Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #535 - Biden Says US Military WILL Defend Taiwan From China Gaffing Us To WW3 w/Joe Allen

Episode Date: May 24, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia host transhumanism expert and journalist Joe Allen to discuss Biden's strongly gaffing the US into WWIII by promising military aid to Taiwan if needed, the former disinformation czar now tweeting that her disinformation board would have had a distinctly domestic focus, Biden mulling tapping emergency diesel supplies, and the media losing their minds when Trump merely mentioned the possibility of a civil war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaking at a news conference in Tokyo, President Joe Biden said that the U.S. would intervene with military might should China invade Taiwan, effectively ending the U.S. one China policy, our ambiguous stance on whether or not we recognize Taiwan. China, of course, is pissed off. And I don't know if this was a powerful statement from a strong president saying, I'm issuing a red line or a gaffe from an absent minded, broken brained president who is gaffing us towards World War Three. Considering even his own administration is walking things back and the press is trying to cover up for what he said. It seems like Joe Biden is just gaffing us into World War Three. So we'll definitely have to talk about that and the potential risks involved.

I think air on the side of gaff with this guy for sure i think china knows that we want to defend taiwan you know it's just like now it's out in the open i guess maybe they'll give china some excuses in negotiating power we also have uh gas once again at record highs a diesel shortage joe biden wants to tap into the strategic diesel reserves because things are just not looking that good. Monkeypox. Yep. That's a thing, I guess. And Donald Trump retruthed, which that's what it's called when you share a truth on social. He retruthed civil war. And then the media got went nuts and they were like, Donald Trump is calling for civil war. This is irresponsible. And then you just need to Google the word civil war to see every leftist saying it's coming or

it's already happening. So we have Robert Reich, who's like the second, second civil war is already happening, but they only get mad when Trump says it. And then all of a sudden they act like they never claimed it was coming. So we will talk about all of that as well as transhumanism. Joining us to discuss that is Joe Allen. Hi there. Very wonderful to be here. Joe Allen. I cover transhumanism at the war room with Steve Bannon, where we are fomenting the revolt against the modern world. I also write for a number of publications, The Federalist, Salvo Magazine, Chronicles Magazine, among others. Cool. Well, we should definitely talk about transhumanism.

I love talking about that stuff, so we'll get into all that. Thanks for coming. You got Shim Sham? I'm Seamus Coghlan. I run Freedom Tunes. We actually have several videos coming out this week, so go over there, subscribe, hit the notification bell. Also, on May 30th, we are going to be officially launching the website, so go over to freedomtunes.com,

put your email address in, and you'll be notified when we're up. What's up, everybody? Ian Crossland over here. He's back. I just came across the country, and let me tell you, I got a taste of that gas price thing. You crossed the land. Yeah, I did.

I crossed the land. I brought it back, Seamus, right here with you. Man, that gas price thing you crossed the land yeah i crossed the land i brought it back seamus right here with you uh man that gas five dollar gallons that's no joke it's another reality man it's like every time you go to the pump it's just doing the kalima thing where it rips your heart out oh jeez you're like i'm back and i brought it with me oh man we have a we have a truck that runs on diesel because you know sometimes we gotta pull the trailer with it and just i'm like let's not use that for the time being unless we absolutely have to. So now it's just, you know, we need to go find some junk

used electric car or something. It dipped for a little while. The price of gasoline did go down for a little bit. I was hoping that... I figured it would probably end up going back up, but not this quickly. Well, I have bad news. I think the reason it dipped was because they lifted that gas tax,

and that goes back into effect in a couple weeks, and they say that gas could rise by 30 cents overnight. So that's really freaking exciting. I'm thrilled about that. The price of plane tickets is going up as well. We noticed that with your trip. Kind of sucks. Anyway, I'm here too, pushing buttons.

I got a message from Luke Ridkowski. He said he was, he's like, I'm going to come back soon, so everyone can just, you know, tweet at him and let them know how much they love him and how much he should come back. I think he's going to end up walking. Yeah, he might, yeah. Walking back. With these prices? Are you kidding me? Yeah, because he's driving diesel. Yeah. It's like, it's going to

be six bucks by August. We'll get in on that. Before we get started, ladies and gentlemen, head over to TimCast.com. Become a member. To help support our work as a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m. We'll have a pretty good one up tonight at 11 p.m., as I said. And you'll be supporting our journalists. We've got a couple new people who are going to be coming out soon, potentially hiring more reporters so we can start doing better and better work for you guys. And don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe

to this channel, share the show with your friends. Now, let's get into that first big story. Joe Biden says the U.S. would intervene with military to defend Taiwan. The AP reports, President Joe Biden said Monday the U.S. would intervene militarily if China were to invade Taiwan. Declaring the commitment to protect the island is even stronger after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Quote, as I'm quoting the AP here, it was one of the most forceful presidential statements in support of Taiwan's self-governing in decades. Wow. Talk about strength from our leader, Joe Biden. It's fact so strong that Bloomberg reports Biden misspeaks on Taiwan, says U.S. military would intervene. Oh, you know, I love they they try to cover for him so much.

They don't know which direction to go. So the AP is like, what a forceful statement. Like, no, he was gaffing. And then Bloomberg is like he was misspeaking. Yo, he literally saidaffing. And then Bloomberg is like, he was misspeaking. Yo, he literally said one word. Yes. He was asked, would the US use military, intervene with the military to defend Taiwan from China? And Biden goes, yes. And then the report was like, really? Wow. Yeah. Okay. Everyone was surprised Joe Biden just came out and just said that, effectively ending

multi-decade long policy on how the U.S. approaches China and basically just telling China to go screw up. So if someone who is cognitively functioning said yes, I'd be like, whoa. But I think what really happened is we know the U.S. does want to intervene with military in the event China invades Taiwan, but nobody's going to come out and say it. But Joe Biden, biden is sunsetting so it's like it's getting late in the day and he's like and then they say it and he just his filters off yes and then immediately an unnamed white house official walks it back saying that's not true we wouldn't do this and we we have the one china policy that hasn't changed i see all this reporting coming from c and these reporters coming out being like, the White House actually says. And then I'm like, who?

Who? CNN comes out and covers for the president. It's not true. He didn't mean it. Bloomberg covers for the president saying he was misspeaking. And the AP covers for the president saying it was a truly forceful statement. We're gaffing towards World War III and just. It's almost like it's dangerous

To have a Nice by the way It's almost like it's dangerous to have a president Who's experiencing cognitive decline You know I think there's only one way to bring this administration back And that's for Joe Biden To become the first celebrity endorsement of Neuralink Once that happens

Then we can go forward And of course As much as I oppose pretty much everything That Elon Musk is about Aside from this free speech and the chicks, I think that he would probably bring it back around if he could tweak the neural link to start making Biden say more ridiculous things than he does now. For instance, if he could have him turn to Nancy Pelosi and say that your hair looks like it smells so delicious. Come on, man. I smelled Nancy's hair. But I agree. Like, if there's

anybody who should get an oral against Joe Biden, he needs some kind of... The upper is clearly not working anymore. Maybe this is the kind of like the missing footage from Idiocracy. You know, before everything goes down, World War III wipes out all the rest of the smart people due to some ridiculous president.

No, we all get on Elon Musk's starship and leave. How many people can the thing hold? Do we know? No, I don't know anything about it. Starship? Let's find out. He's building that starship for like a Mars colony or something. You guys enjoy.

No. Well, I mean, if the Earth is about to explode, yeah, absolutely. I was thinking. Mars has like, what, a third of Earth's gravity? Oh, Mars can't sustain life. What's that going to do to people? Underground. It's going to make their heads really big.

Well, the issue is Mars, my understanding is, doesn't have an atmosphere. So we'd be living in domes. Like, you know, biodome. Like with Pauly Shore. Remember that movie? Oh, yeah. You know, Steve Bannon worked on the original biodome. Really?

The real one? Yep. Absolutely. In the real world, not the Pauly Shore movie? No, the yep absolutely in the real world not the polyshore movie no the real one in the real world okay uh it's it's fascinating i just saw an article about quantum uh some sort of quantum telescopes that can check underground and like map the underground now all the caverns and stuff so maybe we'll do that on mars i was just thinking about biden a couple days ago i was back at my parents house kind of off the off the internet thinking like

if you have a military commander that's incompetent or that's losing his mind or her mind you need to replace them immediately with with another form of command unfortunately the president's a little awkward situation because it's not like a general you're you're commanding general um but i would be so much happier with kamala harris running the show right now because he's not stable no no she's an ai auto predict text bot she really is i mean we it's funny because it's a joke because of like a few gaffes she's had but when you really look at what she said it it she's not speaking it's like she sits down and she i'm imagining what's going on in her head as she's being interviewed and she's like don't screw up don't screw up say words say words you did it those are words

and she's not actually telling anybody anything she's like as the't screw up, don't screw up, say words. Say words. You did it. Those are words. And she's not actually telling anybody anything. She's like, as the vice president, you have to be vice presidential to be the vice president on a vice presidential mission for the vice president. And you're just like, okay, what? Well, say what you want. The woman stands for freedom.

That's true. Have you been waiting to use that one? No. Yeah, you're right. I wrote that a couple days ago. I was like, I hope I can this. Waiting for to use that one. No, no. It's the. Yeah, you're right. I wrote that a couple of days ago. I was like, I hope I can say this on Timcast. I was looking at the succession the other day and, you know, one hard bout of COVID or maybe monkey pox at this point.

And you would take out Biden, Pelosi, and I think it's Leahy. And then, boom, you're left with harris and blinken imagine a world like that that's probably why they're so worried about every new thing that's popping up because they're i mean let's be let's be real like covid was it was primarily hitting older people even bill gates says so so naturally yeah they were freaking out it's probably why nancy pelosi was like everyone's gotta wear a mask no matter what because she's in the affected group i mean what is she 80 yeah yeah she that's like the highest bracket for covid so and joe biden too i mean seriously though look we don't want anybody getting sick or anything but like you can't you can't freak out or i should

put it this way it goes to show why it is really dangerous to have these elderly veterinarians Elderly. Octogenarians. Yeah, octogenarians. She's 82. 82. They just won't. You know, they've like gripped onto power and they won't let it go. They're like those things on ships' holes. It's like Gollum. Barnacles. They're old barnacles. Barnacles, true.

We're stuck with them. I'd imagine Congress is more like a bunch of Gollum from Lord of the Rings. You know, they want the power. They won't give it up. True. They're all like their teeth have fallen out. Their hair is gone. I mean, I'm not kidding.

Comparison holds up. It feels so intricately entrenched. I'm very concerned about how to fix the situation with the United States because I'm like the corporations don't own us. We own corporations. The United States are people sovereign. And people on Twitter are like, no, the corporations own us, Ian. And I'm like, come on.

Purge the black pill. We can take control. But they're so entrenched, these 80 the corporations own us, Ian. And like, come on, purge the black pill. We can take control. But like they're so entrenched, these 80-year-old billionaires or millionaires with these people that are like Klaus. I don't know how tight Nancy Pelosi and Klaus Schwab are. I'm just using names right now. But people that are like multinational bankers are tight with these 80-year-old politicians. And they've been tight for like 30 years. How do you disrupt that web?

How would you disrupt that web is it technological is this that where the the future of technology is headed you know that's a hard question to throw at me right away how do you fix it all do you do with technology give us the answers otherwise you have credibility yeah um you know i have a answer but i think that most of our solutions lie regionally, locally. I don't think that any mass movement is necessarily going to stop this corporate technocratic takeover that we've seen really arguably since the 60s. People put the date different places. And it does have such a momentum at this point that to me, I think the notion of just stopping it like a train is pretty ridiculous. I think that the best options we have right now lie with ourselves. It's very unwise to look to a higher earthly power for salvation in this situation. Yeah, well, I think the question is, how do we break it apart? I agree heavily that we need localized solutions. I think a big part of this is people looking after their

own lives, their families. Obviously, it would be ideal to return power to more local levels. But then the question becomes, how do we break up the very strongly centralized power so that becomes more possible? Antitrust. I mean, and that definitely has an impact right that slows the train but when you're talking about to me i take a profoundly negative view of the wider possibilities of technology i think that you know in the end technology is always about control and conceivably it's about a human controlling nature, controlling society, controlling themselves. But that means that the vast swath of humankind is going to be subject to that control. And the desire for that power, the capabilities that we already have now that you already see in Google, Facebook, Amazon, this already has momentum that you break them up.

Great. You've at least diminished some of their power. But I think that ultimately, long view, we've got to go down the dark, dark tunnel before we get to the light. You mean like ayahuasca journeys where people see their inner demons and stuff? You know, it doesn't take ayahuasca for me to see the inner demons. But now that you mention it, we won't go there. It's bad for my brain i think uh culture building you know so i've had a lot of conversations this past weekend was on a trip

was in austin by the way that was fun talked to a lot of cool people and the one thing i think you know i always come back to is you can build all the greatest tech in the world you can vote whoever you want into power none of that matters unless you have culture. So, you know, we talk about the saying, I think it was Breitbart, politics is downstream from culture. Technology, I think, is as well. But technology, I don't think, is as important. I know you've said the inverse, Ian, before. But the issue is there exists alternative to Twitter. Nobody uses it. Why? It's cultural issues. You know know people don't want to use alternatives they want to be on the platform where everyone is so if you culture is

everything i'll put it that way if we can start inspiring young people and say these are the values that that are good and they should hold everything else becomes secondary as those kids age everything else gets washed away with the new generation. So it really is about inspiring young people with good values is the most powerful and important thing you can do to fix these problems. One of the things I noticed being out of town and on the road, I was just not tapped into the information. And it was like I realized the amount of information overload I've been exposed to in the last two years and how clear things started to get when i wasn't exposed to twitter and then even if i pulled up for five minutes i start to feel this negative dark negativity and i'd see a few people arguing and like man i'm gonna have to withdraw that from my brain for a while that might have something to do with the darkness which actually isn't evil like too much light will burn you so

you need to sometimes have no thought what was it jack dorsey called twitter the light of global consciousness very spiritual claim. He said that he was something to the effect he's happy to pass the torch of the light of global consciousness to Elon Musk. And this concept of Twitter being something mystical of that sort, I mean, that sits at the heart of transhumanism. You look at this argument people are having right now about free speech on Twitter, which I do think it's good that if we are going to be stuck in what James Polos calls the cyborg vivarium, at least everyone gets a say. But it doesn't change the fact that we're still stuck in that cyborg vivarium. We're still in a digital surveillance system. We're in basically a 24-7 propaganda machine that's pouring all this irrelevant, ultimately irrelevant information into your brain

and distracting you from what I think are the most important things, such as us here. All this started with broadcast media. I mean, radio. Of course, the newspapers. Even before then, newspapers were weak. They weren't as strong. But they were the most influential medium. So they would write stuff. People would believe it. Then you get radio.

They say people believe it. And then you get broadcast towers, television, the networks. They say people believe it. Now with the Internet, nobody knows what to believe. I mean, the disinformation experts herself was sowing disinformation. And now it doesn't even under I don't think Nina Jenkos even truly understood exactly why people were mad at her because she lives in a disinformation bubble herself. So I love it when people who don't do research accuse people who do of not knowing, you know, the truth or reality and everyone's accusing each other. There are very few people who can see more than others because they're trying. No one can see everything.

So everybody's, you know, we're all trying to figure things out. But I think at this point, the way technology is going, you're just going to think something's true. And you're not going to know who to believe or who to trust. And there's nothing you can do about it. Did you guys hear the War of the Worlds 1938 radio drama? Oh, yes. Orson Welles. I'm familiar with it, but I've never actually listened to it.

It's pretty wild. It's awesome, yes. Orson Welles. I'm familiar with it, but I've never actually listened to it. It's pretty wild. It's awesome, actually. I was told that when that played on the radio, people actually thought it was real and that aliens were actually invading and people killed themselves. Some people. People would come out looking for aliens. I don't know if that's true. I think that was apocryphal, yeah. It may have been hyperbole. Certainly,

there was mass panic. I can remember when I was a young man, my grandfather told me that when the first dirigible, it was like a glowing golden dirigible floated over this small town in Georgia, this woman went under her bed. She thought it was the angels coming to end the world. And two or three days later, they found her there.

They looked around for her. They found her there, and she was completely terrified. She didn't want to come out. These sorts of things, I mean, you look at the cargo cults um you know all these sorts of uh you could say atavistic misinterpretations of what technology really is that's really common um with the orson welles story though i think it's just really hilarious can you can you imagine if they just played cloverfield on television today like it was a news broadcast without telling people it was a movie? Well, the crazy thing is when I was in Austin, I went to Waco.

I actually went to Mount Carmel, where the site of the Waco massacre. And with all due respect to the people who are running it, very nice woman, they did have fake news. They had the meme of, what was the name, Chipman? The ATF guy who was there

holding the picture of the burning church or whateverman the atf guy who was there holding the the picture of the burning church or whatever which is not a real photograph it's a meme mocking him he was holding people's paper saying like you know ama or something i don't know and then someone photoshopped it to be him holding the the site of you know mount carmel massacre waco massacre and they thought it was real and so i was like oh actually no that's a meme just making fun of them and they're like oh we didn't know that. So people, deep fakes very much are impacting people. And I don't mean deep fakes in the sense that they're intentionally misleading.

Like, no wonder Snopes is fact-checking satire because a lot of people just believe this stuff because they don't know what's true or what's false. It's fascinating because I think false information is a big problem. In fact, it is one of the biggest problems. And I would dare say that my entire career is an effort to try and debunk false information. The only problem is it's coming from corporate press with billions or trillions of dollars over a decade or whatever to just keep pumping out disinformation. Sometimes it feels like you're trying to knock down a skyscraper with a little hammer, a little ball-peen hammer. You can't do it. It's not going to happen.

You need specialized tools. What you can do, as you were talking about, you can cultivate spaces outside of it, which we have those. I'm not necessarily saying the digital spaces, but that's part of it. But I think that at least half the country, if not more, is completely cynical about what comes out of the corporate press. And those conversations on the ground and also in the media, digital media space, I do see a real hope of people having some degree of anchoring or sanity in all of this madness. Let me pull up this tweet from former disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz.

She tweeted in a longer thread about a piece that she had previously published. In one of her tweets in the thread, she says, since this piece was published in summer 2020, the spread and effects of disinformation on American society have only worsened and become entrenched in domestic politics, as the last few weeks of my life have shown. This is the type of work I had hoped to do at DHS and the type of work the USG sorely needs to invest in. This is the type of work that I have built my career on, not a few contextless tweets. And this is the type of work I will continue in the public sphere. I said, disinformation specialist claims the US disinformation Board was to focus on domestic issues, a shocking admission. It really is. Now

that she's out, she's outright saying, oh, all of this disinfo is in American politics, and that's what I wanted to focus my work on. She responded, I'd encourage you to read the paper to me. She said, I encourage you to read the paper that I'm referencing, which is entirely focused on hostile state disinformation. She then responded to a few other people the same thing, saying the thread you're citing, which you've removed the initial context to, is in reference to a paper about hostile state disinfo. You can disagree with my assessment that it affects domestic politics discourse, but the strategy described in the paper is the work I'm referring to. It's almost like she doesn't understand.

I would assume she outright doesn't get it or she's just lying. The issue is there is no difference from what she claims to be Russian disinfo and typical American politics. She is someone who has tweeted out the Russian disinformation line uncritically without fact checking. When it turns out it was true, the Hunter Hunter Biden laptop story. She says, I was just quoting what the president said. Yes, you were pushing out disinformation without fact checking, without without any critical assessment, just repeating what the liar Joe Biden was saying about his son and the illicit deals they were doing.

If you did any amount of work, you would have seen that there are illicit dealings from Hunter Biden with Burisma in Ukraine and China. You would know about Joe Biden flying his son in Air Force Two into China for private equity deals, but she's done no research on any of this, blindly pushes lies, and then says, I want to work on these issues affecting domestic politics, but that's out of context when you say my work would have involved domestic politics. If she thinks the Hunter Biden laptop story was misinformation or disinformation, if she was unwilling to actually look into what that was as an disinformation. If she was unwilling to actually look into what that was as an expert on it, she absolutely was going to be interfering

with First Amendment issues. She doesn't get it. These are children who have no experience, who are not experts, who just think they're smarter than you being given government jobs. Hey, that sounds like government in its entirety, doesn't it? I don't know, Tim. I think she did some research. She asked Joe Biden if he did anything wrong. His administration said no. So there you go. Mostly false. Yeah.

Well, okay, then. I stand corrected, Seamus. You know, she said that it was a bunch of state disinformation. I think she specified it's a lot of corporate disinformation, too. We really got to focus on the corporations trying to take over the world right now. She said the Hunter Biden laptop story. What did she say? It was a Trump campaign product i believe so yeah she's

full of it that's what she does she lies she entrenches herself in domestic politics and says i want to focus on this but you've removed context this is the problem with these people now of course you know uh respect for her responding at all i invite her on the show but she's unavailable she's about to have a child i guess so all right well you know congratulations yeah yeah i mean that's a legitimate response as to why you can't come on the show i'm not gonna a lot of people are like she's scared she'll never come on she's gonna have a child, I guess. Very busy, yes. All right, well. Congratulations, yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's a legitimate response as to why you can't come on the show. I'm not going to. A lot of people are like, she's scared. She'll never come on.

She's going to have a kid. She'll be busy, yeah. That's an acceptable answer. I mean, honestly, I don't think she's lying about being pregnant or anything like that. Well, we don't have a disinformation board to investigate it. So without that, we can never know if she's pregnant or not. It's true. What really bothers me is that Americans would get caught in the crossfire of this or or collaterally damaged by this disinformation specialist hammering down on things that they

think are like foreign actors or, you know, like, how can you discern if it's a 12 year old in Russia with a VPN or a 17 year old in Dubuque, Iowa? I mean, they might think they can. Maybe they think they do. But I mean, the Russian would want you to think it's Dubuque. The Dubuque guy would want you to think it's dubuque the dubuque i would want you to think it's russian so like what who in their right mind thinks they have the hammer on that you you look at all the things that uh nina jankowicz is about right and especially with the laptop instance but but you know covid all of that uh these people aren't

really trying to stamp out disinformation obviously they're just trying to stamp out any competition with their disinformation. I mean, I'm not saying that every pronouncement that came out regarding the laptop, let's just say that I think all of that was BS. But say with COVID, I think that to some extent, people were confused, afraid. They said a lot of stupid things.

They refused to walk them back. And when they did, they pretended as if they were right the whole time or as if the situation was evolving. But at this point, after two and a half years of it, really, for me, 42 years of it, but two and a half years of it, I just see no reason at all to take these people on good faith at all. Totally agreed. And I've mentioned this before on the show, but they argue that the science changes, and enough because science does change. But if you're going to make that admission and you're going to fall back on that, whenever you have to change the narrative, you do not get to admonish people for posting information that conflicts with the narrative

when you have decided that that is the case, at least for the time being, right? So when it comes to the lab leak hypothesis, that's the most famous and obvious example. They claim that that was disinformation, misinformation. People shouldn't be allowed to spread it. Then as soon as it became more accepted for people to believe that, they were able to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing by saying, well, the information changed. Okay, fair enough.

Information changes, but then you don't get to censor people who present alternate information. It's that easy. It's that easy. And that seems to be what their intent is going to be. My prediction for the disinformation board, and apparently it's still going on. I don't know what the latest detail is, but it's not ending is they're going to issue

a statement say oh you know that story about uh hunter biden and those ladies of the night that actually came from uh where did it come from uh slovenia uh so it we're going to ban it and here's our list and then twitter is going to come out and be like, yeah, that isn't allowed to be tweeted. Twitter launched their crisis disinformation policy where they're actively editorializing. I mean, at a certain point, is there some like ultra

rich person who just fire a bunch of lawsuits? You know, let me tell you guys something. You know what the most annoying thing about lawyers is? That's a hard question. The worst conversations I ever have are with lawyers. They are, by definition, defeatist. Every single conversation.

I've never had a conversation with a lawyer who's like, I'm going to go scorched earth. No, they go, well, you know, the thing about this company is that under this statute, you're not going to win. It's going to cost you a lot of money. So in reality, and I'm like, how does precedent get set? Someone challenges the law. Someone files a lawsuit. A court issues their ruling. It goes up.

Hits the appellate courts. It stops. Times v. Sullivan, the precedent by which we have the standard for malice and defamation or whatever. Challenge it. But every single time I talk to a lawyer about Section 230 protections, about, you know, Twitter outright saying our staff will not determine what's true. And I'm like, OK, come on. At a certain point, they have to have, like, stepped over the line, right?

Here's what I hear. Section 230 does not say that you aren't allowed to edit. You're allowed to do good faith moderation. 230 actually protects that. And then I'm like, okay, which means we need a judge to tell us to interpret the law to find out what that limitation is, not just sit back and go, I guess we can't do anything ever. Yeah, they've been slow to pick up on that the last 15 years. We need some serious social media legislation or law fair. People really need to start taking these social media networks seriously. To the extent they're a monopoly, and I think they are really a de facto monopoly, it certainly falls under the First Amendment. If this consists of 80-90% of the public conversation, it's no longer private corporations. These people pretty much control all of the information flow at that point.

Let's talk about Wikipedia because I've been going off on this one. I'm really pissed off about this. I don't understand. Well, I think I do understand. Let me tell you what's going on. Wikipedia publishes every article under their byline. Every single article says from Wikipedia. Right there, I'm like,

present that argument to a judge, your honor. I understand section two 30 protections that you can't be held liable for what someone else posts on your platform. I'd like to make the argument here that Wikipedia has assigned credit to themselves for this article by putting from Wikipedia. Now, if I put from Tim pool, that's my byline. I'm responsible for that speech, right? Well, Wikipedia has done it. I've heard the argument, well, you can't because it's users who compile all of this. And I'm like, okay, let's break down that standard real quick. Let me break down what you're telling me. You're telling me that if I create an automatic process by which I will publish your articles under my name, I cannot be sued for defamation. So if I get 10,000 people right now to all add one word, no one can be sued. That is the stupidest thing I have ever. Think about this. You could create a blank wiki titled

Nancy Pelosi and then give everyone who logs in the ability to add one word based on the line. Let's do it. Let's build this. I'm not even kidding. Here's what we'll do. Let's develop a program where as soon as you load the browser, it knows you're here, like a cookie or something, so you get one word to add based on your position in line. You're the first person in.

You get to add the first word. Haggard. Second person can add the second word. High heel shoes. Oh, that's too many words. No one could be sued for defamation if what ends up getting written by 5 000 people is nancy pelosi eats dog if that was actually what was written who are you gonna sue nobody wrote it try suing five nope i only wrote one word you can't sue me for writing one word can you this is nonsense

the person who made the platform that allows it to go out needs to be responsible, especially if Wikipedia is putting from Wikipedia under every article. But every time I talk to a lawyer, I hear the same thing. Well, you can't because of statute and blah, blah, blah. Okay, get a precedent. Because certainly if it's true that you can't sue Wikipedia or Twitter or any of these platforms, then there is no longer any civil tort or defamation clause. None of it. None of it exists. There's no defamation. You know what? I want to defame somebody. I'm just going to be like, here's an open forum. Here's what we could do on TimCast.com. We'll open up a comment section. Anybody can write whatever they want in the

comments, and then we'll just take them all and paste them as a front page article. Nice. And we'll grab a random user, and we'll use their sentence as the headline, and here's the best part. Only 10 people will be granted special access to do so, like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has special editors who are allowed to lock and unlock pages and have higher tiers. They're given special editing privileges, but that still is defamation proof. Okay. Well, let's make that and see what happens. Here's my suggestion. Let's build a system. Here's how it works. It is blank. The first person to log in gets the first word. Every time you load it, you'll be placed in line behind someone else. And if they don't write a word, then after 15 seconds, their position expires. Then you move up and you can add your next word.

Then someone else can add the next word. And then you just get 50,000 people who all add one word to the great news article that is, I don't know, Nancy Pelosi or Taylor Lorenz or whatever. And then they can't do anything about it. Then we'll put it on Times Square billboard. Okay. Well, first of all, that just sounds insanely fun. I really want to do that.

And the second thing is that this is an incredibly big loophole that apparently no one else is taking advantage of and i think that we should absolutely do something like this wikipedia is taking advantage of it yeah that's that's all wikipedia is now there have been a lot of lawsuits against wikipedia and i guess what happens is two things they just settle right away and when you settle typically a judge is not going to intervene he's gonna be like you won it's over in fact some judges might be like you must settle we're not going to intervene. He's going to be like, you won, it's over. In fact, some judges might be like, you must settle. We're not going to court with this. And then if Wikipedia comes to you and says, how much do you want? And you say, here's my damages, they'll just be like, okay, done, bye, have a nice day, we win.

You know, talking about the technological freight train that is social media and the current media ecosystem, I mean, what you're talking about with Wikipedia really is the same sort of thing that you see with The New York Times, Washington Post, when they use unnamed sources or they say such and such said this. And, you know, people's lives have been destroyed by that so many times. People's reputations have been completely sullied because once you put out a story that says an unnamed source said this or just simply this person accuses this person of being a racist or a rapist or whatever, been completely sullied because once you put out a story that says an unnamed source said this or just simply this person accuses this person of being a racist or a rapist or whatever once that's out there and they know this that's what's going to be in the public consciousness

so i mean wikipedia is one fine example but i would say that the entire media ecosystem is is exemplifies how quickly disinformation spreads and how little accountability there is. Basically zero. I don't think that you're ever going to be able to stop wrong information. No. The issue is when it's completely automated or when you wield institutional power behind statutes.

So Twitter's position of we're going to censor things that we deem to be wrong. I'm like, okay, listen. If you as a platform, I we're going to censor things that we deem to be wrong. I'm like, okay, listen, if you as a platform, I'm just going to say if your position is that you pick and choose what content is seen or not, I don't care if random, a random person writes it. If you decided, so this is not the standard. A lot of conservatives think the standard for 230 is you're either a platform or a publisher. That's not the standard. It should be the standard and we'd be done. Then Twitter would be like, we're not editorializing anything anymore.

No more algorithms because if we intervene in any way, all of a sudden now we assume liability for every statement ever. Good. That's how it should be. That's not how it is because of Section 230. Well, you know, when I was talking about localism, regionalism, or the kind of personal approach to combating any sort of corrupt system, if you cultivate young people to be critical, to look at these things with at least a critical eye, if not a cynical eye, you will have a generation that comes up that's simply not subject to it. Unfortunately, I mean, the educational system is so eaten up with it. I can remember even 15 years ago, Wikipedia was completely forbidden as a source to cite. Now it's pretty much on the regular. People are, you know, everything from undergrads possibly up to the grad level, who knows?

People are encouraged to seek out these sorts of, we'll say, homogenized conformist sources in the public education system. I really do think, though, that independent communities are everything from radical Catholics to radical hippies to just your average right-winger. Both of us are here. Yeah. Your average right-winger with a pistol. I think that there is this really deep cynicism and skepticism towards the mainstream right now, and if that can be latched on, it will take time, but in time, you will have a generation

that comes up that's able to handle this, that's able to get on top of it. I just want to stress this real quick before moving on, just so people can think about it. If you go on Wikipedia, and you contribute to an article, say, on ian and you write you know ian once uh kicked a dog he's a radical hippie you have made a false statement against ian he

did never he did not do that and it causes him damage all of a sudden he loses his sponsorship from a local you know dog pet dog store or something then he's like i got damages and you and you lied about me and you know you knew you you're going to get sued for that. But if you go on with 10 friends and you write Ian and then your friend writes once and then someone random guy says kicked, another person puts a and another person puts a dog, no one can be sued because no one made a statement. That is insane. And I believe a judge would rule against that immediately. That's what Wikipedia is.

You can go into Wikipedia and change a single word. Someone will write, Ian once kicked a head of lettuce. And then someone can change lettuce to dog, head of dog. And they didn't say he did it. They only wrote one word. So who's responsible for defaming? That's the problem with Wikipedia. That's why I say they should not have Section 230 protections as it stands today, because it makes no sense. Ten people all write one word, then all of a sudden no one said the phrase. No, Wikipedia did. It's just so dumb that Wikipedia can automate the defamation process and then try and be absolved from it. No, no, no. If you're listening and you feel like filing lawsuits, I think somebody needs to file a lawsuit. I don't know. Yeah. I think Wikipedia is amazing.

I use it almost, almost every day sometimes. Um, but you're right. Absolutely right about that. I just think about the, the, the, what, what a person could do. Someone can write a long sentence saying, you know, uh, James O'Keefe is is a journalist and scholar and then someone can go in and just change journalists to um dog dog puncher i tried i didn't say it about him i just changed one word after hillary clinton's emails came out 2016 or so on there about i i tried to go into wikipedia and change it and be like her emails implicated sydney blumenthal you know osprey global solutions setting up shop in Libya. And immediately within like 10 seconds, it was removed.

So I don't know who's in charge, who's overseeing it. It was it was true stuff that I was looking at. Look up, you know, Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, Osprey Global Solution emails. You'll find it. I mean, there's there's community contributions, creating this amazing platform. They were sincere and it really Wikipedia used to be a lot better. I was never a huge fan, but it used to be a lot better. Now it's clear there's a huge ideological shift.

You could probably say, you know say it's almost homogenized. Look at any far-left figure. Show me a place where a far-left figure has been in any way demeaned or defamed. I'm not aware of them. It's all towards the right. And the reason being, clearly, is that leftists knew where to go a decade, decade and a half ago to gain power. And that's in the media. I'll actually, I'll attest to that too because my Wikipedia page is fairly tepid.

It's not really that bad. And that's an interesting indicator. You know, I'm a fairly moderate person. So they're like, you know, but if you're right wing, they write all of the worst possible things about you. Absolutely, with no consequence whatsoever. So something's got to be done about that. Let's talk about other signs of the apocalypse instead of just defamation. We got the story from Fox Business.

Biden considers tapping emergency diesel reserve with prices near record high. Yes, you may have seen the story that there's going to be a diesel shortage, that diesel is at, what, $6 a gallon. People who drive trucks are saying it's costing them $1,000 to fill up, so they don't even know if they want to do the job anymore. And then you have over and over again these memes, particularly from people on the left, saying it's not Biden's fault. Biden can't do anything about gas prices. It's the greedy corporations.

I gave you this from May 19th, only a few days ago. But you absolutely got to listen to it. This is Josh Hawley. Is our audio right? Oh, yeah. It never is, is it? It's because we listen to music before the is Josh Hawley. Is our audio right? Oh yeah, it never is, is it? It's because we listen to music before the show. Secretary Granholm, today

in the state of Missouri, the average price of gasoline today, as of this morning, is $4.10. Average price of diesel is $5.18. And I'm sure you've seen the reporting this morning that now AAA is projecting that gas

prices will hit a national average, average of $6 a gallon by the month of August. Is this acceptable to you? No, it is not. And you can thank the activity of Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine and pulling those bills. With all due respect, Madam Secretary, that's utter nonsense. In January of 2021, the average gas price in my state was $2.07. Eight months later, eight months later, long before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, that price was up over 30 percent and it has been going up consistently since. What are you doing to reverse this administration's policies that are drawing down our own supply of energy in this country that are throttling oil and gas production in the United States of America? What are you doing about it? With respect, sir, it is not administration policies that have affected

supply and demand. How can you say that when the price of gas was up over 30% from January? You answer my questions, and it's my time, Madam Secretary. So why don't you answer my question? From January to August, the price of gasoline was up over 30%. In my state alone, it has been a continuous upward tick since then. And here's what your president did when he first came to office. He immediately re-entered the Paris Climate Accord. He canceled the Keystone Pipeline. He halted leasing programs in ANWR. He issued a 60-day halt on all new oil and gas leases and

drilling permits on federal lands and waters. That's nationwide. That accounts, by the way, for 25 percent of U.S. oil production. He directed federal agencies to eliminate all supports for fossil fuels. He imposed new regulations on oil and gas and methane emissions. Those were all just in the first few days. Are you telling me that's had no effect on our energy supply? So, yeah, I think it's fair to say that he very much listed the policy changes that have impacted the price of gas. And can I just point out something? I think common sense.

When you have a political party that has been screaming climate change and carbon emissions, do you think they're the party that's going to get you cheap gas? I mean, no. If you are someone who is also worried about climate change, you're probably happy that Joe Biden did those things. The repercussions are regular working class people aren't going to be afforded to drive. Food prices are going to skyrocket. There's going to be shortages of diesel. And if we if we have to tap into these strategic reserves, I wonder, considering the fertilizer shortage already, what's food going to look like this fall when the harvest comes and ain't nothing coming through? Winter is coming, my friends. And when they try and claim it's Vladimir Putin who did this, here's what I hear.

I hear them saying, we did this and we're glad we did this. But we don't want you yelling at us because we're going to do it more. So we need a scapegoat. So, yeah, get ready for it's going to get worse yeah the uh the fertilizer situation is really critical uh already you see you know obviously what's happening in the ukraine has really just shut off all of that grain and then india of course has they've cut off their exports and you really have to wonder in in the long run and when i say the long run i mean in the next year or two, where we're going to be.

Because if you don't have the fertilizer and if you have an industrial farming system, the petroleum-based fertilizers are essential to the food supply. You don't have food. The only thing you then have are stores. Now, I think America will be okay. I think most of Europe will be okay. They'll hurt. But in the third world it will be crushing it already is i mean you got sri lanka yeah and there's there's politics involved in that right some of their policies and stuff but it is already affecting many other places as well um i think the the u.s will be okay but you ain't gonna be happy no and when you have unhappy people and you have a whole lot of

guns and you have a whole lot of anger, things happen. Look at the baby formula situation. Now we're importing, and it's just so laughable how people defend Joe Biden. Like, look, he's solving the problem. It's like, bro, you don't get credit for solving the problem you made. If you spill milk on my floor, I'm not going to congratulate you when you mop it up. I'm going to be like, please don't do that that again mopping it up was the least you can do this is what we're dealing with now with the you're going to get angry people you know

babies is bad enough but i think we're going to see a lot of shortages yeah i saw an article that said that uh you can take uh methane and break it into hydrogen and graphene. So there are ways out of this, but people are so hooked on the short-term oil for whatever reason. We have been for the last 40 years of my life, 43 years. I don't know. It's always like- It's just two years away, just five years away. Just like, what are we waiting for?

It's real simple. We built a world on oil. We are now standing on the pillars of fossil fuels that's why we need them you can't just take that away because then that your tower will fall and that fall is going to kill a lot of people so what can we do i mean slow changes build new infrastructure to hold up our civilization with alternate energies. Nuclear power sounds like a great idea. I'm a big fan of renewables, tidal energy, geothermal, all really great. Instead, it just seems like the people who are deeply concerned about climate change, and there are a lot. I think climate change is an issue. I think pollution is an issue. I think

dead zones are an issue. But I think the real argument here is human experience versus non-human experience. That is to say, if you were to just shut off the oil right now, like Greta Thunberg wants, and just kill 60 some odd million people, because all of a sudden, I mean, as I've mentioned, diabetics are the first to go when the power goes out. Then it's no food, no transport, no heating. So you really are just the people who are vulnerable, just 60 million, I think is the estimate. You can do that. But the human experience is why we're here. So you have these two trains of thought. One, that it doesn't matter what humans perceive, think, want. Human perception is irrelevant. Therefore, let's just stabilize

the ecosystem. And, you know, that results in how many people dead. Then you have people who are like, okay, look, you know can we can be better stewards of this planet while recognizing that we are humans we perceive things in a human way and we want to protect human life and what what brings us joy in which case yeah just this utilitarian kill as many people as possible for the sake of reducing carbon doesn't work well you know, I differ with many of those on the right on this topic. I do think that obviously our job as humans is to survive, right? That's the core. Other than salvation, let's say, the essential task of the human being is to survive. But in the last 150, 200 years, the absolute destruction on the environment that has been wrought primarily through technology

can't be ignored. And while I think climate change is somewhat of a red herring, it's dubious as to whether or not the evidence backs up the theory. And ultimately, it's a kind of slow moving thing. What we do have in our faces right now, as you say, pollution, the dead zones, but really habitat loss, particularly like in the Amazon or in Africa, which is driven primarily by China at this point, but also the species loss. I mean, once they're gone, they're gone. And I think that the reason that radical environmentalists are so passionate about this, and I feel very much in the same way, is that we are at a critical point. Just because there's trees everywhere doesn't mean you have an old ecosystem, right? You look at the Appalachian mountain range.

All of that's new growth. All of it. It was cut down sometimes twice, 100, 150, 200 years ago, 250 years ago. So what you have now all over the earth, what is still green, is in the southern hemisphere. And that's being rapidly eroded, again, primarily by China and i i don't know what the way around it is but i do think that the urgency that's one reason i'm so frustrated by people like greta timberg right she's a joke it's hilarious to watch her she makes funny memes that that swedish death metal meme hilarious but it completely covers up the real critical issue that we are still to this day day, as we have for two centuries, destroying the natural environment and it's never coming back.

So we have to find some place in between. But as it's been pointed out by many on the right, in America, for instance, many of those in the Sierra Club who founded the Sierra Club, you could say, at least by today's standards, are very right wing, especially on issues of immigration. But if you don't have a country, right, if it's not if it's no longer your country and you don't have harmony, you don't have cohesion, you don't have any way of exerting your will anymore. Well, then you're not going to save the environment and you're not going to save yourself. So I do think that, again, starting local. I think the equation is actually fairly simple.

People scream climate change. The World Economic Forum says you will own nothing, you will be happy. The people who are claiming that the Earth is being destroyed are not the ones who are going to give you a good economy. Absolutely. Donald Trump gives this roaring economy and growth that Obama said wasn't

possible. Yeah, well, growth means more kids. More kids means exponential growth. So certainly the people who are like climate change is destroying the planet are not going to be happy that Donald Trump was doing that, right? No. So then when Joe Biden, the Democrats, the party of climate change gets into power, what are they going to do? They're probably going to enact policies to reverse what Trump did, hurting people, but benefiting their ideology. That is not a moral statement on climate change, what we should or shouldn't do on the environment. It is a fact statement. Joe Biden helping people, giving them a better economy, giving them cheap fuel meant they were

going to eat. It meant they were going to have children. It meant these values are going to create more people. If you are Bill Gates and you're like, we need less people, you're not going to be happy with Donald Trump. Now, are you? You're going to want the opposite. Unfortunately, the opposite means that for you at home, your milk costs 10 bucks. Your gas is going to cost 10 bucks and you're going to own nothing and you're going to have to live with it. You're not going to be happy, but that's what they want for you. Yeah. So you made a point earlier about how people, especially people in developing countries, are really going to suffer from this. And I remember when the lockdowns were first beginning,

it was estimated, I believe by the IMF or the World Bank, that about 120 million people were going to be added to the category of being in extreme poverty as a result of COVID-19. Though, of course, what they're referring to specifically were the lockdowns. And we'll get into that euphemism in a moment. But we see this. I've seen some sources that say after 2021, they updated that number to 100 million after they saw the effects it actually had. And it's really sad because that group of people has been totally forgotten. And they use this euphemism, as I mentioned, where they say, you know, 100 million people have been added or found themselves in extreme poverty because of COVID-19.

Well, no, it's because of the lockdowns and the breakdown of the supply chain. We know this. Just look at the states in America which locked up and which didn't lock up. We know you're going to have far more disastrous consequences for your economy if you do shut down over something like this. And so the left for years was claiming if you cut even a penny of what we intend to allocate towards welfare spending, hundreds and hundreds of people are going to die. But then when it comes down to shutting down the global supply chain, or at least the part that every developed country in the world plays in the global supply chain, well, that's a risk we're willing to take.

And, you know, if it just saves one life, let's ignore the fact that many, many, many people will die. All right, let's go there. The Independent says, Donald Trump's civil war bombast is bad enough. Democrats shouldn't help make it worse. Oh, man. From Noah Berlatsky, mocking someone for not being as tough as their rhetoric is not helpful if you want a public discourse that doesn't reward aggression.

So this is just one of the many articles that are saying Donald Trump, Civil War bombast or Donald Trump calls for Civil War, blah, blah, blah. I love I love how they frame it. They are shocked and angered that Donald Trump would discuss such a thing. From May 11th, 2022, the second American civil war is already happening from Robert Reich. The conversation around civil war is not just something Trump brought up. Apparently what happened is that on Truth Social, someone referenced Naeem Bokele, I think is his name, the president of El Salvador. He tweeted, a great nation like the U.S., you know, can't be brought down from the outside. It has to be from the inside.

Someone then quoted that and said civil war. Trump then retruthed it, which is their version of retweeting, which is terrible branding, by the way. But, OK, let's live with it. And now they're saying Trump called for civil war. Trump, is this his first mention of civil war? Because this conversation has been happening for four years, and it started with mainstream corporate press. Well, it's not his first mention of the civil war. At least it might be.

It might not be. But it is the first time the media has ever twisted his words and made it sound like he said something completely different. That's true. We've never seen the media grasp at straws to make it seem as if he's saying something completely different than they could reasonably say based on his statement so is is civil war possible do you think it's i think it's happening it's always possible probable i don't know i think i i tend towards uh magic noirs making a statement about world war three that it would be a bunch of civil wars as well as a global war corporate war neighbors on neighbors information all of it let me let me tell you why I think it's happening and it's inevitable.

You need to understand what it means in the context of fourth and fifth generational warfare we often bring up. It may not get to the point where people are fighting in the streets. It may just be what we're experiencing, information warfare, lawfare, media manipulation. In this modern era, do we need nuclear weapons when you have the power of propaganda? Well, when I say civil war, I mean violence. I mean people – It's already happening. To some extent.

I mean organized violence and not just Antifa rioters smashing up buildings and beating people up, not just psychopaths randomly shooting at people. I mean organized violence. A national guard, a governmental body. Yes. And, you know, I vacillate on this, right? Sometimes when I grew up, it seemed pretty inevitable, right? In the 90s, it seemed pretty inevitable that the country was going to break apart.

There was so much hatred in the air, so much violence. That was pretty much stamped out by the response to 9-11. And all of that sort of foment was pushed down by the fear of the NSA or DHS picking you off, and it just went cold. Now it's starting to get hot again. And I don't really see who would be the combatants in a clear way, right? You could say, oh, it's going to be conservatives and liberals. It's going to be the urban versus the rural. What would that Civil War map actually look like? I did get an insight on that though when I think it was NBC published a map

of which states would pull back abortion rights and which ones wouldn't. And I'm not saying that's a clear map of what the battle lines would look like in the Civil War, but I think that's a pretty good indication because you've got a sacred value there, and I think that's what's pretty much behind most of this conflict is sacred values. I think it's going to be fairly north and south. I mean, for the most part, we're seeing abortion laws. Like, it's northern and western states that are pro-abortion to an extreme degree.

Colorado, for instance, no restrictions. And it's many of the southern states that are trying to implement restrictions on it. So you may actually end up seeing this. I'll reference the meme where it says the United States of Canada and what was the other one? The south was called like the southern, the Christian states of America. And then the north was the United States of Canada. And it was like California, but then up and around like Nevada and then Midwest. What people need to understand about the first Civil War, Texas, my understanding, joined just because of geography.

Texas was like, well, we're basically locked in next to the Confederacy. And if we don't join them, what happens? Who do we trade with? How does this work if we're a US state or whatever? So then basically, like by virtue of geography, we're joining this new union or whatever. I think the same thing would happen. You will see more conservative states that don't want to align with Illinois, New York and California, but be like, what choice do we have? North Dakota and South Dakota will probably be roped up whether they want to or not. Their populations are so small, they may not have

a choice that could split the country. Honestly, I don't really know all too well exactly how to predict what would happen. Civil wars like the U.S. Civil War are rare. In fact, I'm not sure there have been other civil wars exactly like it, where multiple jurisdictions split between North and South. The Spanish Civil War, for instance instance was pockets of urban and rural areas so we may actually just see that and you will see i mean new york's got a massive urban police force tens of thousands of people but i i think what people uh what what you need to understand right now about what's going on is geographic hyperpolarization is happening and will be exacerbated by the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade

and Casey. You're going to get, as you already are, conservatives in liberal areas fleeing, red states becoming redder, blue states becoming bluer, and then eventually we just completely disagree on everything, refuse to cooperate, and then what happens when Nevada puts up a border between California or something

because they're like, you allow illegal immigrants, we don't. So we're building a border between states. These are the kind of things that precipitate major conflict. Or how about monkey pox? It spreads. And then all of a sudden one state says we're enacting border checkpoints between states so we can keep out certain illnesses like we saw with COVID actually with Connecticut and New York. You guys are big on Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations. I've heard you talk about it. And let's just take his theory for granted, right, that human societies evolved so that they diversify naturally towards a conservative leaning and a liberal leaning. The conservatives obviously are holding down the traditions.

Liberals are pushing society forward and it's through that symbiosis that society goes forward, right? Forward isn't the right word. When I say forward, I mean in a more adaptive direction, right? So according to Height's theory, what you're talking about is humanity essentially as

certain pockets of super organisms in which having that variety, the the variety of of foundations to draw from in any given problem to face any given dilemma you have a much greater chance of solving it because of this diversity of perspective right if we take that for granted what's happening now with this big sort in the u.. and what's been happening really for decades, but in the last 10 years it's been extreme. In his theory, you're basically peeling the human organism apart. You're creating something that's profoundly new, that's never really existed before.

We're in completely uncharted territory if that's the case. Now, most of my conservative friends listen to that and it's like, oh, well, that's just a way to legitimize liberal points of view and push them on to me. Liberals love it because it's all airy fairy and we can all be together. But I honestly I think that the covid pandemic showed a real flaw in his theory because him and Jesse Graham, by the way, Jesse Graham deserves a huge amount of credit. But the idea that liberals skew primarily towards care and fairness and conservatives towards authority in group preference and purity and sanctity. I think on the surface that makes sense. But when you look at what happened during covid, you get a really good example of how flawed that is, because liberals really did circle the wagons and their sense of what is pure and what is tainted or what is polluting really kicked on. So whatever real distinctions there are to be made there long term, I think that did show a real flaw. And Haidt actually admitted that.

So what I see happening is you have this left wing and right wing. And as you mentioned, you know, the right, the conservatives are holding back the left from going too crazy. But the left does bring about some changes. What happened is there was a weird budding phenomenon where the left started to have a growth of some sort that was ignored. And then eventually the growth just got big and flopped off and now is completely separate from the U.S. body. So, you know, in this room we've had actual liberals and conservatives talk and disagree on a bunch of core issues, as you describe it. But the modern left in this country is separate.

The traditional left, as you describe it, as pulling us forward, is considered right-wing now because that weird budding phenomenon has slopped off and now is no longer connected to the existing infrastructure. That is the rise of the multicultural democracy within the United States versus the constitutional republic. It's being fed, it's being given sugar, and it's growing. And eventually it will either burst and break or it will consume the constitutional republic side of things. I think it'll probably burst because

these people have no logic behind what they do. It's wild tribal nonsense and they won't be able to adapt properly. They're not going to be able to survive. It really is. If they are the most extreme element of change and no tradition, tradition involves things like growing food. They don't know how to do this. If you look at that meeting with the DSA where they're like, hi, my name is John. He, him. I just want to shout out and say that, you know, please stop misusing gendered pronouns for the group. You saw that thing that went viral?

No. The DSA meeting, everyone's freaking out. They can't stop fighting because they're like, you know, someone says, guys, please stop clapping. You're triggering my anxiety. And then a trans person goes, stop using gendered language. And they're all yelling at each other. And it was just, it was crazy. That's never going to function as a system of governance.

Those people will not be able to grow food for themselves. Don't you think they're puppets, though? I mean, do you really think that the people. That's not relevant. I mean, if you have 8 million people in this country who believe that, they're not going to survive a long fall. Sure. I mean, they're being held up. Clearly, to me, I think they're just weaponized malcontents, right?

They're not – the entire – especially with the trans movement. I mean, this is not something that was grassroots from them. They pushed their way into the public square. The left used them as a weapon against the right. And it shows I think in many ways how devolved we are as a culture that they

got as much traction as they did. Something as ridiculous as pronouns and whether or not one is being misgendered as being some kind of key issue for the nation i i think that they use these people to hammer on us we're not talking about right now we're talking about a collapse a conflict civil war they can't exist sure no definitely if it collapses every transgender person on earth will immediately start to detransition and things will get real. Not by choice.

No, you're not going to have access to exactly like of surgeries or medication. But it's not even about trance. It's about the entirety of the the the left moral framework has no merit. The left in this country doesn't understand concepts of merit or logic. Now, I'm not saying literally every single one of them, but if you look at their thought leaders, we had a tweet that went viral from Hassan, who is the most prominent left-wing streamer. And he said something about capitalism, that there's only four companies that produce baby formula. And that was a non sequitur. That idea makes no sense. It's not capitalism's fault. There's only four baby formula companies. It is not for baby formula companies' fault that there's only four baby formula companies it is not for baby formula companies fault there's

no baby formula and there's not no baby formula because there's only four companies there's a nonsense statement if that's going to be the prominence of thought they're not going to actually solve the problem of baby formula so if everything did go belly up into civil war or whatever most farmers probably conservative i don't mean i could be wrong about that but i know absolutely right most conservatives live in rural areas meaning they likely have on a scale of one to a hundred the 100 being you are a prepper outdoorsman who can build a hut from trees in a day and one being you are absolute city folk. If you're a conservative, you're leaning towards outdoorsmanship. So just living out here in West Virginia, I know what I can eat

outside a little bit. I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of proper outdoorsman at all, but I know when the food, I know when the wine berry season is, I know when the pawpaw season, I talk about all the time. Hey, I know where to get some food. I know where the turkeys are. I know what the animals are around here. I know where the bears are. I know where the deer are. You live in a city. Let's say the store closes. What do you eat? Where do you get food? You have no idea. Even if you leave the city, you're going to be like, now I'm in a random rural place. What do I do? Well, unfortunately for you, you're going to have to go out probably a hundred miles before you get to, even if you go a hundred miles, you're going to have to go out probably 100 miles before you get to – even if you go 100 miles, you're in owned territory. So if you live in the middle of nowhere, if you live outside of the suburbs, you're more likely to be conservative.

You're more likely to know what to eat, where to eat, where to get water. You live in a city, you got none of that. So good luck. Yeah, you know, having lived in Boston, Portland, and reared in Tennessee and now living in Montana, I can tell you right now who's going to win that conflict. I can tell you right now who's going to last if things go belly up. Do we need BuzzFeed if the economy crumbles? I don't think we need them now, but definitely not then. Top ten annoying things that happen when you farm.

The joke I made to the – we have like a plot of land far away. I won't say too much but there's um recreational communities that double as like in the event of an emergency come out and i always tell them like don't worry guys when when it hits the fan and everything goes crumbling if you need someone to complain about stuff i'll be there that's the job i can do right no as soon as you show up they're going to be like start cutting wood and you're going to be like yes sir That's it. Yeah.

You know, I think Montana, especially being out there around all these survivalist types, such solid people. You know, I mean, I don't want to name names, but there are a number of liberty coalitions that give me real hope for the country out there. Because you have people that are salt of the earth, and they're also just completely independent of the system should it come to that. You mentioned farmers, though. We're down to, I think, maybe 2% or 3% of the U.S. population is engaged in farming, at least on a professional level. So you're talking about a new elite should things go belly up. In the land with no food the farmers are king i just drove through middle america on my way back here and man the farms are huge yeah and i imagine they're owned by one guy or whoever a company a small bill gates maybe well this is what i wonder

it's so bizarre you mentioned that uh you know an economic collapse right or an economic collapse or a land with no food the farmers are king it's insane to me that we don't give those people more respect already. I mean, they're already making all of our food. It's not like that's only going to be the case once it collapses. I thought it was a tragedy how Monsanto screwed those guys over with their glyphosate. They give them these chemicals to put on their crops, and then they need to get their specific tailored herbicide that won't affect it, and then the next season they have to use it again because they can't get out of it?

Let's think about old feudalism. You know, the lords and the kings would have all the land, and the peasants and the serfs would till the lands for them. In the future, if there's a collapse, farmers got guns. So good luck. You're going to need comparable force to come in and take it over and try to establish something. What about air power? Because this is like when I think about Civil War and we talk about borders, I'm like rivers, mountains. But then I just think about bombers and stealth bombers.

What's that going to do for you? Well, how is it going to change the game? Because it's not 1865 now where a river is a big deal anymore. I mean it's still a little bit of a big deal. Air power is great for taking out military installations but not for occupying. Artillery too. a big deal air air power is is great for taking out military installations but not for occupying artillery artillery too like i i i i don't think it's going to look like you know what you know i thought it wasn't going to look like the first civil war until the abortion issue started becoming more prominent and people have brought up uh lincoln's election how that led to states

seceding the slave states and i'm like what if what if we Joe Biden's our Buchanan, basically a feckless, you know, pathetic leader who you can't even call him that he's an occupier. He's the guy who sits there and has the title. So Trump gets elected. And then we see all the abortion states be like, we out. So here's a potential thought I was having. And again, this is wild speculation. Roe casey are overturned republicans propose federal restrictions on abortion or a bunch of red states start passing these bills the left gets angry donald trump says when i get in we are going to federally you know ban abortion that's what triggers a secession from blue states saying, nope, we're not going to allow that.

I wonder, you know, I've heard it said and I generally agree that abortion has become really like the quintessential boomer issue. I know that young people are also really passionate about it. But the real thrust of the abortion movement came in the 60s and 70s. And now it's just this lingering thing. I mean, I don't see banning abortion federally, but I do think that it's just one of many, many wedges that you see pushing people apart. And again, it's a sacred value. So it's non-negotiable. Let me ask you, Seamus, do you want to ban abortion at the federal level? Yeah. Would you vote for people who would? Yeah, for sure. Do you think a lot of pro-life people would? Yeah. do and joe biden would veto it donald trump would then say the first thing i'm going to do is i'm going to i'm going to sign the save save the children actor whatever they call it because they're

going to give it some name like that and the left is going to scream and be like no i think it's larping can i just mention one more point in response to you i disagree that this is a movement that's lost steam i actually think it's gained steam and according to gallup it has as well more people identify as pro-life than than did in the 80s i'm talking about passion not metrics right i just i think it's very we'll see what happens no i hold on look the supreme court yes may overturn rowan casey absolutely and all of these states have been in enacting new bills to restrict abortion as it is it's it's it's more than I've ever seen in my life. You know, I think Donald Trump's election is, you know, orders of magnitude more important as far as a social wedge.

This is one thing. No, no, but right, right, right. Sorry to interrupt. Yes. But there's a strong moral catalyst in abortion that without, you know, Trump is the powder keg. Abortion is the spark? Perhaps. We'll see what happens. But I think that it's just one among many factors.

And I do, obviously, I mean, you see from the perspective of the war room, you see these people, these are people, again, most of the people that are war room viewers are right-wing, salt-of-the-earth people, very, very passionate. and i think that they see the battle lines drawn and i think steve bannon has identified those battle lines and is able to articulate them in in superb fashion to drive that forward even with that though you know just seeing that passion firsthand i i don't want to die on this hill but i i just think abortion has it's it's so normal already in the culture.

Like the revolutionary spirit from the 60s and 70s has long since died away. If it comes to something so extreme as a federal ban on abortion, yeah, that's going to spark things off. But more than race issues, more than economic disparity, more than the obvious corruption at the center of the system. It's not about more. It's about needing a tribal issue to incite one tribe, one faction. Going back to that map, clearly that map had an impact on me for a reason. You do see pretty, in stark terms, these zones of certain moral leanings. Like I said, I don't want to die on that hill, but I do think that it will be a

confluence of factors. That's just one among many. I really believe. I hear you. I still will. Just to make one more point about this, I think that you're right that it has been law for a very long time, but one interesting component of this issue is when you look at gay marriage, for example, and I put marriage in air quotes there. The Supreme Court decided upon that about 10 years ago, and now the culture is almost completely in lockstep with that entire agenda, whereas Roe v. Wade was decided roughly 50 years ago now, and they absolutely have not won the culture over, and in fact it's gone in the opposite direction.

And having been to the March for Life and various pro-life events, I would just totally disagree that there is a more passion behind this. Oh, man, let me double-check. Let me double-check on that. So what we do, we have this from the Guttmacher Institute. They say if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion. This looks like a regional conflict. Yeah. So there was a poll of five regions.

You had the Northeast. You had the South. You had the Heartland. You had California and I think like the mountain region or whatever. I don't know. And they polled them all. The West, the majority in favor of secession were Democrats at like 40 some odd percent. In the South, it was like 60% of Republicans wanted secession. In the Northeast, it was mostly Democrat. In the Heartland, it was mostly independent voters. I did the math. I calculated the populations of every state and every region, broke down the percentages to get the actual number, and then correlate them to each other and found 37.2% of the United States was in favor of their specific region breaking off from the United States to form their own country.

37.2. That is massive. Wow. So when you look at this from the Guttmacher Institute, you can see if we do have a new civil war, it's not going to be north versus south. It is going to be multifactional, multiregional. Yeah, it'd be global. Sorry, go ahead. Oh, I mean, you don't see Canada or Mexico in there.

You also don't see the Chinese nuclear submarines off the west coast. Like, what are we joking about here? No, never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake china's gonna sit back and watch yeah of course if chaos i mean it's a land grab if we go to war with ourselves you don't don't don't shred this place now it is interesting though that you point out not north north versus south very roughly speaking it looks almost like coast versus center look at the south yeah i mean the southeast is an exception right well the south is the south it is kind of funny that the south is the side of trying to grant personhood and then and the various northern states like new england are the uh deny personhood by the way it's

hard to find estimates on this i see one estimate saying roughly 150 000 worth of march for life in dc when i'm thinking about this this abortion topic it strikes me as like i said larping earlier because like if it was real chaos and you were hungry and starving and you're the guy who was giving you food was aborting babies no one's going to try and stop the guy because he's creating stability for you and your family it's only when you have like enough money to start thinking about things and what that guy over there 100 miles away is doing that we start to interfere with each other's rights. I think you're wrong. Or abilities.

I think in the event of a collapse, having children would be considered the most important thing ever. And somebody was killing kids would probably be stopped. It just depends on the situation. Because if the guy, if there's a warlord in charge of your locale that is vicious, but he's making sure that you're going to stay alive, I've never had to face starvation.

I've heard it's life-altering, completely changes the way you look at reality. Perhaps in the micro, but that civilization would cease to exist. I don't know, man. I mean, just think about it logically. of humans at any point that said we are small and starving but the guy who runs us wants women who are pregnant to not have kids, how long can they last? Versus any other population that says have more kids. You know, it depends on the weaponry a lot of times.

20 years, bro. 20 years. You have 10 20-year-olds in group A and 10 20-year-olds in group B. So that's five couples each. And one says, no kids! The other says, everybody have kids. Oh, they take slaves they they invade if they have the weapons the the guy that wants to kill all the kids i'm not talking about

liberals it could be anybody it could be any my point is this you're adding you're adding things to it that are that are relevant to the point i'm making if you have two societies negating all external factors and one says we're not having kids or we're going to even take a slight 1%, 2%, 10%, 20% we're going to reduce our population. In 20 years, you know, group A that has five couples each having two kids has a new adult population and group B that doesn't, doesn't have a new adult population. They've aged and now they're weak and they're the ones who become the slaves. It's a math problem what you're doing, but you're creating a situation that has no externality. And in reality,

people will fly in with B-52s from across the world and try and alter your equation. Sure, there's a million and one variables, but the point is, this is a factor. If you don't have kids within 20 years, you have no fighting age males. Well, you just take slaves. You can't if you're 40 years

old and a bunch of 20-year-olds raid your city get it we're talking past each other listen listen the fact is it is a simple fact statement not a moral statement societies that have more kids

will have more fighting age men than societies that don't that's it you can have whatever you want both sides are going to have bombers both sides are going to have artillery and one side is going to have more people more people means more likely to win, period.

Especially the fact that they're younger people. The Romans, they had less people, but they took the Gauls out because they had better weapons and training. So, right. If you want to get specific, we can talk about who has the better weapons. But in the United States, conservatives tend to have the weapons and tend to have the kids. Therefore, the logic dictates if you want to get specific, conservatives are likely going to be the ones to win. I'm concerned about the militaries, not not the civilians that's the real question i mean you know people have oftentimes said well most of the enlisted men in in america are on the right

but the leadership seems to be signaling heavily to the left so people have oftentimes asked who would fight for the left in the civil war and seemingly it would be our own military right but that would only be if the enlisted men followed orders which i think is pretty unlikely on mass i think that they would be crushed if they if they had tried uh you know say post-insurrection to actually deploy the military in a meaningful way against the u.s population there would be a mass defection and i think that that that same trend would would forth. I really do think that it's just a matter, you've just got this ugly, corrupt growth. I like your description of that,

this growth that's kind of fallen off, but you do have this sort of cancer in the society that I don't think it's a matter of waiting it out. But I do think that the base that is in opposition, we are far greater in numbers and in children and in weapons. It's just simply a matter of political will not to take them out but to topple them and move forward so here's what i think we could see one day for for some unknown reason a whole bunch of u.s national guardsmen start shutting down bridges in a major city in in and outside of New York maybe, just say New York.

And then all of a sudden on CNN, they say there is an insurrection happening in New York. Military has gone rogue. They're taking over the city. And the reality is these are, let's say they're National Guardsmen, and they were ordered, we're going to be doing a drill. We're going to need a couple of guys on each of these bridges. Here's the operation. And they have no idea why they're doing it. All of a sudden, the media claims they're Trump-supporting

insurrectionists. Regular New Yorkers go on the bridge. It's screaming in their faces, threatening them. National Guardsmen have no idea what's going on. They're just grunts. They're low-level enlisted or whatever, being told to do this. Here's why. It's for security. All of a sudden, regular people are screaming in your face. All of a sudden, they're throwing rocks at you. What do you do? Do you defend yourself or no? Then you have a national story. Who do you believe? What really happened? Matt Tabe wrote an interesting article where he said, eventually get to the point where two different law enforcement vehicles are rushing and they pull up to the police station and they both jump out and they yell to the police chief,

arrest that man at each other. And then what? There was, I think it was in Turkey. A bunch of soldiers went on the bridge, the Bosphorus and shut it down. It was then reported that they were staging a coup. They were then beaten, flogged and dragged to the streets. My understanding is that these guys had no idea what was going on and were just told to do it. And because they just blindly follow orders, they would. But think about this. If you're in the National Guard or you know

someone is, think about how simple it is for your commanding officer to say, hey guys, we're going to take these trucks. We're going to be dropping off supplies. And then you get to a bridge and they're like, hey, wait here one minute. Nothing seems out of the ordinary when all of a sudden you hear in the news, you're part of a coup and you had no idea. You took weapons or you are occupying a bridge. You had no idea. You were just told to do something normal. So that's a real possibility.

People need to understand when it comes to the military. It's not about just following orders. It's about you're given normal orders. Hey, guys, we're doing a drill to prepare for terror. We're going to be moving some vehicles. There may be rides this summer. And then all of a sudden you're on a street corner and the media is claiming your staging is going to take over. This is what I'm talking about.

I like getting away from the mud and looking at this from above because MSNBC is owned by Comcast. Comcast is owned by Vanguard and BlackRock. These are not American companies or not. I mean, they operate outside of the law. They own the MSNBC. So in your experience, you've been studying the technocracy and these people that are moving. Do you feel that they are pressuring us into some sort of conflict?

Look, there are many ways to imagine what your opponents are thinking or what their intentions are. I try to avoid it as much as possible. But one thing is for certain is that they are sowing chaos within our population. And I think that the reasoning is pretty clear. A chaotic population is much easier to control. And it does have the sense of being occupied by a foreign government. But it's a sort of foreignness within our own system, right? It's some alien

mindset that has been birthed out of the West that is now occupying governments across the West. You could call it leftist. I honestly think it's a misnomer. I think it's some combination of corporatism and technocracy that uses leftist talking points in order to push their agenda right now but it's the same types and oftentimes the same people who manipulated the right into invading the middle east on the basis of very flimsy evidence that there was any kind of threat from either muslim terrorists or from iraq directly right? So I think that at the core, and maybe I'm a carpenter hitting everything with my hammer, but I think at the core what we see

and what we've seen rise over the last century, century and a half, is technocracy, and that's the key principle. It's the power of technology to control people and to control the environment, and now with transhumanism, this focus to control people and to control the environment and now with transhumanism this focus to control the inward self so who's in charge of creating investing in and deploying technology obviously elites both right and left right now primarily left and what is the ultimate effect it's about control but while you're being sold these technologies as a means for you to control either your own life or the environment that you're in,

I think that really the overriding dynamic is that technology has allowed, on an unprecedented scale, elites to manipulate and control the population below them. So you talk about Comcast know, Comcast and, and BlackRock and all these different, you know, multinational corporations. I think that at the core there, the,

the sway that they have right now, aside from their, their influence over or direct control over any kind of military or governmental body is just simply the technology itself is able to cultivate a public mindset. And that, again, it feels like an alien force coming in, but it's coming from within. Do you meditate? A bit.

Does it help? Of course. Like help you discern what's real and what's not? You know, I oftentimes question if I'm ever able to discern directly what's real and what's not. But I think what meditation does is it allows you to step back from what you perceive and what you think you know and see it from a distance and then come back and be able to act effectively i don't know whether or not anything i know is real but i'm pretty sure but meditation of course is it's a wonderful way to calm the mind prayer yeah i do clear mind i had to forget you you'll you'll no thoughts, and then all of a sudden you'll be thinking.

You'll remember that you're thinking. You'll be like, oh, yeah, I'm supposed to have no thoughts. And then you have no thought again. Then all of a sudden you have no thoughts for a second. And then all of a sudden you're thinking again. You're like, whoa, I've got to stop that thought. And then it gets longer and longer. Then it's 20 seconds of no thought.

And, man, maybe that's the answer. There's no the answer, but that's the answer. There's no the answer, but I think for sure. It helps you calm down. Well, I think if you're going to try and say that regular people should be meditating to help calm down, you've got a cultural problem. And you need to teach people at a young age. And then we just come back to the same answer. The answer is simple.

Have kids. Teach your kids your values. That's it. And in 20 simple. Have kids. Teach your kids your values. That's it. And in 20 years, those kids will vote. And if conservatives have more kids than liberals, in 20 years, conservatives outnumber liberals

in the vote. And then the vote goes conservative. We're seeing that right now. Because we talk about it a lot. In 2000, I pull up these studies. Conservatives were having, I think, like 0.5 more kids

than liberals were. So conservatives were having replacement-level children, 2.01. Liberals were having like 1.5 or 1.4. Twenty years later, slightly more conservatives. Demographics are destiny, right? That's it. So that's why I say if all these conservatives go out and have seven kids, in 20 years, for every two conservatives, you get seven votes.

Liberals are having no kids, and they're sterilizing their kids wait till they get those artificial wombs though yeah i don't know if we can't vote our way out of it but you know i think you can you can i mean look one of the reasons that uh there is this this kind of paranoia about population extermination not just reduction is that knowledge that you know the the numbers are on the side is on the side of the traditionalists. Traditionalists across the world are continuing to have children while liberals are living this very bizarre and, again, kind of alien lifestyle, this alien to the planet, completely new, completely novel, and completely unsustainable. For people that are obsessed with sustainability,

the lifestyle that they've eked out for themselves won't last for long unless they can maybe perfect fusion and births out of artificial wombs. Because you're absolutely right. They'll be swamped by the traditionalists. You're talking about city life? The bill that Democrats have tried to pass would allow for the termination of the baby up to nine months. There's no reason for that unless you just don't want the baby to live. Democrats are absolutely in favor. Look, aside from the bill, you just look at what Eric Adams said. You look at what Matt Bender said when he came on the show. It's like, do you believe a

woman should ever have a right to an abortion, elective abortion, up to nine months? Yes, the woman's choice. Okay. They don't care about artificial wombs. If they want to have a kid, they'd have kids. Artificial wombs are irrelevant to the abortion issue. That was a half joke, obviously. But the artificial wombs, it is a thing, right? They are developing them. They're developing them ostensibly for people who can't have children. They're real.

And also women who don't want to alter their bodies with babies, right? They've already grown, I think it was like a sheep or something. Oh, absolutely, yes. In a bag? Yes, and they've got, you know, there's always an article coming out. One of the latest is an AI-powered incubator that they haven't used it on human cells, but that's the intention on human fetuses. And basically, it's, you know, and it's one of many gadgets such as this, but it would

allow, without direct human intervention, this device to modulate the temperature, modulate the nutrients in order to grow human fetuses first in smaller vats than in bigger vats. You know, as much as I focus on technology and transhumanism, I think that you really have to distinguish between the intention and the actuality of any of these different paradigms or devices. So like artificial wombs may or may not be a thing in 50 years, but I think that it really does cut to the heart of a sort of mentality. What kind of person would would dream up a world in which, you know, a seemingly normal family grew their baby in a vat and then raised it with chips in their heads and used artificial intelligence to surveil that child in order to find the perfect neurological base, right? That mentality is, I think, really, it's a spiritual orientation towards technology and against the human, ultimately.

It's not an enhancement. It's an obliteration of humanity. And I think that knowing that so many of these people have this anti-human sentiment deep in their hearts, it gives you a really deep sense of the spiritual corruption that we see in the country and really in the developed world as a whole. In 30 years, Republicans will be transgender communists who are arguing for having artificial womb babies, and the left will be metaverse childless genetic clones or something and the conservatives are going to be like can

you believe how far left they've gone right i if we i see if we continue on that trajectory though i don't know if we make it another 30 years unless we just be here some of us roboticize ourselves and the machine just keeps cloning more metaverse people. This is something that I really wrestle with a lot. What are the possibilities of any of these really drastic, extreme ideas on human enhancement? Or having universal smart cities, having human beings with chips in their heads that are able to commune with artificial intelligence. How likely is any of that and you know ultimately i come back to always it really doesn't matter if everyone is addicted to a smartphone and you have sufficient surveillance so that you know kind of anarcho an anarcho tyranny situation where a certain subset of people are surveilled to the point

you can control their behavior and everything else that slips through the cracks, well, you have enough control over the centers of power, they can go. So, you know, the idea of this bizarre science fiction universe where artificial wombs and the metaverse has completely taken over people's minds and all that, I think it's really important to get an idea of what the point of reference of the society is, or at least that subset of the society.

But it's ultimately irrelevant, right? You don't have to worry about artificial wombs if people who have the money are able to get surrogates to simply pay people to pimp out their wombs to have children. I mean, that's already here. Well, I think conservatives would want the artificial

wombs to exist so that you can eliminate abortion or infant mortality that's a pretty hilarious idea well right now there's a question about uh you know viability and terminating the life of a baby if it could survive on its own if the artificial womb exists there's no argument for terminating the life of the fetus at any point well Well, but you're talking about in extreme circumstances. I think conservatives, by and large, oddly enough, have a very kind of Darwinian advantage in all of this because conservatives really do value that man-to-woman relationship, long-term relationships, marriage. Right, right, right. And having children in a natural way.

They're trying really hard to stop the left from killing their babies. Sure. So I don't know, Seamus, would you be in favor of artificial womb technology if it ended abortion? So it's an interesting question. I need to give it some thought, but basically artificial womb technology could be good if there were drastic cases where the child could not develop inside of the mother's womb. I don't think it should be something that replaces normal gestation. Well, I just, well, obviously, right? Yeah, yeah. But like if it's an argument of like, I'm just going to remove this child because I'd rather they develop artificially,

I imagine these artificial wombs would like pose risks to the child that wouldn't be present. What if right now? And they do actually. I mean, the ethics around artificial wombs. Hold on, I'm trying to ask a specific question. Sure. If right now they said you cannot terminate the life of the baby because artificial wombs exist, you'd effectively end abortion. I'd have to think about that.

It's an interesting question. It's not a question of whether someone wants to choose to put in a womb. It's the idea that if right now abortion is legal in the first few weeks up to depending on which state you're in, and then all of a sudden these states say, say, okay, well, you can end the pregnancy, but the baby can't be killed. That's what an artificial womb would do. I think you'd have the left being absolutely outraged because they're like, well, what if I can't afford to have a baby? It's like, well... We'll grow it in our vat.

Right. We'll hand it back to you or hand it to someone else. The state will take it. I do think it is probably one of the funniest things I've heard in a while, the conservative case for artificial wombs. It wouldn't surprise me if you saw that in the National Review or something like that, Fox News. But there are real ethical questions around all of these transhumanist technologies, but artificial wombs in particular, and it's mostly women making this argument. That relationship between a woman and the fetus in her womb isn't just an emotional relationship that the woman herself feels.

All of her chemicals, like all of her hormones, all of her bio rhythms, and on a more kind of spiritual plane perhaps, a direct kind of spiritual connection to this child, dictates the type of baby that's going to be born. So the idea that you're going to be able to recreate that in some sort of artificial womb is, I think, pretty absurd. And also needless because think about all of the innovation and energy and investment that takes when you have women and men and penises and vaginas and wombs and all the things that nature has already provided.

But that being said, when the National Review does publish that article, the conservative case for artificial wounds, I'm going to be like, it's important. Well, they already exist. They've already grown some animals in them. I think the only issue now for humans is ethics. So if they existed, what's the argument for terminating the life of a fetus if it can be saved? I'm also curious with the animals uh i'm curious the animals like what the effectiveness rate is how

dangerous it is to have them in an artificial womb as opposed to just normally developing right so obviously i'm not asking the question of yeah no i get it just ending a pregnancy i'm saying if they try to argue rape or incest or health of the mother, it's like, okay, well, artificial womb's right here, so you can't. Like, you can, you know, for those reasons, I think then you end up having more babies. Let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, please, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends. Head over to timcast.com, become a member.

We have a members-only segment coming up for you at around 11 p.m. Let's read what y'all have to say a very important one from andrew r he says the egyptians built pyramids in north america okay is that pretty sure that's not true south america i don't know i mean let's ask the fellow for a source and you can provide one you know what's really interesting about that i think that's probably a hooey statement but maybe maybe not. The fact that you had this convergent evolution of the pyramid system and, of course, the pharaonic system where you have this god-king at the top and then the warriors below and then the servants below that,

well, the fact that that evolved independently in the New World with the Aztecs and the Mayans and the Incans is absolutely fascinating because one of two things either happened there. One, you had some guy who came from Egypt, perhaps on a boat, or maybe he traipsed all the way across the Bering Strait, and he had either the knowledge in his mind or some sacred tome on how to create a society. And he made his way all the way down into the equatorial region of the New World and then set about creating that New World.

Possible, Quite unlikely. A more likely scenario, which is, I think, far more fascinating, is the idea that societies, human societies, tend towards certain structures. And it's almost like the, you know, the eusocial ant colony where you have that natural hierarchy form. Right. The pyramid thing is just because of the easiest things to build. Stacking rocks.

Absolutely. And also, you could say that it's optimizing human capital by having you know a god king like figure at the top with warriors and then the slave i mean how else would it be but it is a fascinating phenomenon that basically with a lot of particular differences in essence the new world recreated the old world independently out of thin air. All right, we got Philip Allen McCracken says, oh no, where'd Timothy's teal tea go? Or did you run out

of the color? Baseball tea is always a good choice, good sir. Thanks for the show. Actually, this is the same shirt. That was just icing from a cake. What happened was it was teal and then Tim got scared. The color bled out. It turned gray.

Well, a predator had come in, and I had to change colors to blend in with the background. High marks on the teal shirt. I saw a lot of clips of that. Really liking it. I got a bunch of other colored shirts, too. So there's a blue one, and there's a red one. There's a yellow one, but that's too Anne Cappy. We should try that one.

Give it to Andy. My high school colors. Give them to Andy, or when Luke comes, we'll make Luke wear it. Yeah, exactly. And then everyone will wear the political compass color shirts. Perfect. Ian will. 100%.

I don't know what color Ian will wear. I don't know. Green? I'm going there. All right. Ian Kinney says Jack Posobiec was detained by armed Wordle Economic Forum police officers this morning while covering the forum in Davos. Yeah, Davos cops.

That was crazy. He was detained for like an hour. And they said, he looks suspicious. Oh, police, they know who he is. It's like Jack Vosobics has like 1.5 million followers or something. They know who they're detaining. Imagine they were like, we're holding you for an hour

and we just now realize you're a journalist with a camera on the table. He was like, in case you get detained and you need to rest, you can always get a pillow. Poso. Hashtag Poso. My pillow dot com. Good for him.

Harry Toe says, no, Luke. I puke. Well, y'all should tweet to Luke and tell him to get here sooner. Stormfire says, hey, Tim, Cassandra's name is spelt wrong on the about page on your website. It says Cassandra. You better fix it now that I paid to tell you about it. Nice work, dude. Somebody spelled it wrong. better fix it now that I paid to tell you about it. Nice work, dude. Somebody spelled it wrong.

Better fix it. Good catch. Cassandra. That's a good name. I like that. Thomas Sidebottom says, friendly advice for all. Fill up your car every time you use it. You can pay for one gallon at $4, one gallon at $4.25, and one gallon at $4.60,

or you can buy three gallons at $4.60. Might save you significant sums of money that is a good point all right let's grab some more eric max says glad to see you're using the brave browser and sticking it to big tech that's right absolutely big fans of brave amanda dealt says would you kindly give a listen to my friend's new song the artist is ripper find him on soundcloud and soon on spotify he is an upcoming artist out of oklahoma would you kindly means you have to do it bozeman says yeah ian i missed you no thanks man bozeman montana i went through montana i think we're close to it then you

beautiful if you did you should have stopped by i didn't know you were out there i want to hit you up all right jake moore says have d have Dave Smith back on after LP Reno reset. What's that? They have a conference, I think, in Nevada soon. Yeah. All right, Dave. Come back on the show. That'll be fun.

Yes. By all means. Always welcome. Noah Zork says, monkey pox escaped from that truck a couple months ago. It's all connected. It's not. Monkey pox is not just, it's not from monkeys. It was found in monkeys. It's gross. Yeah.x is not just, it's not from monkeys. It was found in monkeys.

It's gross. Yeah, it can be in people. So those monkeys, I think, were like, they were test monkeys months ago. I don't think, I just got to tell you, a lot of people have been saying that. Just wrong. Just not true. The current spread, and earmuffs for your kids, the current spread is widely believed to be among men

who enjoy the presence of men. That's what they've been saying across the board. Yeah, there was that Darklands, a kind of fetish club in Antwerp. I think three cases they tied back to there. Obviously all men enjoying each other's companies. I think they should be wearing socially distanced. Yeah, definitely.

And wear their gimp masks. Yeah. Wrong kind of mask. Any kind of mask. Any kind of mask. All right. All right. Ben Hickson says, Avi Yamini from Rebel News in Davos reporting on the World Economic Forum.

You should have him on. Yeah. I mean, he's always welcome to come on. We'd love to have him. Big fan. Oh, Avi? Yeah. Yeah.

He talks to a woman from the New York Times. That was really funny i saw that clip he posted oh yeah where he's like you know can you explain can you tell people why they should trust you when you're not here reporting on the on davos but you're here as an invited guest and they're like no nice yeah they're not they're reporting on davos they're the invited guests it's amazing yeah we were gonna have him but he needs like passport or something i don't know what's going on there. Okay. Wrath of Paul says, have you heard of the tabletop exercise from the nuclear threat initiative written in 2021 that deals with a hypothetical monkey pox outbreak on 51522? Seems a little suspicious.

Maybe. Or, you know, it's a little, little on the nose. You know, our ticket, I guess. It's a big question because you guys have all seen Event 201, I'm sure, right? No. You've never seen Event 201? What's the summary? Well, the summary, you can find it easily.

I think Johns Hopkins or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have it up. So it's the simulation that was done in October of 2019 where the idea was a coronavirus is spreading across the planet how do we fix it well we shut off as many sources of misinformation as we can uh we roll out a vaccine we shut out any sort of misinformation on the vaccine so on and so forth you watch it it gives you this really weird sort of deja vu right because you've already experienced all of it but they were talking about it back then well a lot of people say this obvious, right? They created it, blah, blah, blah. You know, this whole thing was just them, I guess, doing a public training on what they were going to unleash.

But I think that, I don't know about the monkeypox case. I've seen it. I haven't really looked into it all that much. But I think in all of these sorts of things, they are running simulations constantly. And, you know, you've got, especially in the case of Event 201, you've got these guys basically creating all of these hammers, these carpenters creating hammers. And as soon as they had an opportunity, they started smashing everything around them. Probably the same thing with the monkeypox.

Or they wanted to, it could be a right-wing conspiracy to take out gay men. I think what happens is like Nostradamus, you know, he makes a bunch of predictions. Then when one happens, they're like, look, he predicted it. It's like there was a guy who tweeted something like, what did he say? He said, you know, on this date at this time, this team will win the World Series with this many points. And then everyone went, whoa, how did he predict it? And what he did was he tweeted like 3,000 times all these different scenarios then when the one happened he

deleted all of them so it looked like he had the one tweet accurately predicting it he didn't a medical tyranny freaks me out like I look at North Korea and he's basically leading by

starving his population which is kind of a form of medicine you know food is your medicine and to see these people not in a state able to take care of themselves they just they just serve, you know.

All right. GC says, Tim, great show today. Thank you for having Joe Allen on to talk about transhumanism from your War Room fans. Hey, appreciate it. Coltrane says, how long before woke activists attack churches after Pelosi gets denied communion? Pope Francis is infiltrator of the woke after his response. It's obvious catholic church will fragment soon i bet well i mean they were trying to attack it over roe v wade we saw people

protecting their churches we saw lefties actually like breaking into churches and interrupting the holy mass so really yeah wow yeah that's crazy i at least saw one video of that and then i saw another video of a group protecting their church, and they were labeled white nationalists. When I saw the left vandalize statues of Mary and Jesus all over the place, and Christians did nothing. Yeah, that's insane. I was like, oh, wow, I guess they don't care that much. You really have to wonder how long it'll be before they do snap. Well, Tim was saying that that would be the final straw, and that would be what would push people over the edge.

And I was like, you don't realize I don't think how weak the American church is. It's really bad. It's really bad. You know, well, also, the left spends all this time engaging in phony fear over how terrified I am of Christian tyranny. And then they just go out and bully Christians. And it's like, dude, eventually someone probably will snap. You attack somebody's church yeah someone might end up getting hurt i'm pretty sure uh do you know trinity church

no in new york are they catholic i'm not familiar probably i think they're catholic yeah i don't know much about the facts i i heard that they were like the largest real estate owners in the city trinity church is a historic parish in the Episcopal Diocese of New York. Okay, so it's not Catholic, right? Catholic light. Catholic light, all right. Catholic Church owns a lot of land. They own a lot of land, the Trinity Church.

And it is crazy. When I was just in New York, some of the biggest buildings in the city, obviously not the skyscrapers, but massive churches all over the place. Huge. Organized religion could become very dangerous. You know, true, but is it not also the foundation of basically everything that we stand on now? Yeah, the Judeo-Christian morals are the organization of the church, maybe, but they fled that. That's why they came here, was to

get away from that. Yes. You know, people talk about organized religion, and I agree on a personal level, but it's impossible to deny that across the planet, organized religion has been the organizing principle for human civilizations, arguably as far back as prehistoric times, but certainly the civilizations we know of. Mathematics, too. That's a good organization principle. I mean, that's arguably, I mean, I would argue it's better than,

well, no, religion's a moral one. Mathematics is structural. Much of what we now have is, you know, a Christian civilization comes out of Greek philosophy, which, of course, was mathematical philosophy. I just said this. I think it's important to remember that the pilgrims fled, I think, as a persecution of the Catholic Church at the time. No, the pilgrims, they fled from England.

And they were getting... Because from Anglicanism. Anglican persecution. Well, if I'm correct about this, they believed that it was too similar to the Catholic Church, but they left England, which was Anglican. I love the idea of Christianity. Like Jesus Christ. christ dude that guy what one of the most like amazing humans ever to have existed on earth as according to what we can tell about the guy but when the church starts to tell people what they have to do man that's like that's so antithetical to jesus he didn't he said if you love me keep my commandments so he did well that's a lot of what the church told you he said

well then how do you know anything that he said? I don't know, man. It's all through the church, I guess. But I mean, some of that stuff is like, you're right. You're right. It's all through the church's writings. I think religion was the first attempt. It was rudimentary governance.

It was rudimentary social structure. It was attempts at science. Why are we here? Well, very early on, we knew very little, and we started to talk and tell stories and experience things. And then I think it's very much moral frameworks to help guide things that made sense. Like you shouldn't eat pork. Well, maybe they were contained viruses or they were dirtier. Parasites, yeah. Parasites and things like that.

We talked earlier about the god king, that pharaoh religion. You're talking about Jeremy Boring? Of course, every chance I get. But like the ancient pharaohs of Egypt, that was a religion, and they believed that guy was – Absolutely, but after that period, you have this axial turn, right? And the period, say, between 800 BC, 200 BC, people date it differently, but you had this axial turn against that archaic God-King state. And all of the major world religions are, in some sense, axial religions, meaning that that connection between the mundane order and divinity

was broken, and divinity began to be conceptualized as something over and above the mundane order and jesus is not in that time frame but he's certainly emblematic of that so you would have like the buddha the various rishis and seers in india and yogans the taoist confucius the greek philosophers plato aristotle on and on and on and of course the israeli prophets all of these came about in the same time it It's very, very interesting. But you have this axial turn against that. So yes, obviously Egypt was the carrier of civilization up until a point. But after this axial turn, you have completely different forms of religion which then separate the mundane from the spiritual

and also, I would argue, have a much gentler approach. So the sorts of things that i think probably don't want to project onto you but rub you wrong about religion in the organized sense it's violence it's control all held within that is this gentle figure of jesus focus on that let's read some more we got straight shooter says an opportunity for timcast is to be a co-sponsor of women's x games adding a cash bonus to the prize money at award. Note, it's for biological women. Disney would not want that. I'm pretty sure Disney

owns the X Games, but we are planning events, and we'll probably do skate events, scoot, bike, blade, whatever. Just family fun stuff. We want to inspire parents and their kids to get involved and have their kids embrace hobbies and physical activity and stuff.

Just good positive things for the community and the neighborhoods. And, of course, we are going to have a females division for females. Then we are going to – you know, I term, it's like, okay, dude, we didn't make women's volleyball or women's basketball or women's skateboarding because sometimes people wear dresses. We did it because biological females tend not to qualify in all gendered events. So major league sports are available for all genders. It's just women don't ever make the cut.

Women have tried to get in the NFL to be kickers and women don't ever make the cut women have tried to get the nfl to be kickers and they just don't make the cut what some women have gotten close and then it's like been really bad and there was a college team that got obliterated and they're like the first team with a female kicker and then all the guys were like really depressed and sad at like they were sacrificed to wokeness to make this claim or whatever so um yeah we'll do a women's event for women, and it's going to be for biological women. You know, back in the old days on the playground,

you had to be afraid of the tomboy, and you were never afraid of the sissy, and I guess that's really been flipped on its head. Now the sissy is quite the threat to women, and the tomboy, well, let's hope that she can get by. All right, let's see what we got here. Let's read some more. Okay, what is this? Squking squawking justin chavez says hypothetically if companies stop being woke and actually adhere to the constitution how would that affect alt tech platforms just gab truth etc would they fail

why or why not let me hear that one more time what was the first part of that question if companies stop being woke and actually adhere to the constitution how would it affect all tech i think they'd lose i think the incentive then is to be where the big where fish where the fish are twitter's the biggest oh the constitution isn't prepared for this social media they weren't prepared it doesn't have anything to do with social media in the in the constitution yet so we got what do you mean like they didn't know there was going to be corporate social media. Let's talk about radio either. Social media is unique, really unique. Like you control your own network. And what is free speech?

What do you mean? So does radio. You could take a radio and you could broadcast wherever you want, whenever you want. Kind of. They have like FCC regulations and stuff. You can kind of ham radio it, but they'll catch it. Radio is not in the Constitution.

That's why I'm asking. What was your point? Like free speech. People's not in the Constitution. That's why I'm asking. What was your point? Like free speech. People are relying on the constitutional definition of free speech for being able to type things on a social network, but that doesn't give the creator of the network the free speech to shut anyone out they want. So it's confused.

You can't use free speech in this technology. You've got to create new laws for it. I can do that right now if you want. I can talk about it. I can go on and on about it. i don't understand what you're saying i think free speech is simple regardless of where the free speech is occurring exactly and twitter is like a private company it's a private network so you don't have free speech in a private network but these private networks are so big that they're now considered you're wrong zuccotti park is a privately owned

public space and they kicked everyone out through no the cops. No, they didn't. I was there that night. They lost a court ruling saying that if you are privately owned but open to the public, you must allow protest. And that's how Occupy was able to exist. In the first week, anyone who tried to sleep, the cops would come and tear down their tent and kick them out. And then eventually the courts were like, no, if you're privately owned but publicly available, people are allowed to speak and do their protest. Why then did the cops come in at the end? Sanitation sanitation they argue that it becomes so filthy that they needed to be cleaned and then they brought in the sanitation crews to come and clean it the first time that the government the state government proposed city proposed wiping out occupy people showed up all

at 2 a.m and everyone cleaned everything spotless and said aha so their effort to purge it didn't work because they had a first amendment right to occupy a private space. Interestingly, the Chase Manhattan Plaza, which is one block, I believe, to the east, shut down entirely because they knew the precedent in this country is privately owned spaces must adhere to free speech rules, First Amendment rights, if they're open to the public. So the Chase Plaza just put up barriers and said, nope, we're not open to the public anymore. Private property, go away. That was hilarious. Also, like, the public has changed. Because, like, if you're in your computer in your house,

you're not in public. Well, the platform is open and available to the public. It doesn't matter if it's private. Now, the issue is, is anybody going to file enough lawsuits until we get the precedent set? Let's read some more, though. Farrell 81 says, James O'Keefe might punch dogs, but did you know that George Washington routinely drowned puppies? See John Furling's biography, The First of Men, Oxford University Press.

I don't believe that's true. I believe that is untrue. Ken Sidakova says downsizing is the only solution. Quote, blessed are the meek. They will inherit the earth. Interesting. Buy yourself a small plot of land where you can grow enough food for you and your family, and then homestead. I like the word meek.

Jordan Peterson talks about it. It's not weak. Meek is someone with a big weapon that chooses not to use it unless it's absolutely judiciously necessary. Except for when you look at the context of Jesus and his disciples, they weren't exactly wielding big swords. Were they not? Were they not armed? I mean, Jesus does say, who does not have a sword, sell his cloak and buy one. Sell his cloak and buy one.

This is true. This is true. He also says, and I don't want to get into the details of it. No, live by the sword, die by the sword. Absolutely. Yeah, for sure. I was imagining some dude heard him say that, and he's like, you're going to be cold, but you've got gotta get a sword

like modern era is gonna be like sell your coat to buy an ar-15 yeah yeah i mean i think it must be a really nice cloak if you can sell it for a sword to be honest yeah i guess my point is i don't want people to come away thinking that like the bible is against self-defense or something right all right what do for you says tim you say diabetics will be the first to go. Not me. A portable fridge and solar generator and panel cost around $1,200 and will keep insulin below 70 degrees infinitely long as the sun burns bright. That's great. That is true and correct. All right.

Dim Sum Nim Sum says, you guys complain about gas. Canada has been at seven dollars a gallon since around march this year it's probably going to be 9 43 by the end of summer so i'm curious with canadian dollars i know they're a little different than ours so i wonder what the typical gas price is in canada no idea it's it's almost the same is it yeah i'm pretty sure it's comparable interesting let's see andrew says hey tim new to watching your channel. Thanks for all your work.

I also wanted to ask, what does WAPO slogan democracy dies in darkness mean? Do they lack self-awareness or have or they have malicious intent? It means that if people don't know what's going on, they can't adequately make decisions for their lives. So I think the slogan is true and correct. And Washington Post says it because they're trying to foment darkness. They're trying to kill democracy. Well, if they're trying, they're doing a very good job. Right. You know, it's probably one of the funnier ironies in the media. All the different WAPO headlines with democracy dies in darkness and almost invariably the headline is in some way anti-democratic.

All right. Jersey B. Luciano says pilot Flying J CEO testified they are 20 percent of U.S. diesel consumption and are being forced to cut their diesel orders. Also connected is Union Pacific and Warren Buffett purchase of BNSF. It strikes me like people need to start creating their own diesel, their own biofuel. But then the government's going to be like, no, it's not official. You can't collect rainwater in a bucket because we said so from Washington, D.C. Like, there's no fuel.

People need fuel. Let's teach people how to make fuel. Daniel Maxwell says the election of Lincoln was what triggered the secession of most slave states, thus setting the stage for the Civil War to become a hot war. If SCOTUS overturns Rowan Casey, followed by the election of a pro-life president in 2024, history can repeat. And that president will be Donald Trump.

And he's going to be like, we're going to do it. We're going to ban abortion in this country. You think he will win? Do you think he would win? Yes. Do you think DeSantis is going to run? I don't know.

But we covered the story last week. 60.9% of voters in the past 10 primaries, like every state, was Republican. So, I mean, if you just extrapolate that to the general, this is primary. I mean, you'd think the Democrat activists would be going heavy on the primary. So this is going to be huge. This general might just be massive uh for the republicans and then the same sentiment around the democrats failures these past several years the gas prices i mean it almost might be better if the republicans barely win so then 2024 they can win everything you know take the senate take the executive branch take the house clef the misfit says if executive branch, take the House. Cleft, the misfit says, if Dems somehow win 2024, the Civil War factions will be the federal government versus red state governors and volunteer militias who will be pushed to secession by the feds.

Florida will be first. Yeah, I mean, if Democrats win in 2024, you have a similar issue with abortion. I mean, Democrats tried to pass a federal nine-month abortion provision. And the law, it's funny, there was a hit piece on me. And it was like, why are conservatives so obsessed with mid-birth abortions that never happen? And it was just like, it's funny because they know nothing about my actual positions on this. And it was like, because you tried to legalize it? That's it.

I brought it up because the Democrats tried to legalize it. I'm like, I don't know. If it doesn't happen, then why do you want to make it legal? If it doesn't happen, maybe it's it that's that's it that's i brought it up because the democrats tried to legalize i'm like i don't know if it doesn't happen then why do you want to make it legal if it doesn't happen maybe it's not happening because it's illegal that's the craziest thing to me just like well you can't legally do it make it legal okay i think that's a bad idea why are you so obsessed with this it doesn't even happen if it doesn't happen then why do you want to make it legal i should i the the it's it's ridiculous how they try and use sophistry on this argument the bill said a baby being viable can be aborted if the health of the mother is at risk. The pregnant patient abortion is defined by the CDC as the ending of a pregnancy that

does not result in a live birth, which means the baby is viable. We are not talking about stillbirth. The law says viable, not stillborn. It doesn't say we are we are removing a stillborn baby it says you are aborting which is to terminate the pregnancy that will result in a not live birth of a viable baby i'm just asking you why you're why you want that law that's it i'm obsessed i guess it's not happening but you're evil for not wanting it to happen how strange rage warrior says i saw you play mar, Tim. It's not cheating to use shortcuts.

I'd like to explain. I played Mario Kart against the guys over at the Daily Wire, and I crushed them. It was laughably bad. What system? 64. Oh, yeah. They obliterated them.

And we played Wario Stadium. They asked you to leave because of it. It was really funny when Michael Knowles thought he was winning. And then in the beginning of Wario stadium in mario kart 64 you can jump half the level single move and so i did it and then all of a sudden i was so far ahead of him he was confused like wait wait what you're in front of me i was winning and i'm like you're so far behind me dude you got no idea you know i think then i waited at the finish line for like a minute and then i just like tapped the a and like hit the it is like nah that's funny i think mario kart is the only excusable video game and it is it is a virtue to

be able to play it well i think that uh being able to get together with your friends and play you know mario kart is maybe the highest expression of community there is other than that technology is horrible and should be abolished if we can just keep Mario Kart What about pulleys? We're talking about everything, hoes, all of it Except for Mario Kart I don't know how we'll power the televisions But it doesn't really matter Anyway, you know what I'm saying

It is the greatest It's one of those ironies in life You just have to work out Mario Kart is the highest form of human expression Technology is evil Yeah, the shell that shoots backwards astounding did you ever have the uh green green turtle shell only matches you know you have to discard anything except for a green turtle shell in battle mode oh no i don't know it really it builds character it builds character i just want to mention this i could be wrong about this because it's been something like 2018 years since I actually played.

But I'm pretty sure in Wario's Stadium and N64, in order to beat the time trial, you have to jump the barrier. Like it's actually considered part of the skill of getting a level. Yeah. Because we were wondering how the Wario's Stadium ghost was so fast. And we were like, you have to jump the barrier to get that, which cuts the level in half. But we got to the point where we were all doing it we were all so good at it it was crazy and then rainbow road you can jump off the side i love rainbow road oh i didn't know that yeah you can jump off the side and float down to the other part of it nice ian you seem like a rainbow road kind

of yeah colors bright colors all right we'll grab a couple more here no walls i like that seth all says first recorded god kings were in Sumeria. Interesting. Absolutely. All right. Let's see. Ryan says, the sword is not literal. It is the word of God. Ephesians 6.17.

That sounds weird, like propaganda. Like propaganda. He says to buy a sword. It's definitely a theological interpretation. But, you know, you look at the tradition of Christian martyrdom. You know, I'm not saying I personally don't get too hung up on christianity because of that because i i'm certainly not willing to turn the other cheek but the tradition of christian martyrdom basically eschews self-defense in favor of a higher spiritual principle someone said that

turning the other cheek maybe you shamus i want to talk about this it was i thought that it was if someone hits you in the face you offer them the other side of your face so that they can hit you again. But then someone was like, no, no, no. It's because in Roman culture, they wipe their butt with their left hand. So if they smack you with their right, you turn. So you make them touch you with their dirty hand, which was like an insult to a Roman. I've heard that. I don't know if I said that.

I've heard that. I'm not sure if that's the case. But, yeah, yes, I've definitely heard that. You're saying you're insulting them by making them touch your face with their poop hands? It would be something like they would second guess, but it's something like they would second guess whether they should do it. Because it's like, all right, I don't know if I want to go that far. That's how this was explained to me, but I'm not entirely sure. I proposed.

I did this a while ago. If someone slaps you, you defend yourself and don't let them slap you again. Well said. It's a pagan stance, but it's one that's time-tested. Oh, is that it? That's it. I will say that the passage, too, if you look at it in the context, you know, he says, you've heard it said, do not commit murder, but I say unto you, if a man strikes you on

one cheek, offer him also the other. I think in the context, it's clear it's about gentleness in the face of earthly violence. I mean, the entire story of the crucifixion is about a sort of physical passivity in the face of physical violence. But obviously, at the core, the spiritual principle prevails. I think we should modernize it. And one final thought before we go. If someone slaps you, a quick strike to the solar plexus will disable your opponent. And then you will win. No, I think actually you want to avoid all fights.

Yeah. Any fight you can avoid is a fight you've won. That being said, my friends, fight to smash that like button. That's right. Would you kindly. And head over to TimCast.com. Become a member. We're going to have that members-only show coming up.

It'll be live around 11 or so p.m. You can follow the show at TimCast. You can follow me at TimCast. Again, subscribe, like, all that good stuff. Joe, do you want to shout anything out? Definitely come check us out at the War Room with Steve Bannon. War Room Pandemic. Also, my site, joebot.xyz.

My social media, slaveleash, at jo-Y-Z at Twitter and Gitter. And that's it. Big shout out to Grace Chong. Guys, not only am I uploading a video tomorrow, like I might upload two videos tomorrow. We're getting crazy. Go over to Freedom Tunes, subscribe, hit the notification bell. Also, go to freedomtunes.com. We're going to be launching on May 30th.

Place your email address so you will be notified when that happened and we can be less reliant on big tech well i'm doing that tonight thank you i love you guys great to be back tim shamus lydia joe good to meet you man all great to see you guys again it's good to be here and i'll catch you guys next time and shamus news is very exciting but i also have exciting news i am going to be writing op-eds for TimCast.com, and I am stoked. I already have a little sub-stack that I keep, and I write various soliloquies about nonsense that I find interesting. So if you guys are interested in some of that,

you should head over to TimCast.com anyway. But there's even one more reason to do so. You guys may also follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sarah Patchlets. Are any of those op-eds up already? Not yet. Not yet. We're coming soon. Yeah, they are. Cool. All right, everybody. Thanks so much for hanging out. We will see you all over at TimCast.com at Sarah Patchwoods. Are any of those op-eds up already? Not yet, not yet. We're coming soon. Yeah, they are.

Cool. All right, everybody. Thanks so much for hanging out. We will see you all over at timcast.com for that member segment, and smash the like button on your way out. Bye, guys.