all right. Hear me out on this. You're standing in front of a rapid, and there's your son being swept away. And equally distant is a dog, but it's got a bag strapped to it that says, Cure for Cancer on it. Now. Well, how do I know some pretentious dog owner didn't just put that there so that we would want to save their kid? You know, it's so weird that we're having this conversation right now because I was asked this

question at Yale about three days ago. A kid walks up and he says, to end world hunger, would you fillet another man? It's me and it's Senator Cruz is there too. And you're both like, yes, without question. Yeah, obviously. Yeah. Where do I sign up? And so, but I had an answer right away. I mean, obviously the kid was just trying to get some laughs, but it actually is a simple question. It gets down to a basic ethical question, which is, do good ends justify immoral means? And then apparently the Yalies were confused that I thought that particular act was immoral. We'll get to that later, maybe.

Like, why? But it's a really basic question in ethics, and the answer is no. Good ends do not justify immoral means. Then you can justify anything. And probably the premise in all of these cases is absurd and won't pan out that way. So if it's, do I save the human person or the dog, that maybe the dog will magically lead me to cure cancer, you always have to pick the human, even if the dog actually magically lead me to cure cancer you you still you always have to pick

the human even if the dog actually will lead you to cure cancer yeah it's uh it's interesting i suppose if you knew just not if you knew you're the scientist you've been part of the team you have the cure for cancer you put it in the bag so the dog could guard it somehow both things are now in the river that in that situation you've taken ambiguity out. You're not saving the dog. You're saving the cure to cancer. In other words, you're allowing the person you love to die because of a belief about the lives of thousands or millions of humans. That is a different moral.

Real quick, just to address, I want to address what you said. Choosing to save one or the other are both moral acts. It's just a difficult one. In your analogy, you have a choice between an immoral act for a positive end. You know what I mean? I suppose so, except I don't know. I mean, in the act itself, so you're not saying the act here is I am going to cure cancer. And obviously we're in a slightly absurd scenario.

But if you're saying I'm saving the dog that does have this real 100% cure for cancer or you're saving the child, I'm not convinced that those acts are of equal moral weight. I think you still go for the child. I agree. I don't because I don't think you're saving the dog. That you're saving information later down the line. Isn't that still constitutional? Would you preserve the world's information?

I want to clarify. Let me clarify. What I'm saying is, if you were just to save a dog or save a person, they're both moral acts. They're not equal. The human, obviously, should be saved, but if it was like, kill the dog to cure cancer or save a child, it's like, well, don't take the immoral

act of killing the animal, right? But then, to take it even further, then we're really saying, okay, would you save your child or a million people who aren't your child? When you say you're going to cure cancer, you're saying a million strangers or your child. And in that case, I think it comes back to the same role that I have. Hold on. Although God chose the million people.

What do you mean? God allowed his child to die for the salvation of many. To quote a great man, better that one man should die for the nation. Yeah, yeah, that's true. But then, no, it's actually a very good point, Jeremy. But I still don't think in that case, if I am the head of my household, am I supposed to sacrifice my son? You know, God stays Abraham's hand. But I don't know, that's a good question.

That sounds like a test of God if you found yourself in that situation. I have a hard time believing that you've all forgotten the economic motivation here to having the cure for cancer. All this, oh, I would save the dog because I care about humanity. No, you want to sell the cure. No, you're right. I see you guys. And then clone your kid with all the money you make. You're like, I've got enough money.

I cured cancer. You want to take the cure and say, I'll destroy it if Big Pharma writes me a check every week. As a richy rich, let me just tell you that if I had the kind of money that came from curing cancer, I would probably just drown kids for sport. You could be like, nothing, nothing. It is Ecclesiastes. Like, nothing can satisfy. Nothing brings me joy.

No, I just drown children. Jeremy, you've been rich for four days. Yeah, I don't know, man. The Marquita side was right. I don't know, man. The Marquis decided I was right. I don't know. It seems like there is a utilitarian aspect to this because if you're willing to save information or technology and let people die as a result, then it's like

where does the line draw there? How many people would you let die for the greatest technology? Yeah, I mean, so now we're kind of back at the first part. And I think that's why Knowles is giving me the base principle here yeah yeah because if you 15 if you just reject utilitarianism and and consequentialism and all that then you know then it's then you're just like you're never confused what's a good number 42 yeah 42 meaning of life yeah right wow that's

tough man at the ends don't justify the means i'll never accept that because there are no ends this is what we hear from antifa and these and these lying media manipulator and cult members is that if we just be evil now, it will be good later. But it's like, bro, it's always now. It is always now. I think that's idealistic in that working out, the ends do justify the pain of the workout. No, but the pain of the workout is intrinsically good because it's strengthening. It's virtuous. Right, yeah.

And you're putting yourself through often strain. You're causing yourself harm for a better end. Like you're sacrificing for more. We're talking about would you take a drug to make yourself better? Well, no, you're hurting yourself. You're causing yourself problems. It is the ultimate pagan offering is to offer the blood of the innocent for prosperity. Those Aztecs who pulled the still beating hearts out of 80,000 women and children were essentially doing it so that the crops would grow.

And when Planned Parenthood slaughters 60 million babies in this country, they're doing it so we can make a little bit more money. Oh, women are poor. Oh, women aren't going to be able to thrive for themselves. If they murder their own children and spill money. Oh, women are poor. Oh, women aren't going to be able to thrive for themselves. If they murder their own children and spill their innocent blood, they will be. And so I ultimately think that anytime we ask these questions, at the root, we're

actually asking, do we need to quench the thirst of Moloch or something? Let me pull up the story we have on that note from the Daily Mail. Ron DeSantis signs law banning abortion after 15 weeks. Republican says we are here to defend those who can't defend themselves. So we also have another bill here.

This is from that's the wrong story. Here we go. Kentucky lawmakers override Governor Beshear's vetoes on abortion, fairness and women's sports. We're seeing across the country. Many states are just saying outright Roe v. Wade is no longer relevant. They're just passing the laws. I think Oklahoma made that bill, which outright makes abortion a felony. Well, but Colorado passed a law or Colorado's governor passed a law this week or proposed a law that says abortion all the way up until the moment of birth, which also says that Roe v.

Wade doesn't matter because Roe v. Wade disallows that very same concept so on both sides at both political extremes roe v wade because roe v wade was a nonsensical ruling in the first place it can't actually play out consistently so nobody does you want to break down roe v wade for us i don't think we've actually ever actually got into the nitty-gritty well i i don't have my magnifying glass to find the emanations of the penumbras that entails this constitutional right. But it's just a nonsense decision that came out in 1973 that said because of a vague generalized right to privacy and the vague emanations of the penumbras, abortion's nowhere in the text.

And if it is anywhere in the text, it's in the 14th Amendment, and it prohibits abortion. But because we don't want to deal with it anymore, it created this fictional right to an abortion. And ever since then, the pro-life movement's only grown stronger. You had it come back again in 1992 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which created a different justification for abortion. Because again, as Jeremy said, it's not in the text. And so you come up with this new justification, which focuses more on the trimesters and viability. And that doesn't make any sense

because with new technology, babies are now viable at a much earlier stage and so right now just to put on my nolstradamus hat and predict the future here uh we we do seem to be at the first spot since roe versus wade where the court i think is likely to overrule roe and the reason i think they're likely is because from the oral arguments, one, you've already got Clarence Thomas. You've already got Alito. It seems like you got Kavanaugh. It seems like you got Barrett.

It seems like you got Gorsuch. There you go. 5-4. You don't even have John Roberts yet. If Roberts joins the court's libs and it's 5-4, Clarence Thomas writes the decision. And man, that decision is going to be good okay so I think Roberts to preserve the integrity and legitimacy of the court and actually to water down as much as he can the way that they would overrule Roe I think he has to join the conservatives so then

you get a 6-3 decision this can't be right Bill Maher said that Republicans didn't want any black Supreme Court justices how could you how could you tell the only one we like is the black guy this concerns me if I think if they do try to make abortion illegal that you're going to see a large uptick in miscarriages and what i mean by that is women accidentally falling over on purpose and landing on their stomachs until the baby's dead uh it's terrifying i just don't see i don't think you can ever stop women from killing a child they don't want you can reduce the number yeah and i don't think that's bad don't think you can ever stop women from killing a child they don't want. But you can reduce the number. Yeah, and I don't think that's bad. People are like, you want women going into back alleys and putting their lives at risk?

Yeah. By the way, I want them to be at risk if they are killing their children. You can break this down if you want. Also, overturning Roe doesn't make abortion illegal. This is the great lie of the left is, oh, they're going to overturn Roe, and no woman will be able to get an abortion, if only. But that's not actually what will happen. What happens when they overturn Roe is it basically becomes a states' rights issue again.

And as you can see, between the laws in Florida and the laws in Colorado, federalism is alive and well in this country. Even 15 weeks puts you just on average with the most liberal democracies in Europe. No one allows abortion the way that we allow in this country. No one except the Chinese and the North Koreans. And the Canadians. And the Canadians. Those three.

Allows abortion the way that we do in this country. So to push it back to the states is an enormous victory. In fact, the Democrats are saying right now that while they still control the House and the Senate and the presidency they should ensconce abortion in federal law so that even if roe is overturned by the court in june uh you still won't be able to do anything about abortion unfortunately i don't think they have the votes in the senate unfortunately i don't think they have the votes to accomplish and on this point of the back alley abortions this is one of the biggest lies from the abortion movement it's literally a lie it's a lie i mean so one of the guys who came up with the lie, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, he came out and he said 5,000 women a year, at least some people say 20, 30,000 women a year died from back alley abortions

before Roe. He admitted they just made up the number. We actually have the number. The government kept the statistics. In 1972, the year before Roe versus Wade was decided, 39 women died from back alley abortions, illegal ones. 24 women died from legal abortions. And what's even crazier is when you look at the breakdown of states where abortion was legal versus illegal, your likelihood of dying in an abortion was basically the same, whether it was legal or illegal.

That was in the early 70s. It would be obviously much lower now. Yeah, so we actually did an educational breakdown of this for a Freedom Tunes video a couple years ago. But basically, in the 1930s, you had something like a bit over 2,000 women who had died and been counted statistically as deaths from abortions and miscarriages. But that number decreased significantly after the advent of the widespread availability of penicillin. It was an issue of women not getting antibiotics. Take a look

at this comic. I saw this recently because I saw it earlier today on Twitter. But can we pull that up? There you go. Red states to blue states. The next refugees. Women. Women. What they fail to ever bring up in this conversation is how many women are

pro-life. I believe the majority of pro-life people in the country are female. Yes. And this is huge because the left never got the cultural shift that they wanted after Roe v. Wade. So as you mentioned, 60 million unborn children have died. Of course, that's not enough for them. They would rather that number was much higher. And when you look at how long ago the supreme court made its decision on the question of homosexuality that was what about 10 years ago and look where our culture is now i mean we've taken that almost to its furthest extreme but not quite yet it's very unpopular to say anything against gay marriage it seems a large population a large percentage of the population believes in it

but if you look at the abortion decision what this is 50 years ago and still half of the population believes in it. But if you look at the abortion decision, what this is 50 years ago, and still half of the population is adamantly against it. I bring this up with New York. They recognize 31 different genders, but by law, they recognize any possible gender. And gender identity is defined as essentially self-expression. So when the arguments first come for gender identity protections, everybody says, we know what this means and what the intent is. There's a famous story about when they outlawed public drinking in New York that one of the city council members or whatever said, let this law never be construed to say a construction worker can't enjoy a beer with his lunch. Sure enough, that's exactly what it means today. So in New York, when they say we want to protect trans people, we all say we totally understand that we don't want people to be discriminated

against and then what happens is the law is tested and someone will say it says self-expression that's how you defined it i hereby challenge this and say my self-expression is that i can wear a clown costume into work or or a fursuit or something you know there's an abortion tie-in here too one of the main drivers of transgenderism in the culture is that second abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the romantic poet of the court, Anthony Kennedy, said that at the heart of liberty is the ability

to define our own concept of existence, of the mystery of life. Scalia mocked it as the sweet mystery of life passage. I don't even have to say this. You don't have the right to define your own concept of existence.

No one has that right. You don't have the ability to do that either. You have a responsibility to accept reality and live in reality. But if Kennedy grants you that, then it's just self-expression. I disagree. I disagree. This is my trailer, my rules. From now on, you will address me as God King.

Well, also... Oh, man. There can be only one. Capital K. But in all seriousness, I mean, if you're extremely wealthy, you know, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos can go to their company and say, from now on, you must address me as this. And I suppose if you're powerful enough, you can make people do what you want them to do. The Mad King, right?

I mean, that's what they do. That's right. It's also bizarre that, that like a legal scholar could determine that the law is about self-invention isn't it the exact opposite it's about placing constraints on people you know i think i think you you can define reality the way you want but you're subject to the consequences you can say that there's a rock right there and i can go hit the rock but it's tim it turns out and i'm gonna suffer mad but i might still psychotically have to find it improperly. That's still my right as a human being.

This is my big problem with the whole conversation about transhumanity at the moment, which is if a man says that he's a woman, he legally is a woman. If a man says that he's a carrot and I eat him, they still put me in prison. It's awful.

Well, thank you for pointing that out. A better example is the man who filed a challenge to his age carrot and I eat him, they still put me in prison. It's awful. Discrimination. A better example is the man who filed a challenge to his age and said if biology is self-identity, then I can identify as younger. And they said, no. You can't do that. So I've talked about this before where

I talked to several civil rights attorneys in New York about the limits of this. And they said the judiciary exists to interpret the law. If you tried to, say, pull a fast one or challenge to absurdity, 220 pounds, you know, muscular and identify as a woman, put on a dress, go to a court and the judge is not allowed to, to mock you. The judge must accept you under the law. But if you put on a fursuit under the same exact provisions in the law, you are protected that the clothing you wear cannot be discriminated the name you choose. So I am Volsiferon, Herald of the Winter Mists. This is my identity. A judge

can laugh at you then. I understand there is a distinction. The argument is that in modern culture, we recognize transgenderism as a legitimate issue and we mock furries. But I reject the premise because eventually what we see is people will test the limits of the law. And eventually in one generation or two, a judge will say does say that who am i did you who am i to say no test the limits of not only the law but reason itself like i i think of myself as a magnetic being for instance not everyone i say that about you all the time thank you michael you as well not everyone has to agree with me on a daily basis and if i stray too far from reality's observation of what i am they're gonna think i'm a psychopath and put me in like a psych ward.

So you have you can self-identify however you want, but you cannot bend reality. I don't know if there's an objective. But how do you do it then in practice? Because this seems to be the middle ground that people try to find is, look, I don't care how you self-identify in your own mind, but just don't make me participate in it. But the whole point of identity is so that you can be identified. we live in a society we live in a political community how on earth can you unless you're just doing it in your basement at night yelling to nobody how can you have that right to a delusional identity and not infringe on my right to reality i mean i i deferred jesus christ i i believe he was a real man and he truly believed that God was flowing through him, which it was,

and people did not like it. And he was like, well, I have a choice to make. I can either denounce this and pretend like I'm not, or I can be honest and let reality do what it will with me. And depending on how truly you believe it, you have to make that decision. But, yeah, but the premise there is Jesus is God. Is God. We were told.

I was told. I don't know him, but i think he was you should that was a very trump answer that was a very i was told that i was given that a lot of people are talking frankly i was one of the best um i just want to mention i just want to make this point about uh you know this this sort of self-invention and coming up with your own identity my only question is to even get to that place how much time do you have to spend just thinking about yourself no no already really obnoxious? There are many people who, you know, I can't remember who told us this story that someone in their class kept changing their identity.

They didn't know. And one week they're like, this is who I am. Then a week later, they're like, no, my name's Owen. Now, the next week, they're like, no, it's Clyde. And it's just like, if there's no identity, then it can be anything at any time. And there's no legal definition. There's no legal distinction. It can just be at any time, and there's no legal definition, there's no legal distinction. It can just be.

Not to get too theological here, fellas, but isn't, look, teenagers do that all the time, right? Teenagers, that's sort of the definition of being 13 years old as you try on new identities. I'm goth now, I'm a rocker, whatever. And it's because they're immature and juvenile, and they're coming to some concept of who they are. At the burning bush god tells moses my name is i am i am that i am that's a name he's saying i am being itself and your identity must be in me for you to make any sense i am the divine logic of the universe i am being when you find your identity in i am things make sense when you ignore that and turn away from i am at all times throughout every

society in all of human history things start to go pretty kooky and you're left with a pathetic question which is who am i changes by the day i want to go back to abortion real quick because i'm thinking about this here i am know, surrounded by more religious individuals who are much more staunchly pro-life. And I've always said I was pro-choice. And I think one of the issues is that when you actually break down the absolute nuance of the argument, well, then it's like, what does pro-choice and pro-life really mean? And I think the pro-choice people typically do not understand, or there's not enough complexity in the argument. So, for instance, we were talking with Matt Walsh.

He argued that abortion is the intentional act of killing a child. And I'm like, right, I think that's wrong. But I think there are circumstances where a medical procedure would be done that would remove a baby from a mother, and that's where the nuance comes in so ultimately the conclusion was if you have to do something for the sake of the mother that would result in the the child being removed you just don't try to kill the child and i said interesting i don't think the pro-choice left understands the right's position on that i think they you know first of all there's a real problem with the left's argument on pro-choice in that it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception and any argument otherwise is illogical. It makes literally no sense. If you want to get to an authoritarian libertarian argument on medical choices for private individuals, that's where I'm kind of at.

But then the argument never actually addresses the true stance that that you guys might have or that that Matt Walsh brought up in that, oh yeah, absolutely do the procedure to save the mother's life and try and save the baby too. And I'm like, well yeah, of course. Oh, you're saying they shouldn't just kill the baby afterwards. Well, I agree with that. I don't think most pro-choice people understand that's what you're saying. I don't think they understand much of anything about pro-life and I'm not

saying that to be a jerk. I was pro-abortion for 10 years in my teenage years. Pro-abortion? This was during his goth jerk. I was pro-abortion for 10 years in my teenage years. Pro-abortion? This was during his goth phase. It was during my goth rocker phase. Pro-choice. Pro-Aztec.

I guess I would have said pro-choice but I grew up in New York surrounded by liberals. I went to a very liberal college and I just didn't I just thought conservatives wanted to control women's bodies. That's all I knew and so I thought I can't

I'll cut taxes but I don't want to pro-life. You used to be cool, man. What happened? I know. Man, I was smoking doobies and stuff. I was like Elon Musk. But were you like Elon Musk?

Well, hold on. Something like Elon Musk. And then I had a conversation with a woman bioethicist. And I made all these stupid utilitarian arguments as to, well, you know, all the freakonomics arguments. Well, abortion, it stops overpopulation and it lowers all these sorts of social pathologies. And she said, oh, OK, Michael, so which one of your arguments for, you know, lowering crime and welfare dependency, which one of your arguments is not an argument for killing young black men in inner cities?

You're just making all the same argument, right? And I thought, oh, yikes, I don't like that. And I thought about it more deeply and I thought, oh, yikes, I don't like that. And I thought about it more deeply, and I realized, oh, they're not just evil people trying to control women's bodies. Maybe there's actually something to this idea that a baby's a baby and we shouldn't kill it. You know, I said it's a scientific fact

that life begins at conception, and I just have never understood any logic in any circumstance, even when I wasn't listening to more pro-life nuanced arguments. That, you know, I think, was it Vosch who said, when he was asked by Charlie Kirk, when does life begin? He says, I don't know, sometime after birth. I think that's what he said. Yeah, that's what he said. And I'm like, well, that can't make sense.

Wild. I think of it as life beginning at conception, but at what point is it a human? Ah. We don't know. Well, it's not a giraffe. It's not a platypus. It is a human life. The real question is, when is it ensouled?

And the answer is, we don't know. It is possible that we could discover that life does not begin at conception. I know a lot of people... I'm sorry. Not that life does not begin at conception, which of course it does. Not that human life doesn't begin at conception, which of course it does. Not that human life doesn't begin at conception, which of course it does. But that the ensoulment of a child does not begin at conception. The Bible is not clear about this.

There's an argument for wrestling in the womb, and some pro-life likes to use that. But there's also the breath of life. I mean, there are real questions about, To the extent that it is unknown, though, what are we left with? We're left with the things that we do know, that life begins at conception, that the life conceived is a human life. That's what we can measure.

That's what we can know. That's where we have to actually make our decision. And to the extent that those things are knowable and that we do know them, in my view, therefore, we're left with no other conclusion but to protect that life. You know, that's a good point, Jeremy,

and it raises the question of, all right, so how certain are you? What are you willing to risk? You 3% sure that you're going to kill 60 million babies? Right. But there's also, sometimes you'll hear the pro-choice, pro-abortion people say,

well, in the Christian tradition, they actually had carve-outs for some abortions, and they always cite St. Thomas Aquinas, who's a very important doctor of the church. And Thomas Aquinas seems, at least at first glance, to be a little unclear on this question. Between what he considers to be

the first step of the baby being made, there's some period of time before the baby is ensouled. But it's based on, really, ignorance of Thomas Aquinas, because Aquinas is using Aristotle's physics. He's using Aristotle's understanding of biology. Not his fault, not Aristotle's fault. They didn't have modern sonograms. And so what they believed was that the sperm acted on the blood and produced a vegetative soul. But there wasn't really anything

even resembling life until the quickening. And you had this distinct human being. And we just know now that isn't true. We know that the sperm and the egg come together, they cease to be what they were and they become a unique human life and they're growing and so it's no knock on Aquinas or Aristotle but by their own logic life starts pretty much

just right at conception. And also, if I'm not mistaken the official position of the Catholic Church is that the person is in soul that fertilization. I think it's the heartbeat, personally, because that's when the magnetic field begins to become produced. I think Jeremy hit the nail on the head. You know, we're left with what we know. Life begins at conception.

And every argument I've ever heard, and I welcome any, you know, more pro-abortion, pro-left-left, pro-choice, whatever they want to say, to have this discussion because I do feel it's like here's a pro-life onslaught. Scientifically, just what is life? A unique set of DNA? And I've heard all the arguments, and ultimately you say – you mentioned – When can you discern that it's a when does it, I can't remember. When can you discern that it's a human? Well, so, you know, the argument's been made a million times. If a person is brain dead, is it still a person?

Is it still alive? Well, of course it is. And so there's the question of how many grains of sand make a heap. Sure, but there's still sand there. The process of creating the heap started when you began trickling sand, you know, onto the ground. If we want to say at what point does it become a person? Sure. At what point is it a human life?

Since the beginning when the process begins to create the human life. I like the ensouled question. If you look up the human magnetic field, Taurus, you see this, that the heartbeat itself is producing in a magnetic field around the human body. I think that that magnetic field's interaction with the Earth's magnetic field and maybe the solar magnetic field and even the galactic is producing this God consciousness. But isn't the soul metaphysical? Meaning so magnetic forces are acting on the physical world.

But isn't the soul in order for it to be the soul and not to be the body? Doesn't it have to not be physical? It has to be. I say of the soul that it's the intersection of the transcendent and the material. So to the extent that you're describing the material, perhaps, expression of the soul, that might very well be true. I'd be curious if the proto-heartbeat produces a magnetic field, which to our current question would be a really important one, because the cells begin pulsating as a heartbeat before the heart is actually formed in utero,

which is part of the whole kind of conflict about heartbeat laws, right, is what is actually the heartbeat. But I think your magnetic field thing is actually really fascinating, and we should look and see if the proto-heartbeat produces the field as well. There's no—I really don't feel like pro-choice exists anymore, and I think it's become a shield for what is overtly pro-abortion. The reason is I grew up um with a family that said abortion was wrong but there are circumstances where it's not the position of

the government to intervene in a private medical practice and it becomes scary in certain circumstances but uh we were a pro-choice family we voted democrat every step of the way yeah and the conversation was always it's a terrible thing that exists and nowadays that's not even the argument the argument is who cares, Lena Dunham said she wished she had one safe, legal and rare remember all that back in the Al Gore days

not that long ago and this is what's been happening now it's shout your abortion and you get an abortion and you get one and Lena Dunham said she wished she had one and she was like, you know I do all this, and I just feel bad because I didn't. And I'm just like, what? Did you see this tweet the other day?

This woman tweets out a cake. Yes. And the cake said, it's a boy. And then she crossed out the Y and wrote urchin. And it seems like this was legit. And she said, look, I just had my abortion, and abortion is a really traumatic thing to have. And it's why you've got to surround yourself with love and friendship all the time and celebrate it. And the question, of course, that naturally follows is why is it traumatic?

Yeah. Yeah. If it's if it's something to be celebrated, what's so traumatic about it? Well, kind of like working out is traumatic to the muscles, literally like you're inducing trauma so it can regrow stronger. I don't think this is the baby regrows stronger, right? I mean, if she's speaking about it, she's speaking about it emotionally, right? That it creates a trauma. Is the idea that the abortion is an edifying thing and therefore we should have a lot of

them to get much stronger? That's right. This is a great conversation. It's philosophical. It's religious. It's legal. I want to focus back on the legal, though, just for a minute, because a lot of people listening now know that the court is going to make a decision in June, and they may not know exactly where they are on some of these philosophical

questions. They may be persuaded by the Catholic view. They may be persuaded by the pro-choice view or the magnetic view. Oh, yeah, I can go deep on that. But the legal question is what's before us. And what the left likes to do in these moments is to get people to hyperventilate with all these hyperbolic kind of statements about what's going to occur. So just I think the key things I would want people to leave with are overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal. Overturning Roe v. Wade gives the states the right to make abortion illegal. And I doubt that very many states would do it. I doubt that very many even conservative states would go all

the way to saying that abortion must be illegal in all cases. I think that the most likely thing is that you'll see a radicalization in blue states where we basically get rid of all the constraints of Roe v. Wade and Casey on viability and other sorts of standards, and you can essentially kill babies after birth,

which is actually a thing that happens. I think on the other hand, you'll have a few states that outlaw abortion. I think you'll have many states that take up more of a European standard, which would at least reduce the most horrific instances of abortion where babies who can actually feel are being dismembered so that they can be extracted from their mothers. And in that world, the cartoon, Tim, that you put up with the refugees, well, I think that's an asinine statement that all women are going to, there actually will be more

voting with your feet. There will be a further kind of balkanization politically of the country. I happen to think that that's a good thing. That's interesting. What I'm really annoyed by in all of this is that we've come to the point where in Virginia and in Colorado, it's like

a full-term baby can be aborted. And it's just like that... This is why I say life begins at conception as a fact, yeah you you can't abort a baby at eight months because it could be taken out and just placed on a table and it will live you're literally just executing it and they call it an abortion we we you know as soon as the conception occurs there's a unique set of dna and that's all you really need i i accept that if we look at a single cell on mars and say it's life we can look at a single cell in women and say we have life it's it's it's the argument pro-life people often bring up that the scientific community says they found single cells here and is it life but they won't say the

same thing of a human being i i accept the scientific reality of a unique set of dna the problem is as i mentioned with my family growing up the left stance now is if you are pro-choice, you are on board with unfettered access at any point to some of the most disgusting procedures of killing babies. And I'm not talking about the right-wing perspective of on day two of a fertilized egg, you're killing a baby. I'm saying imagine that you are a Democrat and and the baby is or uh gosnell he would deliver the babies there's a guy kill them there's a guy right now cesare santangelo the story just broke he's done this to hunt at least hundreds of babies probably thousands of babies we're talking full term or nearly full term in some cases almost certainly were actually born first and then he's killing them he's the worst serial killer in america and no one wants to say his name, just like Gus now.

Because the process of abortion for—the process of late-term abortions is they just kill the baby, which could survive on its own. That's right. And the other thing is—and Michael alluded to this—technology is part of this conversation. Yeah. Because the age of viability gets younger and younger and younger as we get better and better and better at medicine, at medical procedures. It's very conceivable that one day you'll be able to

extract a zygote out from a woman and put it in some sort of pod and raise it up until it's able to breathe on its own and get a driver's license. So the question is like, even if viability is your standard, what does viability mean?

And they'll say, well, viability means when it can survive on its own. Two-year-olds can't survive on their own. Well, let's go to Super Chats. Can I just make a point? I want to ask you guys how we're using these terms.

I want to make sure I didn't make an inaccurate statement earlier. But when we use conception versus fertilization, are we using these interchangeably? How are we differentiating? I'm using them interchangeably. It's important to the Aquinas point because

Aquinas would have said that abortion begins at conception. The question is how long does conception take? Abortion begins at conception? Life begins at conception. That is an important distinction. We just know now because of medical advancements in technology, we know

that fertilization and conception and the sperm and the egg going away in the new life beginning that they are the same act okay yeah it's it's a new life it's it's an independent dna set that begins replicating and yeah and it may never even implant like it's entire the entire life of that new distinct dna life form yeah and it may be a matter of hours and then for those hours it was a distinct life a human and we believe that a human has value that's the definition is it human

life I still I have not I'm not comfortable saying yes at this when when when people say you know I hate the sophist our sophistry on this one when they say oh well sometimes it you know it won't stick and it'll be washed away or it'll be removed from the body or whatever. And I'm like, yeah, no one killed the life on purpose.

That's right. Sometimes people have heart attacks and die. We don't seek out nature and be like, ah, we're going to. Well, let's go to Super Chats and read what the audience has to say and the questions you guys have. Smash that like button if you have not already. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show far and wide if you do like it. And let's read what y'all are talking about oh yeah go to timcast.com be a member we have that member segment coming up in just uh about an 11 p.m or so all right oh here's

a good one sacky's red landing strip says knolls a was claven busy yeah real nice real nice you can make it up to me by buying Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, and Paperback in June. Yeah, Claven was busy, busy not being invited on the show tonight because he had no instead. It's a good one. We love you, Claven. FindMyGaisha says, I know that

Michael believes in regulations on the Second Amendment and Tim does not. I am in Tim's camp but would like to hear a debate on the difference. I think I'm learning something new about my political philosophy. So why do you want to take my guts away? Maybe Klavan should have come on tonight. Yeah, I don't know. I can't think of

a... I mean, other than... I don't think that individuals should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, but that's pretty much the only limit I've got. Do you think people have the right to bear nuclear arms? I would restrict that right. But Do you think people have the right to bear nuclear arms? I would restrict that right. But do you think they have the right?

No, I don't think so. But the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does, yeah. But, you know, one aspect of my view of the world. Yeah, got me. No, one view of my politics is I'm not merely looking at the text on the page, whether to interpret it in the wacky, kooky, modern leftist way or even in the supposed originalist way, because there are different versions of originalism. There's original intent. There's original public meaning, which is what Scalia was a big proponent of. I take into account the American tradition.

I think that the tradition matters. I think the way these laws have been understood over time matter. And so I've never seen the right to keeping a nuclear arm privately recognized. So I'm fine to let that one go. That's because they stole it. Corsairs and privateers were commonplace. Private Manowar with grapeshot could level a coastal town. It was owned by a guy, the East India Trading Company.

The founding fathers believed we were allowed to have cannons. They had multi-barrel. So at what point did we say the government has the right to keep and bear arms that we do not? Well, certainly by the point of the development of nuclear weapons. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you that you could have privateers and I'm all for sea shanties, so sign me up. I'm all for people having cannons

or whatever they want. So, I think the real distinction is I'm not saying people should have nuclear weapons. And I think I agree with you. I think, as I stated on the episode when we talked about this, where the left took it out of context to try and claim I believe,

to try and claim I said they should have nukes. I said, I think we could all come together on this one and actually amend the constitution to say except nukes and biological weapons i think most people would be like yeah we're cool with that but it's it is worth pointing out when we talk about the constitution there's two separate things we're talking about there's capital c constitution which is that piece of paper and then there's the lowercase c constitution which is how the government actually works. And so I love the sheet of paper. I'm all for the constitution. I'll defend my constitutional rights, tooth and nail.

But we also have to accept that the way our government works is not merely dictated by a piece of paper, but the way we live it. And we've lived it for centuries. And if we deny that reality, we're not going to get very far in politics i think my point was that right now individuals under the constitution do have a right to keep and bear any arm period that we that the constitution protects that right if if we don't like that and i think most people wouldn't it has to be amended you can't just one day wake up and say we've all agreed does it i mean it we practically don't have that right now you're right that the text doesn't say that, and we haven't had to change it.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Tim, that I think that the best use of the Constitution... While, Michael, what you're saying is true, I wish that it were not. I think that we are supposed to be governed by the Constitution with a capital C, and that if there are things about the capital C Constitution we don't like, we're supposed to amend the Constitution, and that if there are things about the capital C Constitution we don't like, we're supposed to amend the Constitution and that the real problem is that we've moved

away from the entire concept of enumerated rights. So even the fact that we're talking about the Second Amendment as though that's the guarantor of our right to bear arms, even that is a misrepresentation of the founding intent, which was that Congress didn't have any right enumerated to them to deal with this issue in the first place. And even further, you know, Scalia, he said he interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that you could have any commonly held arms. And where did he get this from? Well, I don't know.

He said he was a soft originalist, that he wasn't this hardline originalist. And the fact is, I got to meet the guy when I was a student, and we were all asking him about the Bill of Rights, and he said, who cares about the Bill of Rights? What protects your rights is not the Bill of Rights. What protects it are the institutions that the real guts of the Constitution set up, which have been c constitution, I just mean as a practical matter, the way that we're actually going to maintain our rights and our liberties and our traditions is by the way that we live, by the way that we're actually governed. The very fact that administrative agencies make all of our actual laws now is something that we have to grapple with. That's the way our constitutional works.

It's not just a bill up on Capitol Hill. All right, let's read some more. We got Christina H. who says, Can the daily wire make the novel one second after into a movie it's about a small town trying to survive if the u.s is hit with an emp attack excellent shows this week y'all thank thank you looking forward to miss cooper tomorrow well there you go they want one second after have you guys heard of that i've not heard of one second after but we're making lots of movies and tv shows and kids content. And as Michael has shamelessly promoted his book, I will shamelessly promote the work of The Daily Wire and say that we're busy building

alternatives, cultural alternatives, because not only are we not ultimately governed by the capital C Constitution, more is the pity, we're not really even governed by the lowercase c Constitution. We're governed more than anything by the lowercase c culture. And more than anything by the lowercase c culture and more than that even the technology that we have that allows us to formulate the culture like if someone can shut you out of technology shut you out of the the town square you're you're not able to influence the culture well speaking of shameless promotions freedom tunes is still not to 800 000 subscribers and we released one of the best videos we've ever released. Go over there and saw them.

I just want to shout out Jeremy's Razors. Go pick one up. Jeremy'sRazors.com. Neil Sawyer. I hate Harry's.com. I hate Harry's.com. Neil Sawyer says... That's why you won Nuke.

I'm just saying that it's strange that I've never seen Seamus and Ben Shapiro in the same room. Use that information as you will. Well, you might. Someday. Relatively soon. Here's the thing. So if you're going to accuse me of actually being Ben Shapiro, that's as you will. Well, you might. Someday. Relatively soon. Here's the thing.

So if you're going to accuse me of actually being Ben Shapiro, that's actually ridiculously offensive. Okay, Ben Shapiro is not nearly as intelligent or handsome as I am, all right, folks? And he knows it. He knows it. Fighting words. All right. Oh, man. That's wild.

You see, they're starting it again, and it's Michael's fault. I was listening to a review of the show, and I heard Ben, and I thought it was you. Oh, my God. I don't know. It was time work. By the way, okay. All right. What's he doing? Being second to Seamus in intelligence and handsome, it's not an insult. I'm not insulting Shapiro. It's time warp. By the way, being second to Seamus

in Intelligence and Assets, it's not an insult. I'm not insulting Shapiro. It's very high bar, okay, gang? They're starting it again. I blame Michael for this. Eric Miller says, Tim, you've heard of Hanlon's razor,

but have you heard of Jeremy's razor? To that which you can pay tribute to wokeness, you can pay tribute to freedom. You can use that if you want, Jeremy. Wow. Fantastic. How's the razor company going along? And you've heard of Occam's razor.

The razor company is doing great since I was last with you guys. We've sold 30,000 more razors. I think people are amused by the fact that we're having a good time actually building these alternatives and challenging the leftist homogeny in our economy

and in our culture. I think it's only the beginning. What I'll say is I'm going to get incredibly wealthy by taking advantage of all the opportunities that the left gives us. And they give these opportunities to us by act of hubris, that they believe that they can take conservatives for granted and still cash their checks because conservatives have no alternatives. But I'm not the only one who's going to get wealthy. There are a lot of guys out there. Dan Bongino is, I think, a great one. And there are more, I'm sure, on the horizon who we don't even know yet who see all these

opportunities being created and are going to seize them. And I genuinely believe over the next decade we're going to create economic incentive for the left to actually not be able to take us for granted. Can I tell you something, too? I shave with a Jeremy's razor right now. I previously shaved with a Gillette because I had ditched Harry's. Before Gillette, I shaved with a Harry's.

And Gillette was bad, too, because they're half trans now also. But the Jeremy's razor is a good razor. It is a better razor than the Gillette and the Harry's razor. Oh, interesting. I thought it was the best a man can get. I'm going to get one.

I'd like to try one. Well, apparently not. All right, Murph Tries says, Tim, when will Chicken City buy the airport TV contracts? Chicken City 24-7. I am proud to announce today Chicken City netted $1,500. Well done. We reached 650 peak concurrent viewers on the channel today.

It's a 24-7 stream, so it's quite a bit for a new show. We're at 29,000 subscribers and we've consistently made over $1,000 on Chicken City every day. I am very proud. Chicken City is truly greater than CNN+. Well, the funny thing is

CNN, with 10,000 daily active users, and with their 50% off price of $3 a month Chicken City is on track to gross more than CNN per month than CNN plus per month so it's more informative content too well the first thing I posted

when it went live was a person who watches nothing but Chicken City is better informed than a person who watches CNN it's true you know the quote from Thomas Jefferson alright where are we at let's grab we got too many super chats man way too many all right there's a lot of people saying shout out this is cool cool yes all my favorite all my favorite willie barron says all my favorite people tim cass and daily wire heart attack thank

you very much keep breathing all right evan says great to see evan boy boy mel great to see knolls and the god king elon is right there is potential in twitter but it's essentially a rage chamber transparency would be much uh a much needed shot favor shout out my parody fighting game what does it say celeb you brawl fight caricatures of celebs on mobile and have a blast. Love the show and love the convo. That does sound like a blast. I'm in. Yeah, sign me up. Yeah, right on. We have the screen zoomed smaller so we could fit more on

and it's getting harder to read. Here we go. A free thinking dog says chicken marsala is Italian. British food sucks. Alright. Thank you for your two bucks. Alright.

Let's grab some more. Joe Byrne says you can also create graphite by crushing coal into powder and microwaving it, supposedly. We could still use coal mines. I think you mean graphene, though. Well, you can actually upscale coal into graphene. They're working on doing that with lasers, so it's not going to supplant the coal industry like I thought before. Hopefully, we'll Well, you can actually upscale coal into graphene. They're working on doing that with lasers.

So it's not going to supplant the coal industry like I thought before. Hopefully, we'll figure out how not to supplant the copper industry because that's basically the last roadblock before inception. Ian, how do you learn this? I listen a lot. I have a good memory. I read a lot of science journals and talk to scientists. I have a lot of friends that are scientists, like Jeremy Riss, the alien scientist. Highly recommend his channel. Very wise man.

So do you own any stock or business investments in graphene? I actually went down to South America to start a graphene company in Santiago, Chile. We had an investor, but it didn't feel right doing it in South America. I want to do it here if we're going to do it. When Ian started ranting about this, I found a company that produces graphene.

I bought like 60 shares. Nothing crazy, but like there's a stuff called turbo static graphene where you can hit it with lasers and create these like these wafers of it and then if you can somehow uh what's called uh you bend them 1.1 degrees and you can start to get this incredibly super conductive you start to layer it at like 1.1 degrees uh 1.56 degrees i think it's starting to make like a 64 tetrahedron, like a two-dimensional tetrahedron shape, and we'll be able to conduct lightning through it and stuff. Wow.

Yeah, if we can somehow use lasers to flash it into position, we'll just be able to create this mad awesome carbon. This is interesting. Brian Webb, in reference to Watchmen, says, Alan Moore regretted writing the comics because he claims that he broke the genre. Maybe, um, you know, I look at a lot of his work and it really added a lot of depth and philosophy and ethics and morals to, to, to comic books. He was, he was amazing. Watchmen was brilliant. The bad, uh, the bad guy wins basically. It was excellent. Excellent writing. I love the movie too. All right.more says michael on your comment

about tall buildings make people liberals i live outside of portland oregon and the tall buildings have always felt unnatural dystopian and depressing to me yeah this is an important point there was an obit in the new york times the other day and it's the that's the only good part of the new york times it was about this guy christopher alexander who is an anti-modernist architecture guy, especially in the 70s. He hit his stride. And he made a really simple point, but it's important, especially for conservatives to get, but really for all of us. Any place you are is going to elevate your spirits, maybe just a little bit, or lower your spirits. Any place.

That matters because we're in the physical world. Conservatives used to get this so much. Edmund Burke, who's kind of considered the father of modern conservatism, he was an aesthetic philosopher. It actually, like beauty and place, that actually matters to us. And so if you live in some dystopian glass and steel hellhole, you're not going to feel great. Have you guys been to a castle, a medieval castle?

I was in Scotland in Edinburgh, and I think it was Mary Queen of Scots. I had a chance to go into her bedchamber where she would get dressed, and there's a slit window. You look out, and you look down at the people walking around. It's humbling because I was putting myself in her mind thinking, like, my subjects. And, like, just what kind of ego that builds to see these tiny humans. But imagine being all the way, all the way up at the top of a skyscraper. Well, it's like the— Just putting ketchup on your steak and eating your taco salads.

The best in the world. There was the family guy joke where all the rich people are hanging out with Peter, and they're like in a plane or something, and then he's like, wow, look at the people down there. They look like ants. And Bill Gates goes, they are ants. All right. NYBSFP says, I'm confused why Jeremy would hunt down the last panda to save the life of the most reprehensible human,

but two minutes later says he'd kill a person to save his dog because some people are bad, huh? Yeah, because it's two separate questions. Would I kill someone who was in the act of committing evil to preserve the thing that I ascribe value to, perhaps. That's a separate, distinct question from, is panda life or dog life intrinsically more valuable than human life? So it's just using examples to try to articulate two separate points. You're killing a burglar

in the dog example. That's right. You're killing a burglar. I'm going to take credit for this idea here. Preston Witherspoon, thank you for writing it, but I'm just going to take credit. He says, Tim, please let Jeremy know if Daily Wire creates a platform

like Netflix that streams regular movies and TV shows, millions of us would leave Netflix and stop giving them money. Who needs Netflix originals anyway? Did you guys realize that? I think it's a great idea

for your platform to try and make a streaming service with original content. Which is exactly what you guys are doing. I was thinking about it. That is what we're doing. Thank you. I think that your statement is humbling, A, because we have. We've released

four feature films, and we're releasing two documentaries next month. We have two series in development right now, and five kids' series. It's humbling because, A, despite our best efforts to market this idea, I think there are a lot of people who don't know about it. And, B, even to the extent that you do know about it, and perhaps you do, what you're saying is we haven't reached a point of viability yet where this is worth your money.

And I understand that. We certainly don't have enough content to make an offering to you on a straight value proposition level, anything like Netflix. I mean, essentially, for $10, you can come to The Daily Wire and watch four movies, or for that same $10, you can go to Netflix and watch every movie and television show ever made. We're aware of that distinction, but what we're basically saying is that the mission is part of the value that we're giving to our subscribers as well, and that the more people subscribe, the faster we'll get to that ultimate value proposition

where we have enough content where it is well and truly worth your money. I think it's worth it now because you also, in addition to that content I mentioned, you still get the Ben Shapiro show, the Candace Owens show, the Andrew Klavan show, the Matt Wall show. We throw Michael on there just for charity. So you do get a lot of value from the platform, but I certainly recognize that we've got a lot of work to do. I was thinking it would be interesting if you start buying content

that's going off contract at Netflix and Hulu because on your platform, they're going to get a lot more attention being first in. It's true. The Order. I like that show. It was like a teeny bopper cw style werewolf thing and i was watching it and then i was like they're not making another one man i was i was i was i was enjoying

it it was you know the tv was on but anyway uh let me just say i have an lg tv there's no there's no ott app for some of these smart tvs for daily wire and i wasn't able to watch it and then on our sony tv i wasn't i don't know if i'm just doing something wrong or if you guys are you know moving are you gonna get the ott's yeah we're we're building ott's actively right now the the couple that we have roku and apple tv are getting improved because they uh they're they're not at the level that we think they should be uh but yes that's a place we're making very active and just because of the jargon it means over the top so it's a reference to uh tv smart tvs roku apple tv so that on your TV you can just have the app.

So you can currently on Roku and Apple TV. That's a product that will improve. Samsung, Vizio, those are all in development right now. I think you're a victim of your own success in that everyone is so eager and excited for the prospect of real content and good content that they expect you to have it instantly yeah you know and i i think a year you guys are going to be the snowball rolling down the hill with great speed so i'm excited for that for sure all right what is this prometheus says make wearing swords fashionable again and have you heard of borafine? Daily Wire anime when, God King? Would you like to answer first?

Not soon enough. I think Borafine, I've heard this is like the ninth time someone's told me about it in the last two weeks. So it's Boron. It's similar to graphene. I think it's similar structurally. But it apparently is incredible. Orange Red says, Tim, in the movie The Good Son, an aunt has to choose who to save,

her nephew or her son. Watch it. Macaulay Culkin and Elijah Wood play the kids. I think I saw that when I was real young. It isn't like one is a bad kid and one's a good kid or something. Like just a genuinely evil child. Yeah, and there's a whole debate between whether it's psychopathy and mental illness or just true evil. Like you've got two kids that are in a river going down full speed and one's just a really nice good kid wants to help everybody but the evil kid is holding

the cure for cancer yeah i would kill macaulay culkin i think and of course the evil kid of course the evil kid has the cure for cancer right how do you come across that he stole it from a lab exactly like oh i gotta say that evil kid is big pharma he's not gonna give it to us anyway don't save it all right hold on hold on on. Let me fix the scenario. The evil kid and the good kid are both in the river. The evil kid has the cure for cancer and you have a very powerful net gun that just so happens to fire two nets at the same time

tethered to a rope that will save them both. That's what I'm talking about. You're not bound by reality. But one of them is ugly. You shared it with the other kid twice. Two good kids. No no we saved them we saved them of course all right all right what does it say uh zaka inen says no matter the impossible choice no one gets out of this alive love the con love this conversation it was good it was good

in the end we all will meet our maker all right And maybe even during the process. Lex McCormick says, You three Christian men, how can I hear God? I am lost but seeking and am met with silence. Other Christians tell me that evil seeks signs and wonders. I hope I'm not evil, but I do wish God would speak to me so that I might know him. As my priest said once in the

introduction to a book, an evil generation looks for signs and wonders, but a stupid generation ignores signs and wonders. And they are there. The Christian view of the world is rich in symbolism. But you're not going to be hearing a voice come out of the sky probably anytime soon. So maybe you will.

I don't know. But where can you hear the word of God? Well, I've got two really simple answers. They're not going to sound cool and mystical. Go to church and read the Bible. That would be a good place to start. And pray. That would be a good place to start. I just want to point out that I just think the idea that there is some greater power

that created everything, that there's some kind of purpose to all this, and that there are signs for us to see is completely absurd. What makes more sense is that an advanced species created all of this for some purpose and that we're here for a reason and there are signs in the system. Like a god-like species. Right, like a god-like species.

Not a god, though. You make a great point. Not a real god. But we love talking about the... May I say something to that last question? It's such an important question. And I always like to point out that if you read the narrative of the Gospels, Christ went through the Galilee and drove out all disease. It says that he went from village to village and healed everyone. And this

was his ministry for several years. It culminates in the events that precede Palm Sunday last week with the raising of Lazarus from the dead. He literally speaks into the tomb and calls forth Lazarus, who's been dead four days, in the presence of people who believe in him and people who don't believe in him. And no one contested these miracles. In fact, it says that the high priest, I referenced this line earlier, but without context, that the high priest himself said after that,

essentially, it's better that one man should die for the nation. In other words, they began to plot to kill Jesus, not because they didn't believe in the miracles, but because they did. I say all of that to say, even people who literally heard God speak, people who literally stood in the presence of God's Son and watched him call forth the dead to life, didn't believe. And so I understand the desperation of non-belief, and I understand the longing that is in the human heart to hear God directly, that you might believe in him.

But it is a mistaken view. If you did hear from God, there is absolutely no certainty that you would believe. And so the better thing to realize, I think, is that what God values most highly is faith. And faith is the substance of things not seen, things not heard, things hoped for. And so in many ways, it's a great gift from God that we don't see and hear from him, and that instead we're left with the opportunity

to put faith in him, which is an unsatisfying, it's an even more unsatisfying answer than read the Bible and go to church, until you realize the beauty of it, that it is in faith that we can be saved and not in certainty. And in that way, it is quite a

gift from God that we don't always hear his voice or see his face. All right. R-Strike says, Tim, when I asked if you change your mind on possible fraud of Republicans, if Republicans lost midterms, you dismissed it and I felt disrespected. It was a sincere question.

I did not dismiss it. I'm sorry you felt that way. What my point was, in 2018, I was adamant Republicans were going to win and win big, and then they didn't. I didn't assume it was because they were cheated. I assumed it was because I was wrong. If in November the Republicans lose, I'm going to assume it's because they were cheated. I assumed it was because I was wrong. If in November, the Republicans lose, I'm going to assume it's because I'm wrong. If evidence emerges of direct

actions, I will consider all evidence. So the challenge I have, especially with like 2020 is we get stories about the campaigns run by Democrat politicians, the deals they cut with Republicans, voter in the park, the universal mail-in ballots that was recently ruled unconstitutional in Pennsylvania. And I say all of that is just actual politics that resulted in a shadow campaign that saved the election. That's the best way you can call it. I've not seen evidence of watermarked ballots or overt fraud to a degree where I'm convinced that's the issue at hand. So even though I really do believe Republicans are on track to win, especially considering every poll and every outcry from Democrats, for one, there are many variables from now until today,

which I can't predict. And two, it's possible I'm not omniscient. Yeah, it's possible. It's back to Occam's razor, right? Yeah. And I think this is right. I say of 2020, I think that there is there is abundant evidence that the election was rigged. There is not enough evidence that it was stolen. And those are incredibly distinct. But real quick, just to make sure we clarify that rigged in the sense that lawmakers got together a year in advance. They passed new laws. Yes yes uh voter like we mentioned the media literally suppressed stories that would be harmful to their preferred candidate right and in that way it's like the the referees uh were only calling strikes on one side uh it would be like if if uh jonathan and isaac jonathan isaac and i played a game of one-on-one that is a rigged

game right i i am at a I am at a pronounced disadvantage going into it that you can say that it is unfair, but it isn't cheating at that point that he makes all the points. This is an important distinction. There was a piece published in RealClearPolitics not too long ago from a very serious guy who had worked with the Department of Justice on election issues, and he believes that there is evidence, hard evidence, of actual stolen ballots in certain

states and he he leaves the conclusion vague as to what this means for the overall election but that would be say one piece of evidence of the sort you're looking for but to your point jeremy is that sufficient to do what in the political process how is that going to overrule an election and and the question of rigging and outright stealing, there's a distinction. And like you, Tim, I'm open to that. I've seen some evidence even using geolocation-type data that is fairly compelling that there was some cheating going on. I'm open to the idea that an election is stolen. You just have to prove it.

I think there's two big things at play, and I think people don't want to believe them. One is that I told this to Steve Bannon. I said, I know people who are as dumb as a box of rocks with no business in politics. They couldn't tell you who Ruth Bader Ginsburg was. They don't know how many justices there are. And they post videos of themselves voting. They took away sports. They took away video games. They took away movies.

They locked people in their homes and told you it was Trump's fault. And I saw people that never got political in my life had with nothing else to do getting political yeah we saw what happened in pennsylvania they ruled this this this universal mail-in voting unconstitutional i'm like dude it all happened above board i think you just don't want to accept it that for a year republicans actually were working against republicans it's also when people say you believe that more people turned out to vote for Joe Biden than Barack Obama? And it's like, no, they didn't have to turn out. They legal they lawfully changed the nature of the of the election to instead of having to go stand in a line, you had to check your mail.

So, of course, when you make it that easy, there are going to be more votes that's why they wanted it and it makes it harder for uh it's an advantage for democrats because of urban density compared to the the disparate nature of rural uh environments which are more republican but we've gone a little bit over and we got to do this uh can i point out the problem of tallying votes by with a corporation behind the scenes and people that people aren't transparently allowed to witness is a code red problem with our elections we need to see every vote on some sort of public database so we can verify our systems i agree with that my friends if you haven't already smashed that like button subscribe to this channel share the show with your friends and head over to timcast.com because we're gonna have that members only segment going up at about 11 p.m and you'll not want to miss it we'll make it extra spicy you can follow me at timcast you can follow the show at timcast irl Smokey Mike and the God King do you guys want to shout anything out I'd like to remind people that the book speechless coming out in paperback head over

to amazon.com buy yours today that's true and if you want to be hairless you should go to I hate Harry's calm and get a brand new razor it's the best razor out there on the market. And you can do that right after you get Speechless Controlling Words, Controlling Minds. Anybody else? I mean, if you hate being hairy, razors are perfect. I'm Seamus Coggan. I have a channel called Freedom Tunes. Check it out. The video we just released is one that I'm very proud of. And I really

think you guys will enjoy it. I'm Ian Cross, and you guys can follow my friends on Twitter at TheRealDailyWire. That is TheRealDailyWire on Twitter. And I love you so much. Thank you. Thank you guys all very much for tuning in. This has been one of my favorite episodes to date.

I think I love the philosophical conversations and the deep, profound conundrums we make up for ourselves and try to reason through. You guys may follow me on Twitter at SarahPatchLids, also on Minds.com and I also have SarahPatchLids.me. We will see you all at TimCast.com.

Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.