Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #526 - New SCOTUS Leaks CONFIRM They STILL Plan To Overturn Roe v. Wade w/Darryl Cooper

Episode Date: May 10, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia join host of the MartyrMade podcast and cohost of Jocko Willink's The Unraveling podcast Darryl Cooper to break down how conservative SCOTUS justices are responding to being threatened, the group planning a so-called 'vigil' outside Samuel Alito's home, the top Reddit post telling women to stop using dating apps, and Star Trek's choice to inject January 6th into their show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So we got more leaks coming out of the Supreme Court. They're not nearly as egregious as the first leak. The first leak we saw was for the first time in history, an initial draft had been released to the public. But this draft on the repealing of or the overturning of Roe v. Wade was from February. So a lot of people were thinking, look, maybe maybe it will have changed by now. It's certainly going to be a different argument because the justices have weighed in. We now have several conservative clerks telling the Washington Post that the justices who have voted to overturn Roe v. Roe and Casey have not changed their minds. Clarence Thomas says they won't be bullied. And of course, this is resulting in continued outrage and people on the left losing their minds.

I got to be honest, it's very strange to me because all this does is return the issue to the states. It's not a ban on abortion. Several states will ban abortion, but these are overwhelmingly Republican states anyway. And the urban liberal women who are freaking out don't live in these places. I just, I understand some of them may and they may be concerned about it, but I just think we're not getting a real argument for the most part from the people screaming, no more dating, and they're on a sex strike when that's literally what conservatives would prefer in the whole issue. So anyway, the conflict is rising. We have a new theory out of NPR that it was actually a

conservative justice that leaked the initial draft in order to force the conservative justices to retain that position. Otherwise, it would appear that they were swayed by the public. So we'll talk about that. We'll talk about the riots and the violence that have happened at these pro-life centers and NGOs. We also have protesters plan on going to more homes of Supreme Court justices, which is illegal. But, you know, I'll be – you guys think anybody's going to get arrested? I really doubt it. And then we have Elon Musk who said he might die in mysterious circumstances. And then, of course, there's the food shortage and a whole bunch of other stuff like that. So it should be interesting.

Joining us to talk about all of this is Daryl Cooper. Do you want to introduce yourself, Daryl? Yeah, my name is Daryl Cooper, as Tim said. I am the host of the Martyr Made podcast and the co-host of The Unraveling with Jocko Willink. I live in San Diego, and I make podcasts. Right on. What do you normally talk about? So Martyr Made is a long-form history podcast. Episodes that come out every several months. They're three, four, five, sometimes

seven hours long. I dig deep into historical topics. Sometimes I'll pick one. It'll be a single episode. Like my most recent episode was about Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and how their ideas and biographies kind of have interplay. But sometimes I'll do seven episodes on the Jonestown cult or six episodes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oh, wow. Yeah. Before the show, you were talking a little bit about Jonestown cult or six episodes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oh, wow. Yeah, before the show, you were talking a little bit about Jonestown. So we probably have a lot to talk about because I usually refer to a lot of these people as cultists. So we'll talk about that.

And thanks for hanging out, man. Thanks for having me. We got Seamus. Seamus of Freedom Tunes. I make cartoons on a channel called Freedom Tunes. If you all want to go check that out, I think you'll enjoy it. We're going to be uploading a cartoon on Thursday. And, yeah, man man this situation is uh is hilarious the idea of like a sex strike is if conservatives are going to hear they go no please anything but that liberal women like it's so ridiculous and also it's really offensive to women to assume that all of their

political capital is just having sex like to to imply that you view that to be a woman's role in society and what they're good for and the way that they should affect political change is really objectifying it's it's like men will respond to this yeah and all the conservatives are like we agree with it yeah like stop they get married yeah i'm just double checking but lisa strata is the greek play that was about the women refusing sex to the men so that they would, I think, not go to war or something like that. And it was a comedy. It's just the entire concept of the society of women not having sex anymore is hilarious.

It's ridiculous. It's also blackmail, but we'll see if it works, I guess. I want to show you guys before we get started. Tim got this for me. It's a $10 note from the Bank of Columbus, Georgia. Before the Federal Reserve existed, states used to issue their own currency. It's actually a national. This is a national

currency issued by a bank. I was at a collector's shop and the guy said, this is pre-Federal Reserve money. I was like, oh, I've got to get that first. He said the magic words. Pre-Federal Reserve. Well, hey, good to see you. I'm also here in the corner pushing buttons. I just wanted to weigh in on this conversation about a possible sex strike, and I think that these ladies are using this as an excuse to pretend that they're getting laid.

I don't believe any of them are actually getting any. That's my two cents. Well, as an aside, there's a meme from conservatives where it's, like, the women going on a sex strike, and it's a bunch of, like, frumpy, purple-haired women. Yeah. And it says the women not going on strike, and it's a bunch of, like, purple haired women yeah it says the women not going on strike and it's a bunch of like busty trump supporting women so i mean look look last time i brought this up the young turks were very offended but then confirmed what i said was true conservatives tend to be more attractive than liberals according to multiple studies that's

right that doesn't mean every conservative i mean every liberal they're attractive lefty women they're attractive conservative women but it's a tendency among both males and females and uh the young turks are really mad at me for saying it and then while they made fun of me and called me ugly they confirmed everything i said so that's there you go and i just want to mention one thing as an aside to every so often i'll have a cheat day where everybody wants to go out to eat and the food options are you know grainy or sugary but i'm like it's no big deal. It's like I've been eating really well all month and then I'll have that one day where I'll eat something sugary and I'll eat something with bread in it. And then I just feel like someone smacked me in the face with a plank of wood.

They call it cheating for a reason because you're not supposed to do it. It actually just feels miserable after doing it. And I'm experiencing it right now because we went out to eat for mother's day and i was like we got to get the best of the best and the and the fancy desserts and now i'm just like what's wrong with me so anyway i read an article one time that said that that's actually scientifically good for you and i don't know if it's true but i was like i'm going with that a cheat day yeah well i guess the idea is that you you get you overload so you get everything you might be missing.

So I think I was actually low on iron. Ian mentioned it to me. Oh, I think I'm low on iron. Yeah, iron's big. So I was like, oh, yeah, because I didn't eat a steak for a while. So I was like – because I was eating eggs and bacon. We actually have cast iron pans. You're supposed to cook in your cast iron pan to get more iron in your diet, I've heard. Really?

Yeah. Well, anyway, head over to TimCast.com. Become a member to help support our work. We have brought on a couple new opinion writers and journalists. As of recently, we've got the redheaded libertarian who's been writing, and Josie has been writing up really amazing stuff. You definitely want to check this out because she wrote something really interesting on property rights of slavery and abortion.

It makes an interesting point that arguably people who believe in abortion after the second trimester would probably not have been abolitionists, which is interesting because we'll talk a little bit about that in the arguments. But if you become a member, you're helping to support our writers, our columnists, and you'll get access to exclusive segments of this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. These are the uncensored and not family-friendly versions of the show where people are like, wow, you guys kind of go over the top on that. But it's really, let's just call it candid swearing, you know, brutal conversations.

And don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. Let's jump into this first story we have from Mediaite. Washington Post obtains new leaks from Supreme Court revealing conservative justices are holding the line. Not just that, Chief Justice John Roberts appears to have lost control, and Clarence Thomas may now actually be in more control. We don't know exactly. We don't know exactly. There's only a couple leaks.

The first leak was the initial draft. Check this out. Mediite says, oddly, the article itself appears to include another leak, which is clearly reported to have come from conservatives close to the court, who, of course, spoke on the condition of anonymity. The sources are said to have told reporters about private conversations between Roberts and his fellow jurists as far back as early December. They say the leaked draft opinion is dated in February and is almost surely obsolete

now as justices have had time to offer dissents and revisions. But as of last week, the majority of five justices to strike Roe remains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. So we don't know who these people are. Clearly, someone who knows what's going on in the court, presumably a clerk. They say a person close to the most conservative members of the court said Roberts told his fellow jurors in private conference in early December he plans to uphold the state law and write an opinion that left Roe and Casey in place for now. But the other conservatives were more interested in an opinion that overturned

the precedence, the person said. Spokesman for the court declined to comment and messages extended to justices were unreturned. Also also according to the washington post they said it seems that clarence thomas was the one who who instructed alito to draft the majority opinion and alito has always been in favor of uh restrictions on abortion and opposing roe v wade so it looks like roberts was trying to get the conservatives to side with upholding roe v wade and they basically said, nope. Nope. Absolutely not.

Thank goodness. Well, so is this bad? Let me show you the big point of the story. The Hill, regurgitating an NPR story, says the leading theory on the SCOTUS leak is a conservative clerk. And the argument is, with Justice John Roberts trying to get these other conservative justices to uphold Roe v. Wade, a conservative clerk released the draft opinion to force them to stick to it because if they change their opinion now, it'll look like they were swayed by public opinion.

What do you guys think? I mean, if NPR said it, I'm going to say probably not true. I think that if you're leaking Supreme Court documents, that's probably a federal offense. Yeah, exactly. I mean, regardless, this is a serious breach of ethics. I don't care who did it or why. We need to find them and we need to punish them. Yeah.

What do you think, Daryl? It seems like part of a larger trend toward just undermining all of our institutions, right, and all of the customs and ways of doing things that have kind of been the glue and sinews that have held things together over all this time, right? The United States is a country, we've got all types of people here, you know, from every continent on the planet,

every religion, every race, everything. People who believe that all different types of ways of life are, you know, the most appropriate way to live. And you hold that together by a thread. And that thread is those traditions and customs and those institutions that we use to moderate our conversations with one another. And if we lose those things, we're going to lose everything. I saw this leftist meme post where they said,

Republicans are trying to burn the country down and destroy all of its institutions. And I thought to myself, that is absolutely accurate, 100 percent. The institutions that have been taken over by the left, the conservatives are absolutely intent on taking down, like public education, the Department of Education, colleges. So if you think about it in terms of what we value as constitutionalists, when I hear that, the constitutionalist part of me says, that's ridiculous. The left has been gutting and destroying everything.

They're the ones stripping the Bill of Rights and blah, blah, blah. But I don't want to just be overtly biased. I was like, well, what institutions are they talking about? I'm like, oh yeah, the universities. Yeah, definitely. Cultural institutions. Oh, you bet. Yeah, definitely. Cultural institutions.

Oh, you bet. They've been completely taken over. So I think conservatives would love to see the universities falter. But when we're talking about courts, when we're talking about the rule of law, that's absolutely not true. It's the left that's doing that, in my opinion. And there's two different layers to institutions, right? There's Harvard University and then there's education in the United States. Or there's the Washington Post, but then there's journalism, which is an institution.

And they certainly want to burn the Washington Post and Harvard down. But I think that, in their minds at least, conservatives want to do that so that they can get back. Well, it's a really interesting point. The left, I think think looks at the the brick and mortar structure as the institution and the right views the concept as the institution a a just court is an institution to the left the supreme court is the institution the court itself the building itself well i think the left knows that they're going to be able to intimidate people into doing their bidding by going after the actual physical location. So you look at the fact that they are genuinely trying to intimidate Supreme Court

justices. And I think that when you look at the behavior of the right, there is no comparison between the right and the left in terms of how much rioting has occurred. I mean, the left, it's their go-to. As soon as this information got leaked, we knew they were going to be threatening violence immediately. I feel like the locations are points of vulnerability within the institutions. And we put so much faith and trust in these people at these institutions, like the president of Harvard or the Supreme Court justices, that if they get tweaked or bribed or something, or if they leak something, the entire system falters. In social media administration, we have a thing called trustless systems, where you don't have to trust that someone has your back or that someone's going to make the right choice.

The system is in plain view. Everyone knows what's happening. It's automatic. And I think maybe that our government needs trustless systems as well. I think, just going back to my point, how the institutional, the establishment left and many on the left view the existing structure as an institution, like the Washington Post is the institution of journalism, whereas the right wants to restore the actual institution of journalism. And I think those are different worldviews where

if you can understand how many on the left or liberals or democrats think you'll better understand what their arguments are that's that's kind of my point when they said the right to destroy our institutions it's like well think what what what must they mean harvard university not education they they like their their you know archaic structures but i think you know for us who believe in freedom and liberty we like the idea of education. And education can come from anywhere. For me, it came from going online and reading free information from various, you know, professors or news outlets and not formal education. Yeah, I don't think they're trying to destroy the system of education system, but maybe the public schooling system that Dewey set up in like the early 1900s, where they're creating these like

factory workers and basically soldiers are getting people ready to raise their hand and only speak when they're spoken to. I think a lot of people are done with that. They want school choice. They want to learn online. Phoenix University was really groundbreaking in the early 2000s, I think it was. You get your degree online. There's a basic difference between the way conservatives and progressives approach politics in general, down to the level of what they think the purpose and point of politics is. To a progressive, I mean, it's built into their name, and this is true of liberals as well, just that the purpose of politics is to get us somewhere,

that there are certain things that either need to be fixed or improved or achieved, whatever it is, and the purpose of politics is our means of coming together to achieve or fix these things. And conservatives don't see it that way. Conservatives have a much more tragic view of history. They look around and say, we're not going to some final destination in America. The goal of politics, politics is much more like relations between family members to conservatives, that the point of this is to make sure that we're all still friends tomorrow. That's the only point to politics is to make sure that we are all still friends tomorrow and that we can come together to deal with things as they arise. And you're going to get very different approaches to institutions when that's the case, right? Progressives can look at it and say, the point here is to get to that place where this social

justice aim is achieved or whatever it is. And if an institution seems to be slowing that down, scorched earth. I mean, that institution is in the way, whereas a conservative says, no, no, no, that maintaining that institution's credibility so that we're not all killing each other tomorrow instead of working through our institution. That's the point. I was thinking about that, too. I was like, there's got to be rules that we all agree to play by, but that doesn't apply to the pervasive worldview. The pervasive worldview has been, and I'll just throw it to the late David Graeber, where I started to think about these ideas when he said that elements of the left have embraced the fascistic tenet, there is no truth but power. And you take a look at what many on the right

would call a double standard. And James Lindsay, I think it's James Lindsay, he said, there is no double standard. If it's good for the revolution, it's good. If it's bad for the revolution, it's bad. That's how you end up seeing contradictory concepts like you must be vaccinated regardless of your own body and abortion, my body, my choice. They then act like conservatives are the hypocrites when in reality, they just don't know what conservatives are arguing. Whereas conservatives are outright saying it's not your body. It's the other body address from the argument from that point. If you want to have a conversation, but they're not.

So, you know, ultimately, I think for me, I wonder what are the rules to the to the system we're in so that I can make sure we don't come at each other and go nuts, right? And it doesn't seem like it matters because the rules for, as you pointed out, for the progressives is to accomplish their social justice goals, social justice goals where everyone else is kind of, for the most part, conservatives. But I think, you know, whatever the factions really end up being, libertarian or otherwise, is how do we live together and survive this this catastrophe i guess yeah i definitely think there's truth in what you're saying the left has a much more hegelian approach to their view of history they see it as this this process and the structure that is building towards its ultimate end and even that i think like from a you know a metaphysical

christian worldview there's truth in but i think conservatives as you have said do have this more tragic view of history it's more or less we are teetering on the brink it's not as if we are just guaranteed that tomorrow is going to be better than today this could all fall off if we try to try like change the system in in the wrong way i want to pull up this story here we have from wusa9 group to hold vigil outside supreme court justice samuel alito's alito's home in response to potential roe v wade overturn the group plans to host a vigil near alito's home starting at 7 30 p.m blah blah blah a vigil oh a vigil so they already went to kavanaugh's house which is illegal and now they're going to Alito's house, which is illegal. But don't worry, it's a vigil. Not a protest, a vigil.

So the law says, the U.S. Code, you cannot parade or picket in front of a judge's house. I'm simplifying it, but I think it makes sense. The court precedent or the legal precedent is that due process injustice supersedes your right to free speech because without those processes, you can't have free speech. So in this instance, people should not be going to the homes of these justices, but anyone want to take a bet as to when or if any of these people will get charged with any kind of crime?

Shaking your head already? Everybody? Well, let me tell you, if any of them do get charged, we're going to see politicians tweeting out the link to the GoFundMe to get them bailed out. So this is a vigil. The definition is the act of keeping awake at times when sleep is customary. So they're just going to go sit and stay awake all night

outside his house? No, they're screaming. If they're screaming, then it's a protest. It's semantic games. Manipulation. Exactly. Well, we already know that Jen Psaki has no negative words to say about these protesters. She's like, well, people sometimes feel very passionate. Oh, yeah, they felt passionate on January 6th, and you have a very different view of that. Well, I mean, January 6th is different from showing up at someone's house, but showing up at someone's house is overt terror.

Worse in some ways. Worse in some ways. In many ways, actually. But Jen Psaki did walk this back. She came out and she was – like, she tweeted. It's probably not even her. It's, like, some intern tweeting. Like, sent out a message, and she was just like, violence can never be tolerated and people should feel safe.

It's like, I missed the part, Jen, where you included don't go to the homes of these justices, which they're doing. So I think I was talking about this earlier. A lot of people say it's worse now than it's ever been. But then people like to point out the assassination attempts of the past and the weather underground, you know, the weathermen and the bombings and stuff and the death. I think back then we had acute spikes of political extremism. And today we have a low consistent rumbling of extremism, which is worse. It's death by a thousand cuts.

The way I explain it is if we in the past had an assassination attempt, that would be like someone taking a pickaxe to the hull of your ship. Boom. They punch a hole in it. The water is spraying through and you're like, quick, we better patch this hole up. And everyone panics and you rush and you patch the hole up. Today, it's a thousand small holes and you can't patch them up fast enough. It is death by a thousand cuts. So this low level rumbling that is affecting every level of government that's consistent. I mean, I'll put it this way. I've been saying for how long tensions are escalating,

potential civil war or strife or whatever, some kind of hyperpolarization and geographic polarization. And then we get a story about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. When I even said before the story came out that I think abortion could be a catalyst for another civil war, and not just me, Stephen Marsh said it. He's the guy who wrote the book, The Next Civil War. And now, sure enough, it drops. They're going to overturn it. They're holding firm with the latest leaks. People are already starting to protest in front of justices' homes. Law students are defying the idea of the sanctity of the court.

How could we, how are we going to pull this together and get past this in any meaningful way? It's really hard to reestablish deterrence once it's been lost, right? And that deals like in the international arena with military strategy, whether it's law enforcement or just basic norms and ethics. Once one side, you know, it's like that driver that everybody hates who just kind of realizes that I can actually just cut everybody off and I can just cut across traffic and make turns as long as I don't get caught by a cop. It might be inconveniencing everybody else, but I'm going to get to where I want to go quicker than anybody else. And he realizes maybe on some level that if everybody started doing that, then nobody's getting anywhere that they're trying to go. But he knows that the good faith of those

other people means that they're not going to do it. So he can get away with it and he gets there. And once you have kind of allowed that to metastasize and become normal for certain people, or even, you know, it can spread. I mean, the real frightening thing that people have been talking about for a long time is that what happens when the right starts acting this way? Now, they have a, you know, there are reasons that they wouldn't ideologically, maybe. There are also, obviously, we see January 6th. There are law enforcement reasons why they wouldn't do it. They get treated very differently.

But if they just decided to ignore that stuff and they started responding to things violently and they started showing up to judges' homes they didn't like, at that point, you've lost control. And the only way to regain control is to probably use a pretty extraordinary amount of force because you have a bunch of people who don't think that you're going to do it. It would. I don't think I don't think that could solve it. If the federal government or law enforcement cracks down on the left and the right, it would just exacerbate the hyperpolarization. So you have January 6th. It's bad. I mean, people should not have rioted. The people who mindlessly trespassed when the cops opened the door for them shouldn't have, in my opinion, been charged because these are the maga memas. Already, one guy got his charges dropped because the judge was like,

the cops let you in. What am I supposed to do about that? There's going to be a lot more like that, but there are a lot of violent people who should be charged. So that's bad. You see people who are facing solitary confinement, people who have been locked up for over a year for this. Then you look at the left. You had the insurrection facing solitary confinement, people who have been locked up for over a year for this. Then you look at the left.

You had the insurrection on January 20th, 2017, where hundreds of people were running through the streets, smashing things, starting fires, torched a limousine. These people not only had their charges dropped, the city was forced to pay out to them in a lawsuit. Now, you can chalk up a lot of this to the fact that they've been organized. The left has organizational power and collectivist power they've been dealing with for a long time. But when you see the FBI agents going to Bubba Wallace's, I think it was his name, right? The NASCAR guy over a garage pole rope. But then you see these people show up to judges' homes and there's no law enforcement action. Or the people who were throwing firebombs at federal buildings,

some of which have been charged, mind you, but many who haven't, it is lopsided. The right gets angry and says, we have no justice. If the right starts acting out, which they did on January 6th, and then the boot comes down on them,

which it did, what you have done is you have struck through the heart confidence in the American system. If there is no justice for me, then what's the point of participation? Yeah, well, and so you mentioned that there were certain individuals there who basically had the doors opened for them by the police. They walked through. I think a large section of the country knows that at this point.

They also know that there were people who didn't engage in any kind of misconduct of any sort who were put on trial so for example we have marjorie taylor green is a fantastic example who was i believe they were trying to smear her as an insurrectionist and actually get her charged so that she could not run in her state so the idea is to get people who would otherwise protest peacefully or be involved in you know trying to bring about civic change to just stay home so long as they have a certain perspective. And, of course, that perspective is a conservative one. I want to bring up this op ed from over at Timcast dot com from Josie, the redhead libertarian. She writes, if you're pro abortion after viability and ever wondered if you would have been an abolitionist, I have some bad news for you. She makes an interesting point about Roe v. Wade and Casey, and that basically Roe actually did

entertain the conversation around viability. Quote, this is from Roe v. Wade, as we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a state to decide that at some point in time, potential human life becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole, and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. And according to Roe, the 14th Right to Privacy Clause is not absolute regarding pregnancy. Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision, that the right nonetheless is not absolute and is subject to some limitations.

And that at some point, the state's interests as to protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life become dominant. We agree with this with this approach. Josie writes. So once again, according to Roe, we have a clear understanding that a baby is a baby at viability, and it's fair for states to regulate proposed termination if they so choose. We also have a clear understanding, thanks to Roe, that a mother's personhood may not be absolute at that point in some states, and it's fair for states to regulate proposed termination of a baby if they

so choose. Roe had limited abortion in the first trimester, but thanks to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that part of Roe was overturned, so states can already do what they want, barring absolute bans of the practice. Emotional arguments aside, this is an extreme unpopular and highly unlikely outcome, no matter how many legislators co-sponsor the bill. In terms of property rights, historically, people in some states rejected the idea that they did not have ownership over another human, even when the laws in other states said, yes, this person is a human here. When they believed a separate human belonged to them, that this separate human was less than human and that they could do with that human as they pleased, but by no hyperbole, that was slavery. Here's my thoughts on this. We mentioned last week, almost every instance I can think of,

when there has been an attempt to expand personhood, constitutional rights to a group of people that has ultimately played out. And we've seen that actually with the trans argument. States across the country are now entertaining gender identity as a protected class, even at the federal level in many ways they're doing it. So this happens. Why would babies be the one exception to this tendency throughout history? In which case it seems that the only likely outcome is going to be abortion becoming banned

based on the historical trends. I mean, gender as a protected class is a slippery slope because if someone's able to choose their gender at will and then gain a protection of some sort legally, that's complete insanity. So I don't know. That's what's happening. I think if we're talking about viability, baby viability,

and as viability is getting less and less, it's getting shorter and shorter. Like now a five-month-old baby can be born into an incubator and live there for three months and then as it matures. But I don't know if that's really considered viability because if the plug comes out, then the baby dies. Well, it's an interesting question it's um if the baby can survive independent of a mother i mean there are people who their kidneys fail and they need dialysis but they're still considered viable human beings so the issue is as technology progresses

viability will extend all the way to day one i'd imagine eventually in fact day zero we'll probably be able to we've already grown i think sheep in bags so certainly the same could be done for humans it's just an ethical question of you know not we should not do that so i think we're that's that's that's like a step of like they might start harvesting women's eggs in ovulation because they are viable that's crazy psycho you can't do that well an egg yeah there's a difference between an egg and a zygote like they cannot allow it to well the difference is it's unfertilized but doesn't mean yeah once the sperm enters and you have like a completely unique set of human dna i don't think that there's anyone who argues the only people who argue that an egg cell is equivalent to a zygote or pro-choicers who are

trying to straw man pro-lifers what about like birth birth control why is the church so against birth control uh because the purpose of human sexuality is unity and procreation, and birth control perverts one of those purposes. It's not because there is an act of murder which occurs, which is what we see with abortion. It's for very different reasons. So when we talk about viability, I'm just concerned about the technological aspect of the viability.

I get it like if the mom's not around, the baby's going to die until it's like 11. A child can't take care of itself. But if you're talking about a breathing machine, that's a different story. But I think this question of viability plays exactly into what I was thinking last week with the inevitability of abortion being banned. If technology progresses to the point where a baby is

viable the moment of conception through an artificial womb, and there's a question actually in row about at what point viability makes this life form a person under the Constitution and worthy of protection. If their initial assessment was, well, by the second trimester, you've got a baby with a heartbeat and a brain and all that stuff, so its rights are now in play here. Well, then if the baby is viable from day zero, the moment of conception, then why would

we ever allow abortion? At that point, once technology gets to that point, it seems like, I'll put it this way. The question of trans rights only exists because of the invention, the isolation of hormones. Before we actually knew what hormones were and how to get them, there were people who identified as trans, but there was no hormone replacement therapy. Now that we have that, we have a question constitutionally about how far this can go. And ultimately, we're seeing states starting to enact gender identity protections.

Technology is going to do the same thing for human life in terms of abortion. I think the end result is abortion gets banned. I've always fantasized about some future scenario where they actually isolate the gay gene, the gene that makes you a homosexual, and then conservatives start aborting all their gay babies. And then you have all the people on the left actually coming out and protesting against abortion and trying to ban it. That would be interesting.

I honestly, I don't think conservatives would do that. I don't either. Yeah, I don't. Or is there, there's not actually a gay gene, I don't think. No. I'm living a fantasy. You're spitballing. I was going to say, hey, I've been workshopping this theory, and you guys are welcome to disagree

with me, but one of the reasons that human infants are born and it's so difficult is because their heads are huge, and the reason that they're born so early is because unlike baby giraffes and baby elephants, we don't just get squeezed out on the savannah and start running immediately because we have huge brains. This is part of the reason why you could potentially argue that a three-year-old child is not viable because if you leave a three-year-old child to its own devices, it will die in relatively short order. It will starve. It's unable to feed itself or whatever.

Or be raised by wolves. Oh, yeah, exactly. I mean, that's possible. It's happening. Exactly. No, uh start a city called rome yeah i also viability is a very bizarre way of determining when a person should get rights for a number of reasons but i think most importantly because one of the entire like if not almost the entire reason that we recognize rights politically is to protect the weak from the strong. So the more vulnerable a person is, the more necessary it is to extend rights to them. So to look at viability and say they're actually particularly vulnerable at this point, so we're not going to extend the right to life to them is completely self-defeating.

It's a luxurious way of looking at it in like tribal society, old war society. The most vulnerable will be killed off immediately because they're going to hold the tribe back and get it killed. Exactly. Their rights were not recognized. But we don't want to live in a society where somebody is killed because they're quote-unquote holding us back or because they require more resources or because they can't produce as much. And Ian, this is not Sparta.

No, that's right. You said it like a Spartan, Tim. This is madness. I couldn't, well, you can't do it aggressively because the joke is it's not Sparta. This is not Sparta. We don't put our children, the baby would be born like put in the woods for like a day. And if it didn't survive, they're like, it was weak. I guess viability maybe is can the baby breathe on its own?

After you suction out its lungs, can it just lay there and breathe? There are people with no lungs. There are people who have lung damage and they get put on special machines. So like for a healthy baby, not for one with a deformity or something, but like a healthy, fully formed baby, at what stage of its gestation can it start to breathe on its own? There are people who are born missing certain vital organs and we find ways for them to survive and live.

But those are the – I mean, specifically for, like, healthy-term babies that are five months or four months. I don't think that's – I don't think you can define viability based on that criteria. Well, if you have, like, a loved one on a machine and they can't breathe, you can pull the plug. And if you have a guy with a pacemaker or you have someone with insulin shots, like, come on. That's not an argument. There are diabetic people who have insulin pumps, Bluetooth, with tubes going into their bellies, and that machine is keeping them alive.

Well, they can make the choice for themselves. It's the people that can't make either their brain. Babies and people that have no brain. Basically, they can't choose for themselves, so other people have to decide, are they going to pull the plug? Other people decide, are they going to abort the thing? I don't think viability is a criteria for rights or anything like that.

I just don't see it. You can pull the plug on someone that's in a vegetable state. You can pull the plug on a diabetic. If they're unconscious, maybe. No, no. A six-year-old does not get insulin. You've got to provide it to them and make sure you're the one administering it. I think that's murder.

If you don't give your six-year-old insulin and it dies, you might get— If you have a baby on a ventilator and you shut the one. I think that's murder. If you don't give your six-year-old it's insulin and it dies. If you have a baby on a ventilator, you shut the ventilator off, that's murder. If it doesn't have brain access, it can't make that decision. So someone else has to do it for them. A six-year-old can't make the decision either. Well, technically they can. They have brain activity. I'm just talking about people without brain activity or like babies in the womb where you can't communicate with them. There are people who experience loss of brain function and go into comas for very long periods of time and they recover. So if you unplug them, you're killing them. And the

challenge morally is that sometimes we're like is this person going to recover? And people have to make a hard decision about whether we say it's time or it's not. And the scary thing is sometimes after long periods of time, years, people do recover. So do you want to be the person pulling the plug? But my point is it's legal to pull the plug in those situations.

And if it's someone that's healthy, it's not legal to have them killed. And an unborn child is healthy and they're developing. They're just not at a stage of development where they can make choices. So that's a different scenario. So in the environment of if they're taken out of the womb at four and a half months, they're not going to be healthy. But if you remove them from the womb, yeah, I mean, they could be perfectly healthy at that stage of development. Yeah, but relative to their environment.

And that's also part of why you can't remove them. I mean, you can't remove someone from an environment where they're perfectly healthy and say, you know what, I'm not going to give you the treatment that you need given the fact that I just stripped you from the environment that's good for you. I think the legal argument would then be, oh, you can remove them so long as you replace 100% with what you've taken from them. Right. So if we get to the point technologically where a baby can, at whatever stage, be it one week, two weeks, or even one day, be placed in an artificial womb, I think the termination of the baby becomes illegal outright.

Now, abortion, in some sense, like the removing of the baby from the womb, I think becomes overtly legal at all stages at that point because then the baby will always survive. I truly believe if they do that, day one, you can take it out and put it in a machine, that it's going to lead to people harvesting eggs and saying you cannot ovulate. It is illegal for you to ovulate. No, come on, man. Now, that's absurd. I know. It sounds absurd, but the CCP does stuff like that.

Well, I mean, yeah, maybe the CCP might do crazy stuff like that. If we start legislating, they have to give this one-day-old thing to the world. And then, like, why not day zero? Why not day negative one? Because the point would be when life begins at conception. But those eggs are alive. They're just not human fertilized. It's living tissue.

It's when an egg is fertilized.'re not it's living tissue it's it's when when an egg is fertilized when a man loves a woman yes life begins a conception an egg is is is a component of the creation of life but it is not the life well it's a it's a it's a piece of living meat or whatever it is it's the egg itself i don't know what's composed of i think the question is there's no potential there's no potential life so That's what it is, is potential life. No, only when it meets with the sperm and then it becomes fertilized. Then it's kinetic life. So like I got eggs from the chickens.

They sit on the shelf until they rot and explode. There's no potential there unless they're fertilized. Oh, I disagree. And even if they're fertilized, they require specific conditions. But anyway, let's move on. I think we'll just end up walking through this. I mean, Darrell, what do you think? You've been listening.

Well, I think this is obviously an incredibly complex moral question, right, which is why I think the conservative perspective on this is not to seek a maximalist position, trying to ban abortion or drive it back to the first day after fertilization, but to recognize the complexity of it, recognize that there are probably irreconcilable views that people are going to have and allow Alabama and New York to have different abortion laws that they work out through the discourse and their democratic processes. You know, it's I think it's it's going back to the idea of like conservative the way conservatives look at politics as something that is that we engage in to make sure that we all wake up tomorrow. We're not killing each other. I think that's, in that sense, the conservative way of approaching it.

I mean, if the way humans gave birth was a woman got fertilized and then the egg popped out and then you put it in a plastic bag in the fridge and then it grew into a human, like after that. That was just how humans evolved, say, to then we wouldn't allow abortion at all. You would have it there in the bag that came out the first day and we'd be like, no, you can't flush that thing down the toilet. We'll take it or whatever. But you can't do that to it. This question only becomes really relevant because you're dealing with a very real rights claim, a woman's right to control what goes on with her body. That is however anybody feels about abortion. You have lots of

people, I think, libertarian types maybe who are anti-abortion, but they're very like, they want to end the drug war because they think that a person wants to put something into their body, then they should be able to. It's bodily autonomy. It's a real argument that conservatives I think have have more recently done a better job of of dealing with but it's something that you know it does have to be dealt with i mean you're you're talking about uh you know just basic basic rights when you're talking about somebody's ability to control what happens with their body i want to i want to jump

to this uh this post here from our good friends over at 2x chromosomes on reddit a top post says delete your dating apps no more women on dating apps is the only language men speak plus the less time you spend on tinder the more time you can spend protesting at the courthouse edit to all men coming on here crying about how you're against this of course you are that's the point f off you know i love about this the kind of guy that's going to go to these women and be like, please don't leave the dating app. But I'm for abortion. I'm an ally. I'm an ally.

I'm a good guy. They're just angering their own side, these men who are doing what they want. Meanwhile, conservatives are like, no, wait, don't. Don't delete your dating apps. Well, I mean, look, it just goes to show you that, like, feminists don't like male feminists either. Yeah, I mean, who does? Who doesn't? No, but I think it's funny that this is the consistent argument.

So we have this one post says, I deleted mine a while ago, but before this leak, I was just starting to consider trying again. Nope, F it. I'll stick to a vibrator in my imagination. Mr. Buzzy can't get me pregnant, can't lie about not having an STI, doesn't care if I also see Mr. Rabbit or look at a Hitachi at the store. Yo, this is

there's what's the right word? I don't want to say they're crazy, but they're kind of crazy to not understand the nuance in what's happening here, that they can, they don't know what conservatives think about this. They've probably never even spoken to someone who is anti-abortion about what's really going on and why they think it. And the

fact that these women probably live in blue states. I'm just, I genuinely do not understand. I don't, I don't believe they actually know what they're arguing for or against. Do you think that's what they're doing outside the Supreme Court Justice House? They're deleting Tinder? They're like, look, Kevin, on Nightmare Nightmare, you're going to see me. You're going to be able to swipe. Delete. There are so many examples of the left circling back and coming back to traditional social positions through a back door. I remember a few months ago, I was listening to Jordan Peterson interview this child psychologist

from Canada. Apparently, he's a big wig. He won the Nobel Prize of Child Psychology or whatever. And he deals with designing state interventions for children in disadvantaged homes and studies like how this affects their antisocial behavior, their violent behavior and stuff as they get older. And so he's describing how all these different programs would work. And he's describing this one in the middle. He says, so what we'll do

is we'll have a social worker that'll come into the house, you know, of a single mother who maybe doesn't have any experience, doesn't really know like how to handle certain things when the kid does this or does that, how they're trying to communicate.

And the social worker will be there who has this experience who can kind of tell them like oh this is what the kid is trying to do and like kind of walk them through these processes and peterson kind of pauses for a minute he goes well that sounds like a grandmother and it's like then i realized everything he had been describing were just bureaucratic replacements for all of the things that have been lost over the last several decades. And that was one of them. And this is kind of, it just sort of happens that way. I want to mention there's also an additional component to this. You're correct that the left will end up in a roundabout way rediscovering some form of social conservatism or traditionalism.

And then at that point, the right starts defending whatever it is the left was pushing for 50 years ago. And so historically, before we just had these like isolated nuclear families, people did tend to live with their older relatives, their older aunts or uncles or, you know, parents were still living with them, helping them with the children. And now we're at a point where people are putting their father or mother in a nursing home when it's unnecessary just because they don't want to deal with them, and they're calling themselves pro-family conservatives. Have you seen now what the far right is pushing? This is how it gets here.

They want this insane meme of rejecting modernity and returning to tradition. You're going to be shocked by what I'm going to show you. In a tweet from Jack Posobiec. He says, remember what they took from you. He's right, though. In this shocking image. It's Pizza Hut. And the Pac-Man machine book it.

The red cups. The little dinosaurs. Care bears. The Pizza Hut lamp. So Jack has been going on this what is it pizza hut nationalism he loves pizza where it's like pizza it used to be great and now it's basically i'm kidding by the way about the far right you know stuff the uh oh the weird pizza claymation or whatever it was he was telling a story how he what he took his kids to pizza hut because he remembered what it

was like when he was a kid and it was was just trash. There was garbage everywhere. It was messy. It was like, what is this? And, you know, I'll say he's obviously joking quite a bit, but there is a bit of truth into what he's saying. That there were things that we had that were nice that are now gone, that have fallen apart. And you mentioned it was a bureaucratic replacement. Daryl, you're talking about a grandmother and the state's replacement. I kind of feel like that's where we're going, where Pizza Hut still exists,

but you go inside and it's a dry shell, lacking flavor, lacking anything other than you sit down, here's your pizza, get out. The same thing happened after the 1960s. You go to 1973 is when George Lucas, who was part of

the new directors movement like these rebellious dennis hopper like all these new director types in the late 60s easy rider all that george lucas in 1973 makes american graffiti which is sort of it began the the sort of 1950 the cult of 1950s nostalgia right it's i don't know if you guys have ever seen it it's like as much of a stereotypical kind of 1950s childhood movie as you can imagine and he was open about like why he did it he said because everything that comes out now is depressing it sucks and for like the last several years every film that's come out has just told us how bad we are how evil the war is how etc etc and i just didn't want any more of that and i don't think a lot of other people do too and it started that trend happy days came out like a year or two later after that and for us i think we're kind of going through a similar thing

in the 80s and the early 90s are kind of our 1950s you know there's that 70s show which was the late 90s right yep and the crazy thing is i think is it is this true that uh yeah yeah that 70s show was closer to the time period when it was released than we are to the 90s now. Ugh. Gross. So they're actually doing a reboot, I think. Aren't they doing a reboot of that 90s show? And it's about the cast of that 70s show.

Oh, my gosh. Wow. They tried to do that 80s show. Do you remember that? Yeah. Oh, I thought you were going to say no. No, but I think it might just be that people have nostalgia for when they were kids and they always thought it was better. It looks like Yum! Food Brands bought, I don't know if they bought

Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC in 97. Basically, this Tricon Global Restaurants Incorporated in 97, 1997. It came out of PepsiCo. It's kind of obfuscated as to who owns what here, but I think they all got merged. I just got to point out that

I have fond memories of going to Pizza Hut when I was a kid when you would get the bucket thing. You'd get the little wheel or whatever with all the things you win. And you go in and you get like a little pizza because you read the books or whatever. And Jack is obviously making a, you know, he's being silly about it. But there are people on the left that are really upset about Jack's statements about pizza that genuinely confuse me. It was fun going to pizza when we were kids. Everything else is meant to be more silly and a joke,

but talking about how, you know, the things we did back then, we don't do anymore, and it kind of sucks. And times won't stay the same forever. But it's just funny how angry they got. Well, they hate fun. They literally hate fun. I disagree. I think they're addicted to it.

People have nostalgia for their childhoods all the time, obviously, because your childhood was the time before everything got so complicated. But that is also true on a real societal level in this particular age as well. I don't know how old all of you guys are exactly, but I'm right at that age where I was right in that sweet spot where I lived enough of my life, about 20 years before I ever really got on the Internet, I kind of knew about it. And I would, you know.

How old are you? I'm 40. Oh, OK. And so right at that age where you have enough experience of the world, what it was like before everybody had smartphones and everything. And yet you're young enough that you can just you can pick it up and you can learn it and you can kind of get fully integrated. And, you know, it has, uh,

it's radically changed things and I think it's made things more complicated. These kids today will not know the joy of hearing the phone ring and racing your sibling full speed to try and answer it first. Or, um, be watching something on television and having to like go grab your snack during the commercial break. Actually,

to be honest though, that is coming back to a lot of streaming services. Real quick, there was a funny post where someone said the kids today will never know the joy of rushing to the kitchen to grab snacks during a commercial break and your sibling yelling, it's on. That's right. And then it was on Tumblr. Someone said they couldn't just pause it. And then someone said, oh, my sweet summer child. That's hilarious.

But I will say I do think there's more to it than nostalgia. So you mentioned the filmmakers of the 70s, and I've heard it said that part of why Star Wars was so successful, and I'm not really much of a fan, but I've heard it argued part of why it was successful is because in that era, in the 60s and 70s, so much of what was being produced was depressing but also sort of morally ambiguous.

They didn't want to have a clear-cut good guy, bad guy narrative, but Star Wars leaned very heavily into that. And now, you see a lot of fans arguing online on Twitter that, we need to have the Grey Jedi and this series needs to be more about moral ambiguity, even though a huge part of what made it successful was the fact

that they were willing to draw clear lines between what's good and bad. It was kind of a story of Christ. Star Wars, the first one, Luke was fighting against the Empire like Jesus did. And he had magic powers like Christ did and stuff like that. Well, it was a hero's journey. The hero's journey is very much. But I want to make a point. There's a meme where the NPC guy says, who radicalized you?

And then the Chad guy says, I'm just a normal person from 10 years ago. A bunch of people on the left were like, see, that proves you're conservative. And I'm just like, bro, top surgery for 14-year-old girls? There's a big difference between being progressive and just like having no control. And my point was the eugenics movement of the progressives in the 1900s died and was considered amoral or immoral and unethical. Just because you think, just because the progressives think they're going to win doesn't mean their ideas are good.

And just because you oppose them doesn't mean you're a conservative. Technically, I'd argue, if you're a progressive, you hold values from the early 1900s. That sounds a bit conservative. But artificial insemination is eugenics. I brought this up before and people messaged me and were like, thank you, that kind of got glazed over. Well, unless you mate with the very first sexually available person you meet, then you're kind of a eugenicist, right?

Well, but I mean – Any selectivity at all is like you're doing a little – But hold on. Look at women going to sperm banks and then getting a catalog of the males to choose from, right? So I understand the argument that like a woman will make her choices, but eugenics, I think, is better defined by preventing people from procreating. Yeah. And so there are a lot of... I think it's choosing who they procreate with, whether it's no one or...

Eugenics was about good breeding. The idea was that you would have the best possible breeding. Now, obviously, men and women both select their mates. So when a woman goes to a sperm bank and she's like, here's the catalog of men, it's like a guy wearing a suit. It's like IQ 145 and he's six figure salary. That's, it's an extreme version of female selection, which I don't, it's like, okay, it's a weird modernity thing. But I think eugenics is really sour and bad when it was like we must prevent this group from having kids or terminate the children that may have these traits yeah that's

the ugly head of eugenics that's for sure yeah mate selection i think is normal and fine you know a woman's going to be like honestly dude you're like but i don't want to have a baby with you it's like well that's life it used to be like they would choose the parents would choose who the kids married for most of history, I think. And we found that to be wrong. You know, we did away with eugenics in terms of parents choosing who their kids would marry and dowries and all that.

And then we also decided you should stop people from having kids, which is what Margaret Sanger wanted to do. Like she, I mean, look, whatever you want to argue from the left, they want to say she wasn't racist or whatever, fine. But she did want to, she did argue literally and fought very hard to stop certain people from having kids.

Yeah, no, she was absolutely racist and she was eugenicist. But I wouldn't argue that arranged marriage is eugenics because they were not selecting the partner for their child necessarily on the basis of something like genetic fitness. It could be this is a morally virtuous person and so i want my child to marry them or the dad is rich yeah it depended on the choice of the parent they could be like i want you to have the most beautiful wife but usually it was for money i mean when it came to the royal families they did not care for genetics at all so i wouldn't call that eugenics. Yeah, it's about land rights and stuff. They want the wife to have ownership. Like, she's

going to get the county of Brussels, so I'm going to marry her to my son who has the kingdom of England and consolidate power. All these kings in World War I were cousins? Yeah. That's what I hear. Before we go too far away from this Pizza Hut thing, Yum Food Brands was spun up to purchase

KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut and the top owners. Yum Food Brands was spun up to purchase KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. And the top owners of Yum Food Brands are Vanguard, BlackRock at 4%, State Street at 4%, T. Rowe Price Associates. Dude, I just want to... When people say that meme reject modernity and embrace tradition,

the one thing I will say, I mentioned before, when you're a tourist in key parts of the world and you come to the famous downtown area of some city in some faraway country and it's mcdonald's starbucks gucci hard rock cafe you just throw up a little bit you're just like what is this is this is this it the world will have nothing left to offer us yeah there's no adventure there's no there's no diversity you know the left talks about diversity all day and night but i tell you when i went to the bahamas and i was like i guess i'll go to starbucks i'm like that's not fun the doubt the weird thing is when you're in another country and

they only have like little like coffee shops where they make the coffee and they're burning the bean and it doesn't taste you're like oh this is all then you see a starbucks it's like an oasis in the desert and you're like i can get a standardized thing that i know what it's going to taste like thank god and you go there and you get a real coffee just exactly like it always tastes. That's the upside of this. Standardization. I'll tell you this. If I am in some small

faraway country and their burgers are weird and gross, I still will not go to McDonald's. Not McDonald's. Starbucks is decent. Starbucks cold brew I actually really like. I think they have quality coffee. I got to do that. Starbucks cold brew is decent. Starbucks is... Starbucks cold brew, I actually really like. I think they have quality coffee. I got to do that.

Starbucks cold brew is good. McDonald's, though, is trash. I don't like Starbucks coffee, though. I don't think a Starbucks is fast food, really. I don't ever eat their food, really. So I wanted to say, before we move on to this Pizza Hut thing, I would think that nostalgia would be the one thing that would be truly bipartisan, that everybody of about the same age would really resonate with.

But you were talking about the sinews that hold people together at a very low level. I think this is one of those things. The fact that we can't even agree on some kind of fond childhood memory is kind of crushing to watch. Like, that's distressing that we don't even agree about that. What's wrong with us? I think childhood today is being destroyed on purpose. I think we as millennials have a kind of shared experience in these cultural phenomena from when we were little, like Book It and Pizza Hut. So when Jack Posobiec posts the red cups and the

little pan pizzas, many of us go, I remember that. Even if it was just one time you went because your school gave you those little things, like if you read enough books, the teacher would sign off, and then Pizza Hut would give you a little free pizza so you'd get it. That's a shared cultural experience. Now what do we have? The shared cultural experience is all like the weird stuff kids are being taught in schools. Marvel movies. Yeah, I was just about to bring that up.

I mean, childhood has in some way been redistributed to adults, so we've extended adolescence as far as we possibly could. I mean, maybe not as far as we possibly could. We're probably pushing to extend it even further. I've been saying this. They are preventing adulthood.

That's what's happening. Whether intentional or not. Puberty blockers preventing adulthood. Millennials have 3%. Fact check me on this one, but there's a meme going around. It's like millennials have 3% of U.S. wealth and boomers have 21%. That sounds great. It's the poorest generation in history. And I think it's because boomers are living longer.

And I think it's because millennials were poorly raised. Yeah, I think that's a huge part of it. I also think that it's the case that when you look at the way children are raised today, I sort of mentioned that we've redistributed childhood, right? Because we prolong adolescence, but on top of that, it's not as if we give to children what was traditionally given to them. So at a very young age, eight, nine, 10 years old, a kid is handed a smartphone, which is a tool for an adult to use, but they just use it to do unrestrained, irresponsible things. And then they continue to do that until they're 30 instead of using this tool

for something productive. So it's very strange and it's a rejection of responsibility, sadly, and no culture can function once that becomes the status quo. Let's poll the audience in a way that unashamedly promotes the show. Smash the like button if you think kids should not have cell phones. There you go. I've been thinking a lot about this because we talk about kids getting access to the internet. What age should they get access to the internet and what's it going to do to their brain to have all that information blasted at me? And then I started thinking, you know what? That happened to me when I was 26 years old. I got on YouTube and people started hitting me with all this

information. So I started looking up the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, the Bank of International Settlements, the American War Machine, liberal economic order. And I'm like, wow, we're not – I went insane. Society would have classified me as insane. I was completely destroyed mentally and had to rebuild what I thought I was. That's happening to kids when they're 5, 7, 8. And it's happening to adults when they're 60. So this internet's danger, man.

It's the danger zone. It's a minefield for the mind. We got to treat it like that. Yeah, and it subverts this process of growing up, right? Where like we were talking before the show about this plan I have for my kids where I'm going to have like a library and there's going to be bookshelves full of books

so that the kids grow up and they're just used to there being books all around. And my plan is like the books at the very bottom, those are going to be kids books. You get up a little higher, a little higher, a little higher. Those are going to be the ones where I can tell my kid, you're not ready for that yet. And then they're going to be like, oh, I want that book. Now that's something that happened like with all of childhood back in the days. There were things that you were not old enough for yet that you don't get to see that. You don't get to experience that yet. You're just not old enough.

You're not at that point. And it creates that sort of yearning to mature and grow up. And now, because of smartphones and just the permissiveness of the way we raise kids, you're seven years old. You can see anything.

You can do anything. I am shocked and offended by how you describe what your children will be reading. Clearly, the only things they should be allowed to read are Harry Potter and The Handmaid's Tale. The Handmaid's Tale.

Come on. The Handmaid's Tale. What was the joke? We're going to synthesize them and do a reboot that lefties will really pay money for. It's going to be called Harry's Handmaid. Harry Handmaid. Harry Handmaid.

What was that? Harry Handmaid and the Sorcerer's Tale, something like that, Philosopher's Tale. So good. You're a handmade Harry. I like this idea that you're going to have books for your kids. One time my dad was telling – I was in the bathtub. I was like six or something or seven, and he started to tell me a joke, and then he was like, I'll tell you when you're older.

And I was like, no. He was like, I'll tell you when you're older. So like 15 years went by. And then it's like a rite of passage when he finally tells you. You're like, oh, I've arrived. Well, 15 years went by, and I asked him, what was that joke you were going to tell me? And he was like, I don't remember what you're talking about. So make sure they get a chance to read the books.

When I was little, we had cable. And the cable box, man, I remember this is crazy, had parental lock on it. Four-digit code. And whenever we wanted to watch Beavis and Butthead, my mom had to be like, only if I'm there. And I decide you're allowed to watch it. Because some of those episodes of Beavis and Buddies, not for little kids, but some of them were just hilarious. Yeah.

There's something my dad said to me when I was growing up, which is that, and he was referring to the television, but this is the first time in human history that people let complete strangers into their house to teach their children things without any kind of filter. And when you put it that way it becomes clear just how alarming the situation is and yeah is this millennials doing it what do you mean well my dad is referring no he was referring to his own generation and the fact that they sit their kids in front of the television or don't police what they're watching they don't filter any of it

and so it's very very sad it's very sad And there are so many horrible things kids get into at an early age. I mean, we're not just talking about bad political theories or horrible advice. Children end up seeing pornography at a very early age, and it warps them. Dude, when I was in seventh grade, we had that one kid that every male friend group has who was like the pervert kid, right? And he brought a couple of his dad's Playboys to school one time. And everybody who found out about it was like the pervert kid right and he brought a couple of his dad's playboys to school one time and everybody like who found out about was like oh my god a couple playboys and then he got caught by the teacher and we're like well he's dead I mean he's clearly going to be executed like on the playground like his life is completely over and it's like now today little Johnny brings

a cell phone to school and you got to explain to your six-year-old what x y and z that's terrifying and instead of being like kids shouldn't have cell phones you have these teachers being like kids have questions yep and we're going to answer them and show them graphic pictures i love it uh the the washington post's right that op-ed where it's like it's a book about being gender queer and kids need these stories and it's being now. And then Amazon's like 18 and up only because it's got graphic depictions of adult activities in it. Well, and they would not put the actual images from the book in their publication because they knew they were too depraved.

They were arguing that children should be shown those images in public schools. That's how you know they're creeps. Yep. Because they know what's in the book and they're lying. Yeah, it's really remarkable, actually, if you go back to the late 60s, how many of the radicals from that era, after they got done being fake revolutionaries, went into early elementary education or went into the educational training. You have guys like Daniel Combe-Bendit out in France.

He was a big revolutionary, 68 guy out there. And afterwards, he went and opened a kindergarten and then he wrote a memoir about it a few years after that and he talked about this is like in the mid 70s talking about how you know there's all of this sexual repression is what leads to fascism and the authoritarian personality and everything and so if he caught like a couple of his kids like fondling each other or something he would just sit there and like talk to them while they did it and make sure they were comfortable. Sometimes they would come up and touch him.

What? This guy, this guy became like a politician in France. Nobody cared. It got brought up sometime in the late nineties. They tried to like use it against him and nobody cared. Yeah. So I've, I've mentioned this on the show before, but there's a follow by the name or a disgusting pervert by the name of Alfred Kinsey.

And he is known as the father of the sexual revolution. He is the father of sexology or the modern scientific field of studying human sexuality. And in his published works, he had data tables that were collected by sexually abusing young boys. And this had been done to over 200 minors, boys under the age of 15, including infants. I won't explain what the table say on air it's really disgusting but so much of this stuff is completely out in the open and the boomer generation is comedic in a sense because i remember growing up watching movies that the boomer generation made about how heroic the boomer generation was and there's this idea

that they were these brave revolutionaries because their parents who had just lived through the great depression and then fought in the second world war came home and said, you know, like we have some advice on how the world works and you should listen to us. And they said, screw you mom and dad, I'm going to have one night stands and listen to rock and roll. And this is considered this really brave and important revolution. It was just a bunch of spoiled children. It was just a bunch of spoiled children. It was just a bunch of spoiled children completely tarnishing and squandering their inheritance. I want to bring up this tweet here. It's from me. There's a tweet from Stonewall Jackson I responded to where he says, this is so pathetic. The new Star Trek show depicts what

appears to be the January 6th protests leading to the end of the world and the human race as we know it. I actually, I find the clip from the new star trek show very interesting they call january 6th a fight for freedom yeah no no so um i don't know if we can play it because you know they're very litigious here on youtube but he says it started with a fight for freedom shows audit the vote in january 6th and then the protests from the summer. And he says it ultimately led to the eugenics war and then finally World War Three, where hundreds of thousands of species were wiped out. But hold on there a minute. Is that not plausible? It starts with a fight for freedom. So they describe January 6th. They show kind of crazy. They would call January 6th a fight for freedom, but sure. Led to the eugenics wars.

Well, hold on. What's happening right now? Roe v. Wade is being banned, and the left is going to the homes of Supreme Court justices, and there's a pro-life nonprofit at a Molotov cocktail thrown through its window, reportedly. That's the accusation. And several pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized. In this show, where maybe they didn't realize it it makes sense plausible in today's day and age a eugenics war yeah the abortion issue i think it's kind of

poorly written because if there was really at the second then they go it led to the uh which led to civil war which then led to war well he says ultimately world war ultimately world war what he would really be saying is then china and the United States, and he'd talk about World War. The stuff leading up to it is forgotten. No, no, no. Hold on. I think this actually works. Let me break it down for you.

It's political crap. You've got January 6th, a fight for freedom, as he calls it. You then have people are fighting, tensions are rising. Roe v. Wade gets overturned, and then all of a sudden you have blue states outright saying abortion, even in Virginia, after birth. And the media will claim it's not true. But we all heard what Northam said. The baby would be delivered, resuscitated if that's what they wanted and kept comfortable. And then a conversation would happen, which basically means what?

Fine. What's the conversation about? Let's just say, well, he wasn't specific. Colorado, limitless, no restricted abortion. Could this lead to a conflict, which is about whether or not some people should not have kids or should? It's happening. How could it then become World War III?

He may be oversimplifying it. But the political conflict inside the United States could ultimately result in a unipolar world destabilizing, China expanding in various countries, Russia expanding in Eastern Europe, the US still trying to maintain unipolar dominance, and then World War III. I think it's fascinating they wrote this through it, but I will start with the point where they described January 6th as a fight for freedom. Yeah, I think, and I'm sure you know this, I appreciate your analysis, but obviously they were trying to smear the right, more or less put it on conservatives. You really don't think so? You think they're trying to beear the right, more or less put it on conservatives. You really don't think so?

You think they're trying to be neutral? In what way could you – he literally shows January 6th as a fight for freedom. How could you in any way say he's trying to smear them? Well, I think when you look at the track record of Hollywood and their analysis of current events, they tend to come down on the side of the left. And I would also argue that for a television show to explicitly say they were in favor of what happened on january 6th would basically be suicide you would have said it started with disinformation riling up disaffected citizens into believing their country was stolen from them and rioting which sparked a civil war no he said a fight for freedom january 6th wasn't a fight there was a few people that got into it maybe but it wasn't a it was just a protest maybe

he was talking about the feds and he's like those feds were fighting for freedom it does then show summer of love stuff you know so yeah so also it's possible you know they write the dialogue and then the editor ends up placing certain images over the dialogue that the writer might not have intended but you know i kind of i think i agree with you i, about the point that it's a little bit lazy. So it's not abnormal for a science fiction show about the future to comment on current events or at least contemporary culture. But to do it in a really over-the-top way like this seems really lazy. Instead of creating an allegory for it or having characters in the future present a situation you might be more detached from than the current event. They are literally showing things that happened today and commenting on it.

I think it's a ripoff of a Star Trek episode where Data asks about terrorism because they visit a planet where there are terrorists. And then he mentions, Data says, I don't understand some elements of their conduct. You know, we say it's wrong to do these things, but it's actually been quite successful for many groups. And then he mentions Mexico, Ireland, and then he mentions a fictitious 2020, you know, 2022 or 2220 something event, Star Trek World. And basically what Data does is he asks a question about terrorism using real historical elements and then a fictitious sci-fi element from the future we haven't encountered yet, it seems to be the exact same thing they're doing. It's lazy.

It's very lazy. It's video footage from last year, too. That's why I watch Star Trek. That's why I watch sci-fi shows about the future. I want to see video footage from last year. Yeah, right, right. What the heck. Laziness.

But I don't know. I find it fascinating. I wonder, you know, laziness or short-sightedness or like a lack of creativity on the the or a political underhanded move by yeah i don't think you can i mean i haven't seen the clip but i don't think you can put a january 6th clip in that context on a show without it being a political decision i mean i think that's something that's done on purpose yeah absolutely well that also shows it shows a george. I mean, I think that's something that's done on purpose. Yeah, absolutely. Well, that also shows, it shows that George Floyd's right.

Yeah, okay, yeah. Well, and of course, this kind of thing affects rewatchability. Like, if you, you know, people will go back and rewatch episodes of TNG or the original series, and I don't think, I really don't think people are going to be going back and rewatching this 15, 20 years from now, not many of them. I'm not watching it the first time. I'm a huge Star Trek fan.

They've just... You know what it is? They hired a bunch of people who hate Star Trek to write Star Trek. Is this the one with Stacey Abrams? She made an appearance as the president of the planets or something? Did you guys... That was Discovery, I think. Stacey Abrams, the

president of Earth. Okay, political Star Trek trash again they have a politician as a character you know you mentioned this earlier we were talking before the show about the late night TV

and how they're in the key demo we actually rival some late night television shows which is actually really bad for them because they used to get

20 million views and the funny thing is you mentioned how older people watch those shows they used to watch it every night but now all of a sudden they're being made fun of this And the funny thing is, you mentioned how older people watch those shows. They used to watch it every night, but now all of a sudden they're being made fun of. This is the funny thing. Like Jimmy Kimmel, for instance, in like the late night, the people who are watching CNN, the people who are watching these shows, the overwhelming

majority are like 60 to 70 years old. And they're trying to make the politics of these shows fit a millennial leftist or progressive worldview. And it's like, well, that's not the boomer generation. So your show used to actually attract tens of millions of people in the boomer generation. You've decided to sacrifice all of that for millennials who consume digital media. They should just be making a new show. They should keep that show with older hosts to keep talking to the older crowd that was young in the 80s when David Letterman was in his 30s. And then they should have a new show. They should keep that show with older hosts to keep talking to the older crowd that was young in the 80s when David Letterman was in

his 30s. And then they should have a new show. But they're competing for time slots, which is also archaic because people watch stuff on YouTube at any time of day. You don't need... Stuff's on demand now. People... Industry... I don't know. I don't want to make a generalization about industry being slow to adopt

the hot new thing, but the entertainment industry sure is. They were still making me mail headshots in in like 2008 because sending a digital thing was apparently just – they just didn't – it was too new, so it wasn't good. Are we just going through the natural progression of old fogeyism where we're like, it was better when I was a kid? Yeah, man. I mean, I'm 27, but I'm already there. New content is bad.

I did hear you say these kids today. Remember the Simpsons thing, where Abe was talking to a young Homer, and he's like, it'll happen to you too. I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what it is is scary to me. It'll happen to you.

I think children today are smarter than the previous generation intellectually, and their minds work quicker. And that's the natural progression of evolution. But emotionally, we're experiencing some challenges because of the disconnectedness of the technology. You know what I was thinking, though? I wonder if that's true because I know kids today are still very much passionate about capturing small animals and forcing them to fight each other. Yeah, yeah. It's really big deal. We went to a bowling alley arcade the other day, and all the kids just love forcing animals to fight, brutally just beat each other.

And tons of Pokemon toys everywhere. Yeah. I grew up with pokemon i remember when the when it i guess it first started the like in america and i bought pokemon red on the original game boy with money i made at my family's cafe from tips and uh today kids are still very much watching pokemon and the toys are like the big prize at the arcade where pokemon stuff i was talking to somebody the i guess a couple months ago now did you know there are pokemon cards that get sold for a half a million dollars yes i didn't know it was that much of them gary v is a big proponent he had to show me on his phone i did not believe him i just the funny thing is like having owned so many foil first edition

pokemon cards and then just like having lost them or sold them painful now it's it's it's like a laughable when i'm like that's how much they're going for these days? Wow. Because the printing run was so low? I don't know. Because look, millennials are broke, right? Millennials are relatively poor. So who cares that much about Pokemon other than nostalgic millennials? So I guess there's a spattering of wealthy millennials who are like, I would like to buy a Charizard for a million bucks.

It's got to just be speculators in the market, right? I don't think it's like a Pokemon fan who's like, I've got to have that card. There's some dude who's like, there's like a Gen Z. I mean, Jake Ball. He mowed a lot of lawns that summer, and he needed that Pokemon card. No, no, no. Think about it. If you're Gen Z right now, it is a great bet to buy old Pokemon cards because once the

boomers age out and then millennials inherit a lot of this wealth, you're going to have a bunch of nostalgic, rich 60-year-old millennials and you're going to be in your mid-40s and you're going to be like, you want that Charizard, I got it. And that $100,000 is going to be 10 million bucks. That theme that you just talked about,

about millennials not having any money, has come up a couple times and it seems like that's one of the threads that kind of ties everything together politically and socially right now, right? Where if you go back to like the late 60s again, people, you know, middle-aged people were looking at the colleges, looking at the youth movement. And they were like, oh, my God, like when these people take over our society, like actually go out and get into authority positions. Like we're just, I guess we're just done.

This is the end of America, the end of the world. And of course, it turned out not to be that way because those people got out of college and they got jobs and bought houses and had kids. And then once you get to that point, you kind of care about what your community is going to be like in 10 years. You care about what kind of schools your kids are going to. And that's another way of saying you basically become a conservative in a lot of important like dispositional ways. You look at the millennial generation. And so what happens, right? So every like 25 years or so is like when that happens in the past. You get to about 25, maybe late 20s.

By that point, your parents are starting to be like, are you not going to get married yet? Like what's going on? There was that, that was the timing of it. The millennials has had like that period, that young person period has had so much more room to run because they're in their mid to late 30s and they're not able to get married and have kids and buy houses or create a stable career. I don't think that's it. I've heard a lot from millennials where they're like, we'd be getting married and having kids if it wasn't for this economy.

And I'm like, I don't believe it. I just think that's an excuse. I think people are just permanent children. Well, the economy is in a horrific state. When Obama bailed out Freddie May and Freddie Mac, and when we all found out we were on fiat currency and not the gold standard in 2007, everybody got the red

pill, that was like, oh, and now we're, what are we just, are we in hyperinflation right now? I don't know if you'd call it hyperinflation, but we've just almost doubled our money supply. I'll call myself outright, I'm 36, I am not married. I'm in a relationship, but we have no kids doubled our money supply. I'll call myself out outright. I'm 36. I am not married. I'm in a relationship, but we have no kids.

There is something about millennials where it just didn't happen. Well, but values change to accommodate reality, right? I just think about I was just ahead of this curve. I guess I got lucky for that. But if you're about 35, about your age, you basically got out of high school, 9-11 happens. We've been at war ever since you've been anything like an adult, right? And the only politics that you've known is people screaming at each other, calling each other Nazis and so forth. And that's it. That's our politics as far as since you've ever been paying attention

to politics, that's what it's been. You just get out of college and like the year or two after you get out of college, the financial crisis hits and things are just a waste for several years. You finally start to maybe get back on your feet in your mid thirties and you're starting to put something together. COVID hits like this is just an incredible amount of instability for any generation to handle. And, you know, the millennials are going to be the first generation in American history that has a lower standard of living than their parents do. And you cannot overstate, I think, how significant that is, right? Because it's not just like, oh, my parents had a house that was this big and I only get a house that's this big. What people relate it to, like what their basic standard of what a life should look like is how things were when they were growing up. And so you have an entire generation of people who, in the aggregate,

grew up a certain way and are starting to realize and understand that they are going to take a step back from where that was. And that's, you know, it's not some, like, huge mystery why we get Bernie Sanders at a time like this. There's this viral video about pod housing where people, these companies will buy a decently large loft and then stack up

five little cubes and then five on top and you crawl into this little, it's probably five feet wide, no, four feet wide, four feet high and you crawl into your little mat on the floor with your TV and your

art, and that's your pod. Everyone shares the kitchen and bathrooms. And there's videos of these millennials being like, it's just so awesome. It's only $800 per month, and it's just like, oh no, for real. You want to live in some of these cities, man.

It's only four a month with a roommate. You're going to get communism. You're going to get little hippie houses, buildings, where there's going to be like 50 millennials all living in it and they're sharing their kids. Like their kids are going to be just communal kids, I mean. I saw a tweet, and I need to verify this one, but I believe it was from the World Economic Forum,

and it showed young people about our age living in a tiny house, and it said if you own a big house, you're racist. You need to own a small house. You need to own nothing and be happy about it. And I was telling my dad about this when he came out a little while ago. I said, Dad, I feel a great sense of almost resentment, but very much a sense of missing something that we never had, because I know now that the American dream that I grew up with is not something that I will ever see. I will never see my white pick I grew up with is not something that I will ever see.

I will never see my white picket fence. That's not something that I'm ever going to have. Yeah, the American dream was based on imperialism and war. It wasn't a real thing. I think one of the issues is I also think millennials are the first generation of mass debt college students. I don't think Gen X, for the most part, was inundated the same way the millennials were.

The boomers certainly weren't. So one of the issues is, I believe, when I grew up, every single adult was like, you have to go to college. And I would just be like, why? And they would be like, because otherwise you won't get a good job. And then I'm just like, I don't understand.

Well, I told this story before. I read an op-ed from an economist. I think he worked under Clinton, where he said that if you went to any investor and said, you give me $40,000 in an investment, and in four years, you will owe me $40,000 plus interest, and that's it. They would laugh in your face. That's the stupidest investment I've ever heard of. But this is what we're telling every 18-year-old to do, to take out a loan with interest that gets them no guarantees. They don't know why they're going to college. They don't know where they're going to work when they get out. And a bunch of these millennials went in for liberal arts and now they're slammed with debt confused. But we had the boomer generation. I tell you, man, they were screaming

in my ears. They would shut up about it. So now you have an entire generation saddled with impossible debt, just hating the system, all of the problems you mentioned with war, with the financial collapse, the security state. And they've just, I think they've just lost the ability to function in any meaningful way relative to the past generation. I think he hit on a good point. It's something I really worry about, right? Which is maybe there are no economic policies that we're going to have or anything that are actually going to get things back to where they were in the 50s and 60s. Maybe all of that was a relic of the fact that the entire world got destroyed and deindustrialized in World War II except for us and they all needed American labor and American capital and

we're 5% of the world's population. We got 30% of the world's resources flowing into the imperial center. And maybe that was just never sustainable. And you just wonder, like, even if, you know, we're 5% of the world's population, if we only got 15% instead of 30% of the world's resources, we're still, like, probably at the top of the heap. I don't think we could handle, I think there would be a violent revolution if we had to take a half, a 50 percent cut in our standard of living in this country, you know. And so maybe it was never it was never something sustained.

I think people just got to learn to go live in the middle of nowhere. And a lot of people live in the middle of nowhere are like, no, you're going to ruin the middle of nowhere. Don't tell them to come here. Well, but that's the difficulty, right? Like I remember when the yellow vest protests were going on in France and i read an article by one of the leaders of it and the thing he said was this is true in france it's true in the united states to a large degree is that the places that you actually have to go to work are becoming increasingly concentrated in like a few urban centers those places are becoming impossible to actually live because they're so expensive because everybody has to go there.

It's like you can, I mean, there's probably more, you know, jobs out in the middle of nowhere if you're willing to be an electrician or a plumber or something like that instead of, you know. But, you know, we've spent just God knows how many hours and how many dollars of propaganda to convince people that that makes them a failure in their life if they end up doing that. One of the biggest challenges as we're trying to build this new studio is we're trying to find a local expert in folklore mythology, but we just can't find any. If only there was someone who can come and read us the ancient words that could help us. I have no idea how to help build that facility. If only they can do a feminist analysis of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You'll find that facility. If only they can do a feminist analysis of the epic of Gilgamesh. You'll find that person. That would actually be a good bit we should do where it's like, in order to get the new studio built, we had to bring in a feminist interpretive dancer. You see that parliament thing, like European parliament, where they're just dancing and it's like, theater, man. I think regarding what you said about standard of living, that was interesting that this would be the first generation to have a standard of living less than the generation before.

And I wonder, maybe financially, I agree with you financially for sure. That's what it looks like. But my parents' generation got drafted into Vietnam, destroyed their standard of living. I mean, annihilated the entire generation. It ruined their lives. And World War I annihilated the entire generation. Give them a little more time with Russia. We'll see what happens. So that's why I'm so anti-war. If you think that even considering a war right now is any benefit, you got to understand what countries do with large uneducated and un... What do you call when they don't have a job? Unemployed. Unemployed masses. What countries do with those people, they send them to war to die so they don't have to feed them and take care of them. So you do not want to push for a war.

Yes. I think you made a very interesting point about America sort of stepping in after the Second World War and becoming this economic powerhouse. And I hadn't considered that before. And I want to give it some thought. But another point I like to make when it comes to the change in the standard of living is the fact that the workforce really became oversaturated because we doubled the labor supply once we decided that rather than a sole breadwinner, rather than the father representing the family unit

economically in working, we were going to have both parents work because that was somehow, you know, woman's liberation. We ended up in a position where your average worker now had half the negotiating power. And so I think that's been seriously detrimental to this country. But ultimately, whether you're talking about, you know, a crony capitalist system or a capitalist system, which is not managed virtuously or a communist system, in the end, you have a really horrific situation where your average person does not have property and therefore no investment in the system. Yeah, this whole BlackRock owning property thing's got to go.

Let's just start from step one. And this isn't a value statement or a moral statement. Women largely enter the workforce around, starting in the 70s and the late 70s, right? That's when we, you know, so I mean for our parents' generation, it was like they were young adults. Like all of a sudden women were getting jobs. You know, for me, I grew up, it was always the case. But once women are in the workforce,

you now have both men and women focused on the breadwinning aspect of life and no familial aspect of life. So who's going to raise the kids? Well, daycare becomes a question. They now say we need businesses to offer daycare for our kids or public schooling. The government has to replace the family. And that is not going to work out well for anybody. It's this slow creep where, like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, right, talked about this with technology,

how a car is invented. And it's like, wow, now I can get a car and I can drive wherever I want. Like I could only walk or ride my bike before. Now I can drive. I have the freedom of the road. Let a little bit of time go by. And now having a car is not an option.

You have to have a car to survive in our society at all, and you're commuting 45 minutes to work every day stuck in traffic, and you have no choice. It's kind of similar here. Like, oh, wow, women can go out and get a career. They can go out and get jobs now. Well, give it a couple years, and now women have to get jobs. Both parents have to work just to survive because wages have stagnated and costs have gone up. It has a way of working like that. I never hear the left talk about that. They always show these graphs where it's

like, I wonder what happened in 1979. And then I see this meme where it's like, labor unions started losing power. And I'm like, it's true, but you double the workforce and your bargaining power gets cut in half overnight. And not just that, but you've got somebody who's running a business

and they say to the guy, so tell me about your family. It's like, oh, my wife works here and we're planning this and this and I need X amount of dollars. It's like, your wife's got a job. You don't need that much money. The collective salary between you and your wife is going to be 75K. You're fine. Yeah, I think the expectation is that you're going to be a dual-income household,

and so you don't need to be paid a wage that would be sufficient for supporting a family. And just to clarify something I said earlier, I said that people who don't have property don't have a stake in the system. I misspoke. They don't have as much of a stake. There's still a stake in the system, but they are much easier to control. What is the phrase, dink? Is that it?

Dual-income, no kids. I think you're right, though. I think there's some... I think property is very important, but also I don't want to say if somebody has no property, then they're not doing things that could be selfless or beneficial. It's not just property, though. It's stability.

I've seen every time I go into an airport, I see a Fast Company magazine, one of those like new hip business magazines. And it always have like some kind of cover article they do. It's one of those recurring articles that they do again and again in different, you know, slightly different ways. And it says like how for this generation, you know, the young generation, the young people coming up today are going to change careers six times throughout their lives. And that the skill of the future isn't going to be like mastering some skill. It's going to be mastering the art of learning

so that you can go through these changes smoothly. And it's like, well, okay, if you're some super high IQ person with a good start in your early 20s and you kind of knew what you were doing and you got off on a good start, good for you. But what happens when, if you change careers six times throughout your life, that's six times maybe you have to move, six times that your friends get changed. Eventually that just becomes, I mean, I went to like 35 different schools between kindergarten and 12th grade. And by third grade, I just learned like, don't make friends. It's a

pointless exercise, right? And so people learn, you know, don't get too attached to the place you live. Don't get too sentimental about the people you meet there. And so I think there is a loss of investment. You know, and then what what they end up doing is as maybe as a replacement, a prosthetic for that, is they displace that sort of social concern that they have on to some broad social issues on the federal level or something like that. I think that can absolutely happen. I think that can absolutely happen. I think that can absolutely happen. And you made a point earlier about how we couldn't come in and just cut everyone's standard of living in half. And I was mentioning communism.

And, of course, I believe that communism is an unbelievably horrific, barbaric system. I mean, it's not just a matter of people not having property. I mean, they slaughter people. But at the same time if a communist regime were to be instilled in the united states and they were to tell people you know you have to live in a pod now it would be much more of a struggle than to just erode the economic independence of the american people over time to the point where they say a pod that's a really great deal or van life yeah i remember when uh that there was this woman on youtube who was she posted

like two van life videos and gained like three million subs overnight because there was apparently some glitch in the algorithm where she hit all these key points and so youtube's algorithm just showed her videos to literally everyone so she makes like two videos with three million subs but i it made me made me think of a potential conspiracy that YouTube was intentionally promoting van life as a way of making millennials happy, being happy with owning nothing. For real, think about what happened.

So when this van life trend was going around in like 2018, all these people are on YouTube and they're like, I live in a van. I can go wherever I want. I got no rent. I got a computer and my dog and we're going surfing. And then they post these videos where they're playing that song by, I think it's by Avicii.

He said one day you'll leave here. Or whatever that song is. It's like on repeat. And they're all like running and like filming themselves. Life is so good living in a van down by the river. And I just, I was like, I wonder if YouTube's promoting that because they want people to own nothing and be happy. And then all of a sudden we got that video from the World Economic Forum that said you will own nothing and you'll be happy.

I will not live in the pod. I will not eat the boat. It's tough to tell because it's like calling it what does YouTube want. It's monolithic. Corporations don't have wants. But certain people within the corporations may very well have that in mind. I would think that most people involved hadn't thought about that or thought that far ahead. It almost seemed like the dream, the American dream is so prevalent that people had bought it at that point. What were you going to

say? Yeah, well, no, I think regardless, even if it's not the case that there's an algorithmic push to direct people towards this kind of content, our generation, I would say generations prior have really been slowly sold this idea that independence is the most important thing you can possibly have, right? So commitment and productivity are significantly less important than being able to do whatever you want whenever you want. And it's true that if you are just living out of a comfortable van, you're not tied down anywhere. You don't have as high of expenses.

It's much easier for you to travel. I'm not saying it's a preferable way to live, but it is the way to live that we have been sold over time. Maintaining these vans is not easy. They can't drive. But maintaining a house is really difficult. I would say maintaining a van is probably a lot less expensive. But if

you're living in a van, I don't know if you're going to have the kind of job that's going to be, you know... Unless you're one of these van-like YouTubers. Well, again, my whole point is there's a lifestyle, whether it's... There's a lifestyle that's been sold to us which is that independence is the most important thing it is far more important as i said than productivity or commitment building something in the long term what matters is you can pick up and leave and do whatever you want whenever you want and so it's unsurprising that it's such a huge trend

all right let's go to super chats If you have not already, give that like button a decent smashing and head over to TimCast.com where we're going to have a members-only show coming up at 11 p.m. tonight. You're not going to want to miss it. It'll be fun. And don't forget to share the show if you really do like it. Let's read what all of these Super Chats are about. Something

about people starting farms with a bunch of farm animals. They want to buy a bunch of mules or something. I don't what that is two thousand i think two thousand mules yeah something about that anyway amanda dilts is that what it says dilts please please wish my daughter riley a happy birthday she turned four yesterday and was so excited to get her step on snack dress like her three other siblings yeah oh that's awesome we have uh we we made onesies right i think step on snack and find out onesies. Is it Riley?

Indoctrinate your kids with liberty. Yeah. Riley? It's for Riley's birthday? Riley, happy birthday. Happy birthday, Riley. Happy birthday, Riley. Oh, that's awesome.

All right. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, blue-haired fuba wants to do a sex strike. Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. Joe Burns says, hey, Tim, have you considered making Sesame Street-like kids TV show starring Ian and puppet versions of Chicken City Chickens

with a hidden ongoing joke that is high on DMT the whole time? That's a good idea. Ian's Breakthrough? The show is You're the One. It's called Breakthrough. No, it's too sci-fi. Yeah, it's got to be called Chicken City with, you know, kids. Oh, yeah, that's a good idea.

Chicken City Kids. And then it's you, and there's puppet chickens, and know, kids. Oh yeah, that's a good idea. Chicken City Kids. And then it's you, and there's puppet chickens, and they're like, hey Ian, 2 plus 2 equals 4. And then you're like, whoa. And then the intro to the show is always a DMT trip, but kids don't get it, so it's just like you like, the chickens are walking around like normal chickens, but then all of a sudden they start talking to you.

Oh, that's a good idea. You watch it when you grow up, and then you realize, it's like watching old Looney Tunes, and you realize how racist they are. Yeah, right? All right. So I think it's funny that people are like, the lead story is 2,000 mules. Whoa, why would you talk about it? I think full disclosure, I didn't see it.

Yeah, I haven't seen it. It was Mother's Day. Didn't you guys see it? It's preoccupying. I know a little bit about it. I know a little bit about it. We'll talk a little bit about it. Colt says, have you watched 2000 Mules?

If so, what were your thoughts? I have not yet seen it, but I do know a little bit about it from reading the news. I know that the mainstream media is basically saying it's all fake news. And one of the criticisms that Dinesh D'Souza brought up is they're saying there was GPS data tracking people who are dropping off multiple ballots. This is the allegation. And the mainstream media is like GPS data is not precise enough, except there are many stories from the mainstream media about how GPS data is actually quite precise. So it's like it definitely seems like there's a double standard. It's been used in murder trials.

GPS data? Yeah, and that serial show. You remember the first season of Serial? They talked about a big part of it was like the GPS data from his phone. Like was he in this location? All right. Let's see. Will S. says, first super chat after more than a year of listening.

Friday with Daryl was an incredible disappointment, but I don't want to give up. Please invite him back on for more of what he did with the Klan and maybe a debate with Sowell. I was thinking about the conversation we had with Daryl Davis, and I think what a lot of people realized for the first time, the story of Daryl Davis is about a blues musician who befriended members of the Klan and other white supremacists and convinced them, inadvertently as it was, he was the impetus by which they gave up being white supremacists. I think for many people who are anti-identitarian, they heard the story and assumed that he convinced them not to be racists. But upon hearing the identitarian opinions of Daryl Davis, I think a lot of people all

of a sudden felt like, hey, how can this be? I thought he was convincing identitarians not to want race policy, but he was very much heavily advocating for race policy. I think the issue is Daryl davis didn't de-radicalize members of the clan away from racism he de-radicalized them away from white identitarianism meaning they were it was easy for them to replace the racism they already had with another form of it because it was very similar they were like oh okay racial discrimination in this way makes sense right that's possible yeah

i thought a couple things with daryl is like different first if daryl the story of daryl davis is bridging the gap it's not about believing the same thing as the other person it's about bridging a gap and so there's a generation gap and there's also the race gap and that's a conversation that's not going to be had in two hours and yeah we should definitely do it again so yeah i wondered because um we've had we've had conversations and we've seen interviews with daryl before where these issues haven't come up the way they did on this show yeah so some people were saying that he had been radicalized and perhaps the the rise of critical race theory and the things he was quoting are relatively new

phenomenon in modern political context and you could argue that they're created in order to radicalize or at least proliferated in order to radicalize. Yeah, and it was interesting. He was wrong. He kept saying that the U.S. never apologized for slavery, but you brought up in 2008 NPR reported that Congress did apologize for slavery. Yeah, there was an official apology for it. I think there were several, actually. My life is an apology.

Let me make the world better for you and your friends. All right. We made a lot of money tonight from people saying, please see 2,000 Mules, the movie. So the general idea is that there were, in five key states, several people who they tracked GPS data on

that showed them going to drop boxes multiple times. But several, I've seen, so again, I don't want to, I don't want to criticize too much because I haven't seen it yet, but I will check it out. Interesting questions being raised. And I think that's fair. I think that's it. A lot of people

are like, you can't bring it up, you'll get banned. I'm not. I don't think 2000 Mules, my understanding from what I've already seen in the news and media commentary is that it raises certain questions and requests an answer and then asks people to look into the footage and the evidence because there's a large amount of videos that need to be gone through i don't i i that's about it that's where we're at i think it raises a lot of interesting questions so far but again need to watch it need to watch it for sure i saw some people already comment that only i think one video was actually released of a person doing a multiple ballot drop so i don't know i don't know a whole lot of i don't know enough i don't know enough all right let's see rob s has 2 000 ians looking in your soul

all from a different angle tim jake says the npr story was written by the same person that claimed conflict between gorsik and sodomayor over masks, a story proven false. She has history of making claims without supporting facts or evidence. Yep. That's right. Okay. Kylie Miller says, Democrats are going to lead us to another civil war because they can't define what a person is again.

Exactly. Yeah. That's how it goes, right? Yeah. If you wanted to. Johnosh one dude says tim you blew me away with your arguments toward the guest friday i was baffled i didn't know you had such a big brain even if you haven't seen him without the beanie i'm sorry i interrupted super chat that's right i like the the the there's someone made a paintbrush meme of my head is a hot air

balloon and i'm holding the basket and I don't know how it works. That's a good one. I saw it. I saved it. The funny thing is like, you know, Ben Shapiro, he always, like, they make fun of him, but he laughs at the memes and stuff. I wonder if these people genuinely think that they're angering people on the right

with a lot of this stuff. Because I just think it's funny. It's amazing. Yeah. You also do have a big brain. I don't know. I see it more without the beanie when you're being... Yeah, it's just like... No, but I think it's funny that like...

It's like you took the time to draw a picture of me in paintbrush. Good for you. And it's funny looking. I'm not mad. I don't know. What am I going to be mad about? I highly recommend you guys

checking out the hot air balloon meme. It's really funny. It's pretty good. All right. MD Crush says says 2000 mules the movie is it even banned from you tim it's not banned for me i just didn't see it because it was mother's day weekend and yeah i don't know it's like busy weekend i didn't know what it was till today yeah i heard people kept telling me about it i was i was i watched i was watching. So I've seen some clips so far. I saw Rumble experience some sort of attack. I think their official statement was that there was an attack on their servers when it went up.

People wanted to stop it from being seen or something. Not going to work. All right. MD Crush says, you can see 2000 Mules, the movie, on Rumble. That's right. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Tim, Dary daryl okay so there's no fighting fire with fire voting may work but it's months away is there any street action that could actually work protests peaceful i think that is charging into the enemy's strength peaceful protests well you open yourself up to

provocateurs obviously things like that um. Yeah, it's dangerous. Anytime anybody on the right, no matter how moderate, congregates in public, you're definitely playing with fire for sure. What is the goal that they're asking to accomplish? Winning the culture war in politics? That's not specific enough. Tell me the goal, and I think the answer will become evident. Yeah, I guess it depends on the context, right? Like if you think about the parents at those school board meetings, that was pretty effective.

Obviously, they tried to come down on them, but it's having an effect and things have maybe moved a little bit in their direction. I think that the right has to be very smart and sort of use a kind of political jujitsu anytime they do anything. They have to try to take advantage of single points of failure in the enemy's defenses. Do things that produce predictable overreactions. So those are the kinds of things you have to do. Because that's a good thing about having a very emotional enemy, a very emotional opponent, is you can kind of predict what they're going to do for the most part. And think about, for example,

I remember when the Democratic primaries were going on in 2020 and CNN did an LGBT town hall. Cool, fine. And you had all the Democratic candidates there and they kept trotting out these like six-year-old, seven-year-old kids. Be like a seven-year-old boy, done up in full makeup and a dress and he's a little trans child, right? And now all the Democrats who were there, they have pollsters, they have political advisors who can tell them that 90% of the United States thinks that a six-year-old trans child is, that that's crazy, right? That that's not a winning issue. Every single one of them had to bend the knee and say, I'm so proud of you. This is so amazing.

You're doing so great. Even though they know that there are political consequences to that because they have no choice. And there are a lot of issues like that, that if you can draw them out into public, all you have to do is shine a light on them and they'll melt right before your eyes. All right. Seth Hauser says the baby's body is not the woman's body. I am a conservative. Can you confirm these details, Seamus? Yeah, I would confirm. What,. I am a conservative. Can you confirm these details, Seamus? Yeah, I would confirm. What, that he's a conservative? Well, I don't, you know, I don't know this individual personally. However, the baby's body is not the woman's body.

Really Bad Video says, Did Ian seriously argue that a woman's eggs are alive yet cannot understand what a fetus is? Were not we all born? Did not we all require to be a fetus to be who we are today how was this ever even an argument killing babies is not progressive um i do understand what a fetus is and that i do believe the egg is still a piece of living tissue oh yeah ian name three fetuses you got me tim all right uh where are we at? D.E. Poland says, Tim, please have on Abby Johnson,

ex-Planned Parenthood director. Seamus should know about her. She's a lot of fun and can really speak to abortion. Can you confirm this, Seamus? I'm not overly familiar with the work. I do know of her. Yeah, she's an ex-Planned Parenthood director

who became pro-life. Oh, yeah, she's great. Brett Tesdall says, I am increasingly convinced that abortion is the Kobayashi Maru of political debates. What is that? It was an impossible test in Star Trek. It was meant to gauge your, like

how you would behave under absolute stress. Right, if it drives us to anger and then conflict, we've lost the point. Nick says, Ian, he says, Ethan, do you recall the TNG episode where LaForge was stranded with a Romulan who thought he should have been aborted because he was blind? I don't. If that's where they're in the cave, no, I don't think.

I saw them all, but I don't off the top of my head. Yeah, and they were like slowly dying. And they were like starving to death or something? No, like something was slowly killing them, was it, or whatever? I don't, off the top of my head. Yeah, and they were like slowly dying. And they were like starving to death or something? No, like something was slowly killing them, was it? Or whatever. I don't know. I always like those when they put two cultures, like opposing cultures together in a room

and they're forced to deal with it. Athrenzala says, consider the rights of future people. There is the booby trap time capsule argument. Do you have the right to rig a time capsule to kill whoever opens it 100 years from now? They aren't born yet. If you open the time capsule now, sucks to be you.

No, I think that's illegal to make a booby trap of any kind like that. But they're not alive right now. Maybe dead. Like it specifically targets a unique person's genetics 100 years in the future that you don't know if they'll be like... Well, like they bury a time capsule

and then when you dig it up and open it, it blows up. Whoever opens it first, yeah, something crazy happens. Can you build something that will become a booby trap in 100 years in the future that you don't know if they'll be like they bury a time capsule and then when you dig it up and open it it blows up yeah something crazy happens can you build something that will become a booby trap in 100 years I don't know like you have some piece of I don't know iron that rusts and erodes and then

breaks open I don't know what the people of the future are about, but I hate them. Well, when the progressives keep saying that the future is going to be progressive, you might get some crazy person who would think something like, I'm going to stop these crazy people.

But I guess the philosophical argument is, can you kill someone who's not alive today? No. No, you cannot. Well, then why not a fetus? Well, they are alive. Have you guys seen that South Park episode where all the people in the future, there's no more jobs in the future, so they're all immigrating back to the past? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And they decide, well, we have to stop this flood of immigration from the future, and so all the men turn gay. Oh, my gosh. And then it starts working, but then they realize if they make the future a better place, it'll stop the immigration. But then they're like, wait a minute, why are we doing this? Let's go back to the orgy pile. I should clarify, you can kill someone

that's not born today, although you might end up in prison for it, and it's not ethically viable to murder someone, period. This is kind of a crazy... I've never heard this question before. No, I know, I've never heard that before. You're dead. I'll be alive in 100 years. I don't know about you.

I think it's certainly wrong, but it's an interesting question. I think it would certainly be wrong to do it, but it is an interesting question. I've never heard anybody ask that before. It's a good one. Would you go back into the past to kill Hitler to try to prevent World War II? I got that question a lot.

Imagine if right now someone came from the future, just appeared in this room and was like, I have to stop Seamus! And we would do everything to protect Seamus. Exactly. Get out of here, liberal. And then when we catch this guy, he shows us a digital news file, and it's like Seamus is just like ultra-Hitler or whatever. No, it wouldn't even be that, dude. If the progressives win, it's going to be the most benign thing ever. It would be like he won time.

It would be like because I say the word hello, and they're like that's a slur now. We've decided you can't say that or just some insane cultural shift. No, it would be benign, but it would be like he's this 50-year-old guy who leads the free speech movement. We have to stop him. It would be something I'm doing now would be like he's this 50-year-old guy who leads the free speech movement. We have to stop him. It would be something I'm doing now that's offensive that I'm not sure. You've got to watch out because Looper. I don't know if you guys saw Looper. I don't want to spoil, but I'm going to spoil Looper.

So turn it down if you haven't seen it yet. It's just the act of trying to kill the kid that turns him into the villain. So don't try and kill Hitler. But that movie made no sense anyway. Gizmo79 says, Tim, you always forget Generation X. No, I don't. I don't try and kill hitler but that movie made no sense anyway gizmo 79 says tim you always forget generation x no i don't i don't forget generation x generations basically very much skip like millennials were the children of boomers for the most part there's a gradient overlap but gen x like boomers were like teenagers or like in their late 20s when uh well i guess the

problem is the generations can be long enough to overlap but many millennials are the children of boomers that's the point how do you think about generations like i know a lot of people go by years which i always thought it was i always think that's kind of a crude way of looking at it like when i think about generations i think about major changes in society and where you were at in your stage of life when they happened. So when I think of a millennial as opposed to a Gen Xer, I'm 40. I was born in 81. I kind of consider myself like a really

young Gen Xer for the most part because I remember what the world was like without the internet. And the people who don't really remember that didn't live any portion of their adult life, I kind of consider millennials. Yeah, I always thought of myself as Gen X. I was born in 79. Millennials grew up without the internet.

Well, they grew up without it, but they didn't live any of their adult lives without it. Right. So for millennials, we had rudimentary internet as kids, but it was like 2007 is the singularity moment when the internet became ubiquitous. Yeah, iPhones and stuff. Have you seen that graph that Chewing Gum,

like revenue purchases from Chewing Gum in 2007 just went whoop and cratered? And the theory that they have behind it is that everybody's playing on their phones in the supermarket line now. It's just as good of a theory as I can come up with. That's great. All right. Justin Barber says, Daryl Davis mentioned Goree Island.

I visited there in 2019, and it is a special place. Is it pronounced Goree? Goree Island? 360 on YouTube to see an immersive 360 video I shot on the island. Cool. Oh, neat.

Yeah, Goree Island. Goree Island. Okay. Phantom Kitsune Zero says, Rai, Goree. Yeah. Okay. Phantom Kitsune Zero says, when I traveled C, I made an effort to try non-chain places and foods I could never find stateside. I envy Southeast Asia.

There you go. I envy Korea and Japan for having so many options. Korea is fun. It was funny. When I was in Korea, they were like Chicago pizza with black sauce on it. And I was like, we don't have that. I don't know what that is.

And it was like squid ink or something on the pizza or something like that. Oh, yeah. That's a thing. You never got squid pizza? I've actually had squid pizza, calamari on pizza. That sounds delicious. Yeah. That sounds good, yeah.

I had Giordano's earlier. You had Giordano's earlier and didn't invite me? Why would I? Because I'm the coolest guy in town? That's delicious. Yeah. That sounds good, yeah. I had Giordano's earlier. You had Giordano's earlier and didn't invite me? Why would I? Because I'm the coolest guy in town? That's true. Risto says, adulthood has been made to seem undesirable, whereas by prolonging childhood and adolescence

with the college experience, we've warped the form of progression where it was exciting to enter adulthood. It was a crazy moment for me when I turned 21. I used to play shows, right? And so I would look for open mic nights. I would look for venues that allowed all ages. And the clientele of these places was relatively small because you're dealing with basically 16 to 21-year-olds.

Because younger than that, they're not really going off by themselves to these places because they can't drive. So I'd go to these venues and I'd play. And then when I turned 21, I was like, oh, I can go to this other venue. And then all of a sudden, everyone there was like in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s. And I'm just like, there are so many more different kinds of people now that it was kind of a crazy moment where I was like, wow. It was like tutorial mode before this. Now it's just so many different kinds of people that I – everyone was like me. Same age, into the same things, listening to the same music. Then you go to a bar and everyone's like all different generations and it's like, whoa. That was crazy.

I didn't have that. That's awesome. All right. Let's grab some more Zupa Chats. Blissgirl says, can Seamus and Tim please do your Chicago accent It's so hilarious It's actually very funny So this is Tim and I both had to go to speech therapy

To not talk like this So we're actually reverting to our natural way of speaking there So when you go to Chicago If you This is a secret, if you order your pizza with Chicago accent Let me get the pepperoni with the Extra cheese Then they give you free cheese sticks It's a secret. If you order your pizza with Chicago X in here, hey, let me get the pepperoni with the extra cheese, eh? Then they give you free cheese sticks.

Here's the cheese sticks there, bud. Yeah. Thank you. So you'll walk into a restaurant, and the guy will be like, welcome to Domino's Pizza. And you'll be like, hey, I'm just like you. No need to put on the accent. I'm like, ah, thank the Lord.

I can finally talk like a normal person. Come over here. Come over here. He pulls the old-style can on the wall, and a trap the Lord. I can finally talk like a normal person. Come over here. Come over here. He pulls the old-style can on the wall, and a trap door opens. Old-style. He throws you one. Time to relax, bud. It's delicious.

Thank you, there. Hey, while we're here, you need your garage door repaired? Because I do garage door repairs. Like, yeah, so do I, though. You guys want to go to Wrigley Field for a week and watch the Cubbies lose? The Cubs, the Bears, Chicago. No one in chicago even with a chicago accent says chicago chicago no it's never it's not a thing it's the weirdest

thing that's the one thing people think they do say they don't say that they don't say it's funny because most of the people i know like my dad for example he almost he like under like he he does the opposite of a chicago accent when he says chicago you hear this from a lot of older guys from the city they'll go like chicago it's chicago yeah they'll they do not pronounce it like chicago no it's the ea yeah like chicago a is the a sound yeah e apple yeah txc txc yeah it's it's you to do to chicago to do the chicago, you got to go E-UH. Yeah. E-UH. So E-Apple. It's like,

you start with an E sound. Do you guys say Walsh? It depends, but it also, it depends on like, it's, it's, it's also stronger and softer in different areas too.

It changed like the North side is a little different from the South side. I didn't know I had a Chicago accent when I lived in Chicago. Cause everyone around you talks the same. And then it's not until you leave people, like I'll be talking to someone and they'll go, E-Apple. And then I'll be like, what? And they'll say, you said E-Apple. And I'll be like, yeah, I said Apple someone and they'll go yapple and then i'll be like what and i'll say you said yapple and i'll be like yeah i said apple and they'll go no you said yapple i said yapple what's wrong with saying yapple what are you talking about man i said yapple go to yapple you know you get a taxi cab in chicago taxi cab to to the Apple Genius Bear. All right.

NYBSFP says, agree with Tim on ST regardless of what they may have intended on ST. Star Trek. Oh, on Star Trek. What they showed was people fighting for freedom from a government that eventually nuked them. Who has the nukes? China.

No. David C. Cronk says, Tim, you are talking about the franchise that made Stacey Abrams the president of United Earth. Yeah. Talk about ruining a show. You know what Picard is about?

Q. Have you ever seen Star Trek? Not really. I've seen a couple episodes. I know who Q is. He transports them, the characters, to an alternate timeline

where the galaxy is run by an Earth empire of human supremacists. And then Picard's like, we have to go back to the 21st century to stop something from happening that made humans racial supremacists. And I stopped watching it. I was just

like, off. And then Q was like, back in this time, I had a messaging board where I used to post things about politics to mess with people. Oh, Picard, don't you understand? The people at that time were racists. Q. I went to an antique store and found

an unopened Q action figure from like 1992. Needless to say, I bought it. I'm very excited for that purchase. Is that why they call that message board's Q from the Star Trek guy? I have no idea. What? I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. What are you talking what are you talking about no because i was joking it's cute yeah no that's the joke that's like it means like uh it's a classification level they think or something

like that yeah and the classification level was based on star trek right right sam whiter says tim i've commented on this before that star trek has predicted the future and i believe that 2024 will be the deciding year since it's been shown in ds9 and picard oh perhaps that's right hillary's going to become president and fix everything sr dempsey says dragon distillery and frederick might be able to help you with your design goals design goals for what? Dragon Distillery? Oh, no. Oh, I can confirm. Queue clearance, queue access authorization, U.S. Department of Energy, security clearance required, access top secret restricted data.

I don't know if I believe it. Christopher Shipley says, thank you again, Tim, for coming by 4D Fun Center over the weekend. Also, thank you for explaining how cheap those Tony Hawk boards we had were. Did some research after and marked them as starter boards. I wouldn't even necessarily call them that. We went to this place called the 4D Fun Center. They had bowling. They had an escape room.

We did an escape room. That was fun. It's a great place. And won a bunch of tickets. Played the arcade games. They have a beer pong arcade. Did you do the escape room? Yeah.

Did you escape? Yes. Did you escape fast? I think we had six minutes left out of a half an hour you get a half an hour to solve it but you know the issue was for us is that we were too smart we were too smart for our own good this actually is an issue so you know my brother was trying to point out don't overthink the puzzles these are for like this is a mass market thing yeah but it's for it's like a kid's place. So the puzzles are simple.

People feel really smart. Well, the puzzles were all relatively simple. Find the codes. It's like a clock. I don't want to spoil it. But one of the things is that one of the objects in the room we thought was a code was actually all of the codes. And we didn't realize that that would be the one anomalous thing. And so we couldn't figure it out.

We were confused by it. And that took us like 10 minutes yeah there were longer ones there's like our ones yeah but but the door was open the whole time i did one of those one time and we were looking like on the bottom side of the radio at the serial number and trying to figure out if it meant anything none of it meant anything it was like you know right over there yeah the daily wire didn't escape room challenge where they mixed and matched people, and then they were competing against other Daily Wire teams. But it was teams, so you got to see them interact and how they were getting stressed with each other but having fun too. Well, I have an idea. Me and my friend had an idea a long time ago for something called the Hacker Games. And the idea is to get a building, secure it in a variety of ways,

digital keypad locks, security guards, pin and tumble locks, and then in the top floor in one of the rooms is the MacGuffin. And the goal is to get the MacGuffin without being, like being able to break

into this building. We would hire security guards but not tell them it was a show. So we just, we hire a security guard and say, you know,

don't let anybody in without the proper credentials, you know. But the thing is, it's so easy to get past a security guard. You know the easiest way to get past a security guard? At a venue, at least. Here's an example.

You just carry a bag of ice. You put a rag in your back pocket, grab a bag of ice, and you will walk right past them, and they will never ask you a question. Hear that, security guards? Eyes open. Yep. Look for those ice guys. But then what happens if you and all your friends each have ice and rags in your back pocket? They'll be like, oh, there's just a bunch of guys with ice.

If there was like two or three guys and you're carrying trays and ice, and then you walk up to the security guard and go, where do we put this stuff? He's going to be like, try the kitchen. You're going to go, thanks, man. You're going to walk right past them. I was at a venue once, and I had a pass, but they weren't allowing me to go backstage. So I walked. The first thing you do is you own the place.

So I just walked past the security guard, and then he went, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, and then he put his hand in front of me. He's like, where are you going? And I was like, I'm working. And he was like, no, no, no, no, no, you can't come in here without the right pass. And I was like, I got the pass. It's right here. It's on my leg.

And he was like, that pass is not for here. And I'm like, dude, I'm at work. And he was like, sorry, bro, you can't come in. And I was like, so I went into the, I started walking around. I saw a guy with a camera. I was like, hey, come with me. You want to go backstage? And he's like, sorry, bro, you can't come in. And I was like, so I went into the, I started walking around. I saw a guy with a camera. I was like, hey, come with me. You want to go backstage? And he's like, yeah, come with me.

And then we started walking back towards the security guard. Same guy again. And then this time we both walked past. And he goes, yo, yo, I told you you can't come. And then I interrupted him and go, dude, we're working. And he sees the camera guy and goes, oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry, dude. And then we walked backstage and hung out. But that's the idea for the game.

So pick the locks or hack the codes and then try and find your way in. I want to do it. It just requires getting to that point where we can set it up. So maybe in the next couple of years we'll get something like that going. That would be a bluff skill in Dungeons & Dragons

that you passed. I've got to tell you, getting past security guards at corporate functions or at buildings is just like... I don't even understand what the point of having a security guard is for the most part. It's a deterrent.

Most people are rule followers. I think it's mostly about insurance and having a dedicated person for security issues. So if something comes up, they handle the job. But getting past security guard anywhere is just like, I don't know, man. it's easy. Like you see it in movies all the time. It's like you wait out by the door smoking a cigarette, they open the door and you go,

hey man, and just walk in. It's like, geez. All right, let's see. We'll grab one more. Hangover Bear says, you talk about the financial crisis of the 2000s as if it was the only generation to go through one. Talk to the kids that grew up from the mid-70s and mid-80s yeah i mean what about boomers and the gas shortages and the inflation problem i mean everybody and vietnam there's a lot of bad stuff going on for sure those things were i think a lot more recoverable when they were over though you know like think about all of the 1960s college students who uh and just young people in general who decided to just take a few years off go smoke weed out in the countryside and party it up and kind of do their maybe go out and like engage in riots and

protests and just be a revolutionary and then a few years go by yeah it's time to like get my act together and they go off and they finish college and they go get a job at a big law firm or something. All the weathermen ended up, the ones who didn't get arrested for murder, ended up going and working for big law firms or going to universities. Whereas it feels like today, these people had felonies on their records

and they got done and they went and got jobs at universities. It just feels much more punitive today if you make mistakes or waste time. All right, everybody. If you haven't already, give that like button a good smashing. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show if you really do like it. That grassroots marketing is really, really helpful. We've got some fun stuff coming up in terms of our culture jamming campaigns.

You're going to really enjoy them. Head over to timcast.com and click the sign up button. Become a member. We're going to have a members only segment going live at about 11 p.m. And we'll be not so family friendly. And you don't want your kids to watch these shows. But they're a lot of fun.

A lot of swag. So check that out. Again, smash that like button. You can follow the show at timcast IRL. You can follow me at timcast basically everywhere. Daryl, you want to shout anything out? Check out the podcast. Martyr Made. M-A-R-T-Y-R-M-A-D-E, and The Unraveling with me and Jocko Willink.

All right. We've got a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes. We upload a cartoon every single week, sometimes twice a week. I think you guys are going to like what we're putting out this week. Go over there and check it out. Love you. Tim is swinging for the fences, all these bugs flying around. Gimme, gimme.

Hey, also, you're Martyr Made on Twitter. If people want to follow you on social media, just throw out, are you. Tim is swinging for the fences. All these bugs flying around. Gimme, gimme. Hey, also, you're MartyrMaid on Twitter. If people want to follow you on social media, just throw it out. Are you pretty much MartyrMaid everywhere? Yes. Guys, I'm going to roll the 100-sided die. I talked about Tim's bluff check earlier. I rolled a 68, and I'm going to give you a wild magic surge for that number now. Oh, boy.

It's a 68. Yeah. So if I was a wild mage, which I am, I permanently gain one cantrip, a spell such as remove curse. It can end this effect. So yes, I'm cursed, but it could be beneficial. We'll find out. All right. I like this new tradition.

I just wanted to add before we left that we were talking about the Reddit thread about ladies getting off these dating apps. And I want to give credit to Aaron McIntyre who says, periodically progressives reverse engineer healthy sexual behavior and then act like they've discovered Atlantis. I think that's what we're seeing here. They do this all the time with families and they're like being all rebellious and everything. And we're like, yes, this is exactly what we've been saying this whole time. Anyway, for more hot takes like that, you guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sarah Patch Lids and check me out on SarahPatchLids.me.

We will see you all over at timcast.com. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.