Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #678 Pelosi Attacker's Son Says DePape May Have Been SEX SLAVE w/Michael Knowles

Episode Date: December 16, 2022

Tim, Ian, Luke, & Kellen join Michael Knowles to discuss Paul Pelosi's attacker's son interesting defense of his father, Elon Musk banning leftist journalists as they continue to dox him, Dave Portnoy threatening Alex Stein after Alex stormed Barstool's HQ, Antifa getting arrested and finally being held accountable, and Trump's wild new announcement. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oh, it's a crazy day. A lot of news. So this story comes out the other day. We've got Paul Pelosi's attacker is in court. And his son gives an interview claiming that his dad may have been a sex slave. I'm just going to come out and say it. I'm sorry. I know you maybe have kids sitting around, but this is just where we're at, I guess.

He said his dad's hardly a right-wing conservative. But all of a sudden now his dad's coming out saying he was radicalized by Gamergate or something. And I'm just, I'm watching it and I'm like, I don't believe any of it. I don't believe the story that the official narrative is a right-wing crate nut attacking the Pelosi's. And I don't believe he was a sex slave, but this story is just nuts. So we have to talk about it. You know, we wanted to talk about a bunch of things. You got five Antifa charged with domestic terror in Georgia, which is huge. You've got Elon Musk. Twitter is taking down far leftists. So holy smokes, this one's crazy. Aaron Ruppar, you know him, you love him, just got suspended. We don't know exactly what's going on yet. So we're going to let that story stew, hit a little refresh in a few minutes and see what the updates are, but this is the famous Rupar

where you take a story, twist it out of context and then lie, you know, Ruparing. He got suspended. They also suspended It's Going Down in Antifa account. A lot of really interesting stuff. And then, of course, Portnoy of Barstool Sports said that Alex Stein should have been shot for entering his office.

Okay, I don't know about that, but I also said something similar. If someone stormed our building for very, very different reasons, they might get shot. So we'll talk about that. Also, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, join us. Click that join us button

and you'll get access to our members-only uncensored show, which will be coming up tonight. We do those Monday through Thursday. There is a massive library of uncensored interviews on a variety of subjects that you can check out when you become a member, plus all of our other shows. We got big news, too. I'm hoping that with the launch of our first cafe, coffee shop, community hangout, I'm hoping by this time next year, we'll have, I want to say 10, but let's say four. i'm hoping that we can set up these hubs these these places where you can grab a cup of coffee hang out read a book watch a show and just start creating

physical spaces in various places so i'm really excited for that so don't forget to smash that like button subscribe to this channel share the show with your friends joining us today to talk about all this and more is michael knolls tim it's great to be with you, man. Thanks so much for having me. Excuse me, he's called me, not Michael. His name's me, please. May. May. May. Sorry, got the branding wrong.

May. Well, thank you for having me. That's really good. I'm excited to talk about the Paul Pelosi story. I was not able to read the story. I was not able to read almost anything today. But I'll look forward to talking about it, hearing what you guys

you also wanted to talk about who they are that run the daily wire that's true i do i do know them two protestants two but one of them but one of them is yeah one of them uh-oh throwback jokes uh so michael knolls thanks thanks for hanging out it's really great to be here i i take it you're somewhere in this direction right now. Yeah, I am. That's right. You mentioned you're opening up a coffee shop? Yeah, we got the building. It's in process right now.

You think it would be a good place for people to go and read books and stuff? Yeah. Well, if you want. Oh, no. I could donate for your coffee shop. That's right. It's a great book for us. Pretty sure you gave us a signed copy already.

Well, that's for your house. This one, though, this is Speechless Controlling Words Controlling Minds, number one national bestseller. It's available right now for Christmas orders. This table's actually very big. Speechless. Is it signed? It's actually not yet, but once I can see again, maybe I'll sign it for you.

People think the room's actually really small. This table is, what is it? I think it's like 12, no, it's like 16 feet by four and a half feet or something like that. It's a very, very massive table. It's big. It's a big one. Alright, Michael, thanks for hanging out with your Gimp mask, and Luke's here too. It's a Balenciaga mask.

Please, Tim, get it right. Me, I apologize for this unprofessionalism. Thank you. I will tell you, by the way, it's not a Balenciaga mask because I felt I didn't want to give money to the satanic pedophiles. So this is, this is, there's also the Balenciaga one's very expensive. This one's like four bucks on Amazon. school your kids that's why today i have a shirt that reads kids don't belong in indoctrination systems and if you like the shirt that i'm wearing and you want to support me the best way you could do that is by getting the shirt you could get it on the best political shirts.com because you guys do that's why i'm here thank you again so much for having me hi everybody thanks me oh well you're

welcome me dude knolls you're the guy with the name the last name is the most like the word knowledge wow i've never thought about that that's very fitting that's got to be symbolic Dude, Knowles, you're the guy with the name, the last name is the most like the word knowledge. Wow. I've never thought about that. That's very fitting. That's got to be symbolic. I would imagine it's just a coincidence. It's also the same last name as Beyonce. I got to be honest, though.

Your last name is no less. You and every Twitter troll I've ever had. Is that what they do? Is that what they say? They say, oh, you got me now, you John 6-3-7-5. I'm very excited you're here, Michael. I know we're going to talk about the news. Maybe we can talk about Judaism and Christianity a little bit at some point.

I think there's some sort of confluence going on and it's in the air. And you know a lot about it. So I'd love to pick your brain. Sure, sure. And we'll go deeper then. Hi. What's up, everybody? I'm pushing buttons.

It is Kellen. Let's get this show started. Yeah, we actually had to deploy Surge to Arizona because we're going to be at Turning Point USA on Monday doing the whole show on stage with a rotating panel of guests. And I can only imagine it's going to get crazy and silly. And I'm like, I can't say who the guests are just yet because we don't like to, but I'm like, oh, we're getting banned. They're pretty big guests. They're going to get us in trouble. But it's worth it. it we're going for it multi-stream to multiple networks for this one no i don't know we're gonna do the show like normal but we'll be on stage with 10 000 people and then we're gonna have great guests come in who are gonna say spicy things we'll have a backup

ready i'm so glad i wonder if people will yell out shut up ian you think they will because they say it in the chat that's gonna be less i'm gonna be because i'm also going to tbsa and i'll be in that like the third row back shut up ian i'll make eye contact i'm gonna organize a chant don't worry all right let's get into it so this story is from uh the other day but it's just it's too much quote for all we know he was some sort of sex slave son of paul pelosi's alleged attacker says his father is not evil, believes in human rights and is hardly a right wing conservative. So he said, quote,

he isn't a danger to society. I don't even know if he even attacked Mr. Pelosi for all that we know. He was some sort of sex slave as Elon Musk pointed out. And then when I read that, I just, I don't, I don't,

I don't know. How old is that guy? 17, 19. We had a conversation about this on the show specifically saying, Hey, I don't know. How old is that guy? 17? 19. We had a conversation about this on this show, specifically saying, hey, he was probably tied down. Hey, Paul Pelosi was probably doing really bad things to him. We were saying the same exact things that his son is saying right now.

But maybe his son is saying it because, and I'll clarify, I think that was you saying it. Yes, I did. I'm pretty sure Tim said it. I heard Tim say it not don't point the finger at me i said don't give them i said don't give them any any any benefit of the doubt let's let's go off with the craziest things and let's say that's a possibility here because of the absence of evidence because they're hiding so much information because they're changing their

story time and time again because they're they're suspending the nbc reporters who put together a very serious news report who still hasn't come back to work. He's still punished because he reported on what police officers were telling him actually happened on that particular day. So when you have very rich, powerful people, you'd never give them the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't hear. And what his son says, I mean, it's important to pay attention to. He also goes on, talked about how his father, the person accused here, believes in equality, justice, how he was an activist against the war, how he was a peace activist.

He was, quote, hardly a right wing conservative. But when we look at the media, they framed this entire attack as we need to go after all the conspiracy theorists. These conspiracy theorists are dangerous. These conservatives are dangerous. We need to stop them right now. That's the narrative that they were going with. That's the agenda that they were going with and it failed right on its face i think the conservative mention is what really is like a red light to me that they mention and call him a right-wing activist is like it puts everything else into question about the story not

that it should because maybe they're just picking one thing and but he's obviously like a green party the other way you know that there's a lot more going on here is that the story just disappeared immediately. Because what they told us was that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had her home invaded so that someone could murder her. So if that actually happened, it just seems to me like the sort of thing that we ought to be talking about a little bit more. But then when these details came out, like when NBC reported that Paul Pelosi himself opened the door, did not seem to be in distress, walked back to his alleged attacker, when it came out that this attacker actually wasn't some right winger, he was living on some weird sort of rainbow-colored commune type thing, when all of these, when you heard the dispatch phone call,

then all of a sudden, the story just completely went away. Yep. Just like Club Q, just like the Las Vegas shooting, just like so many other large events that we somehow don't want to talk about now very conveniently. They just don't sell tickets.

I mean, it's impossible for them to prove a lot of the stuff they claim because there's no video that I've seen. They have a story that works towards their benefit that they're going to use and emotionally exploit in order to push for a certain agenda. Once those versions of events are different, they don't have their conclusion

that they conveniently came up with as soon as the event happened right away. So, sorry, I just wanted to explain what happened. Well, they're trying to drive a cultural shift, a narrative, and when they can't, they can't, and they stop. For record, I mean,

I believe the Pelosi's, when they're not home, they have security at the house, even when they can't they can't and they stop for for record i mean i believe the pelosi's when they're not home they have security at the house even when they're not there they're one of the richest people in the world the to think that they don't have security is absolutely crazy no no but think about this too look at what's going on with elon some dude attacked his kid yeah and he posted the video about it for obvious reasons elon's got crazy security you think the pelosi's after especially with their hype of January 6th, they didn't have security or something? They've got to.

Pelosi was calling for machine guns at the Capitol. Literally. Every single semi-bougie millennial has so many camera security systems around his home, constantly recording on their phones all the time. Anybody who is at all in political prominence has heavy security, if not 24-7 home security. You're telling me that the person

third in line to the U.S. presidency, just whoopsie-daisy, didn't have any cameras and didn't have any, just absurd. I want to point this out, too. The New York Times reported the other day, quote, how did I get into all of this? Mr. DePapp wrote in one passage on his blog, Gamergate. It was Gamergate. I love that because nobody who actually knew anything about Gamergate would come out and be like, I was radicalized by Gamergate. Like, that's just not a way. That sounds like something who is not paying attention to the culture war. It sounds like something they would say to make you, like, they think they're convincing you.

Right. It's like a patriot front right yeah you kind of say you know i was radicalized by the q anon gamer gate insurrectionist patriot front is that hey quantico is that what i was supposed to say okay good got it is gamer gate when the communist man basically slid into the american zeitgeist was gamer gate was at the first moment where we start to see this like social this weird social movement Gamergate was like some chick slept with some guy in exchange for a positive review of her game yeah I still don't really know right right

no but like and so somehow it turned into I guess what happens is you get a lot of people then pointing out that these woke journalists are writing this fake wokeness stuff and it becomes somewhat culture war-y like it does elevate to that point but like the initial issue of Gamergate this makes no sense it's like somebody

who read a Wikipedia entry about the culture war is trying to convince you that they were a part of it from the beginning the weirdest thing about this is if the guy's kids come out and say he's not a conservative he's a green party guy but this guy is going into court and saying that he was going to target tom hanks and gavin newsom i don't believe him like it's here's the funny thing this guy goes to court and makes these claims about gamer gate or whatever he has in a blog i think not not he's making the

claims but apparently had a list i'm like you expect me to believe the guy who you claim attacked paul pelosi he sounds crazy i'm sorry i'm not going to believe i think this is a key here too because people are trying to construct really sophisticated narratives about what's going on but is it not possible i humbly propose that this guy is kind of crazy he's like a crazy guy. I think that's possible. Yeah. See, that's one explanation.

I have a different explanation, and it goes kind of further down the rabbit hole, to say the least. And I think it should go down the rabbit hole, especially with how powerful, how sinister, how absolutely evil the core power inside of the United States really is, especially with all the private islands that they go to.

And we only are scratching at the surface to the true reality of what's happening behind the scenes there. So never give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's just speculate here. Hey, he was a sex slave. He was picked off off the street. He was living in a van.

He was going to be sacrificed. He was going to be tortured. He was going to be forced on by Paul Pelosi because I'm doing what the corporate media is doing. The corporate media did that. As soon as the story broke, they said, we have the narrative. We know exactly what happened. He did it because he hated him because he was a right winger.

They're doing it. I'm going to do it my way. And I'll bet my bottom dollar right now, my way is probably a lot more correct than they are. I got it. We should do a skit called like, you know, it should be called something. We'll call it Captive, the DePap story. And it's like a guy's kidnapped and dragged into this house. And it'll be like that scene from Pulp Fiction.

You guys know where I'm going with this? I'm kidding. Look, my view of this is the simple solution is it's a crazy guy. You know what I mean? I understand your point, though, Luke. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt if they're not going to release the video so we can see what happens. In a world where Creepy Pedo Island exists and in a world where everything – I know we're on YouTube, so I'll be really super careful – where every single thing we've been told by anyone in authority for the past two and a half years is totally fake. In a world –

There you go. then in that world it is reasonable, it is more reasonable to assume that Paul and Nancy Pelosi every single night are whipping and torturing this random guy than it is to believe the CNN version of it. Thank you, absolutely. And they also have the Bohemian Grove. You know what they do at the Bohemian Grove?

Mock child sacrifices to Moloch as they walk around naked in the woods. That's literally what happens and it's documented. You're forcing me to disagree but i only disagree a little because i agree with the the point both of you make why are we going to trust the new york times or cnn after everything they've lied about so i would i would put it this way i am willing to say fine this guy's kid says for all we know was a sex slave, and they need to produce the evidence to prove otherwise. Now, in all sincerity, I think this guy's probably just a crazy person. And I think if there was a story that made sense outside of the official narrative or the

conspiracy theory, drug deal gone wrong. Yeah, his son, I think, said, David DePap's son said that David was abused growing up. I think he lived with his grandparents and they were real abusive. So he would spend his days away from home at the ocean, just like waiting for them to be asleep. By the time he gets home, mess, a messed up guy, like messed up in his childhood kind of guy.

Most sane people don't like jump at the opportunity to go deal drugs to a politician or go have sex with a politician. Most sane people would not, would not want to spend any time near the Pelosi. It's too dangerous. I mean, just for your own livelihood to get involved with that let's just break something down real quick right i just want i don't want to believe anything i want proof and so i'm willing to say your official narrative in the courts is total bunk bs because you've not explained

anything properly or given us video footage but to me if i was gonna if i'm looking at a roulette wheel with a bunch of different outcomes for this story and i gotta put my chips down i'm putting it on why aren't there why isn't there footage of it paul turned the cameras off because he was buying drugs where are the security guards paul told me to go take a walk because his drug dealer's showing up if i went to you and said do you think prominent people are doing drugs like everyone says yes to that but couldn't i my only problem with that theory is couldn't a pelosi get a posher drug dealer you know when i think of my friends in new york and la over the years who who have been pharmaceutical you know they always go to some like rich fancy guy maybe it's sexual but think about this too the guy was a green party leftist right

yeah so if if you're someone like pelosi and you need discretion you also want to make sure you've got someone who's not going to go it's paul pelosi oh we're gonna someone you can throw under the bus later it's not so much that but someone that is less likely like i'm not going to invite a grubhub driver over here who's got an antifa profile you know what i mean we don't want to let someone of those idea we want to make sure so for the most part we're not really worried about deliveries i'm just saying right i i'm not saying it's it's true or guaranteed i'm just saying i lean towards i bet dude called up his connect and said you know he wanted coke or something told security guards hey take a walk

that's why there's no security there the reason why he told the cops i don't know he is he's a friend is because he invited him over but was not familiar with who he was the reason why he told the cops I don't know who he is, but he's a friend is because he invited him over, but was not familiar with who he was. The reason why he answers the door politely and says we're taking care of it is because he doesn't want things to get out. I kind of feel like dude was buying drugs. I'm with Michael, though.

These people have handlers. These people have associates. These people got people that do everything for them at the snap of a finger. If you tell a handler, hey, go get me this, they'll go get it. So that's the people that they have in Washington, D.C. Why wouldn't they have it in San Francisco? To me, again, why are we speculating? We shouldn't be speculating.

We should be calling for more evidence. We shouldn't be giving them the benefit of the doubt. If we're going to be having a conversation here, worst possible scenario, always. And that's, I think, where we should take it. But you know what's going to happen. We're not going to find out any more information the story is just going to disappear because it doesn't serve their narrative and it's really weird and it raises a lot of questions about them but they they wrote a hit piece about us because we were talking about this subject you know a week

or so ago or two weeks ago the the leftist media machine starts writing you know tim cast iRL pushing insane conspiracies and it's i'm sorry guys in the media if you don't have anything to actually say you can't say anything about us if if if if you're like we have no evidence we have no idea what happens but it's it's whatever the government said it doesn't fly and i don't care what you think no it's too it's too dangerous to make claims about what happened this guy's life's on the line right now david de pap like he could go away to prison for the rest of his life. This guy's about, they're about to,

they want to just put it all on him. I mean, in fairness, though, three hots and a cot might not be the worst thing for this guy. He was not living a flourishing lifestyle beforehand. David DePapp did not Epstein himself. I'm calling it here. Where's his phone?

I want to see the records. Was he texting before? Texting, what's his name? What's Pelosi? Paul's phone. And and paul by the way made a spectacular recovery apparent looking he seems to have i saw a picture of him and nancy and he looks fine we also have to realize we're dealing with people that uh suspend journalists at nbc news and make them not come back to their work okay that's how powerful these people are and you know but by the way you're telling me they're telling the truth here?

The way that's being covered is, oh, NBC made a mistake and then they edited it. This wasn't like a typo in an article. There was a fully fleshed out, several minutes long TV news segment

where an investigative journalist went in and covered moment by moment what happened. And then with no explanation whatsoever, NBC just pulled the report. And another media organization Yeah, he's gone. Yeah organization yeah yeah and another media organization covered it as well

did the same reporting based off police sources that nbc reporter he wasn't making things up he wasn't speculating he was like i talked to this police officer and this police officer and i saw this police report he was documenting what actually was being reported so i guess we'll just which is rare in journalism we'll we'll see how this plays out in court, I guess. Otherwise, you know, we have no idea. But I want to jump to this next story because this one gives me a hearty chortle. John Levine reports

reporters covering Elon Musk being nuked. Donia Sullivan for CNN, Drew Harwell for Washington Post, Ryan Mack for the New York Times, and Aaron Ruppar, independent, all gone. Awesome.. All gone. Awesome. Love it.

They're gone. Take a look at this. So Libs of TikTok says, Taylor Lorenz just scrubbed her entire Twitter account. What? Oh me, oh my. Times, they are a-changin'. Love it. Prominent liberal journalist Aaron Rupar suspended by Twitter.

For those that aren't familiar with Aaron Rupar, there's a verb. It's called Ruparing or to R rupar and it's when you take an out of context clip and apply false context to manipulate people that is ruparing so uh he got nuked and i think we have a tweet here yashir ali says aaron rupar tells me he has not received any correspondence from twitter and does not know why his account is suspended i believe rupar is the guy that sued didn't he sue the previous twitter administration to get his account is suspended. I believe Rupar's the guy that sued. Didn't he sue the previous Twitter administration to get his account back? Or am I thinking of a different guy? Someone else.

They would never suspend that guy. I'm wondering if the reason they got suspended was for posting something pertaining to his location. I don't know for sure, but Elon just the other day posted a video of a guy who attacked his family, his kid. Who looked like an Antifa guy.

He was dressed like one, acting like one. Conservatives don't do that. Conservative guy, in fact, I gotta be honest, I put out that tweet where I was like, Nora Link, I used to think it was scary and dangerous, but then Elon agreed with me ideologically, now I like it. I'd be willing to bet anyone on the right who's crazy enough

to track down Musk would be like, we love you, Elon, keep it up. You always got false flags can never truly judge a book by its cover like he did he did on a carless that's true and it was not it was it was not a bad car so i that's the one wrinkle in the argument here some kind of wealth asset but it's great i don't i don't care at all so you know i don't want to hear this well you know we're we thought elon was going to be the free speech absolutist and now he's suspending no i i didn't i don't know i'm not a

free speech absolutist i i believe in standards and norms and you know what i really believe in banning these left-wing losers and i really believe especially banning that guy who was tracking elon's plane that guy's gone but But the rest of them too, I see absolutely no reason for Elon Musk to tolerate them remaining on Twitter. How do you define free speech? Well, I define free speech as the, I define free speech, I suppose, as the founding fathers might have defined free speech, which is, or even as John Locke, the father of liberalism, might have defined free speech, which is not totally free, which is, yes, we have broad toleration for lots of different things, but there are limits and they're pretty severe limits.

I mean, let's not forget, we're not only talking about speech acts like fraud or direct threats or obscenity or things like that. A lot of people don't even think of obscenity these days as something not protected by free speech, but I would go further than that, all right? Yes, it's true that the libs have speech codes, but chivalry is a speech code too, you know, and I'm all for chivalry. I'm all for banning people who are degrading our society. I mean, you know, just as a matter of historical fact, speech earlier on in American history was much more restricted in certain ways

than it is right now. We had blasphemy laws for much of American history. Yeah, obscenity laws. And obscenity, we still have obscenity laws on the books. They just don't enforce them. In fact, now they only enforce it if you have wholesome speech. If you speak obscenely, then you get to do it.

That's why I say culture is more important. Because we got a ton of laws in the books they started ignoring. Personally, I disagree. Because who do you decide who's degrading society with what ideas? I think if there's bad ideas... With your reason and your moral conscience and tradition. Yeah, yeah, but who's going to be calling the shots here? I think that's important here.

Exactly. And power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. when it comes to bad ideas they need to be challenged with good ideas i think we need open debate i think we need open conversation and i'm very curious to see what happened here and i'm more skeptical because i believe at the end of the day even though we might might not agree with each other i still rather have that conversation rather than say i just only want to hear myself. Do we need to have a conversation about the virtues of child pornography?

Do we need to have that debate? That's a debate we really need to have. That is one issue that obviously I stand with you on. But I know you obviously you stand with me on. Yeah, child pornography is bad. Obviously. But do you think we need to have the debate, you know the free marketplace i don't think we do i think we've settled if there's idiots out there right who do believe in certain which there is right i i do why do we need to entertain them

they do they they deserve to be challenged they deserve to be pushed back they deserve because because i don't but but again um if you push people away just like you do with the censorship that's been happening you push people to more radicalized corners of the internet, and they double down on their ideas, rather than having a whole bunch of people telling them, hey, this is wrong and not acceptable here. By pushing them away, they won't have that kind of pushback in their life, and they're like, okay, I'm just going to hang around other seedy people and think this is okay when it's not. I actually would agree with you, Michael, this one i i see luke's point but i think it can be refined like there's a reason why we publicly denounce there's a reason why

you're saying right now we don't need to have a debate it's settled we figured it out yeah but that's one issue but that and all the issues no for sure and that means that there will come a time when you need to explain to someone who maybe says well people should be allowed to have their opinions and you can be like look there are some things that are so morally reprehensible that it's universally despised among most human beings. And, you know, we will tell you why it's bad. I mean, this was William F. Buckley Jr., who was credited as the founder of the mainstream post-war conservative movement, as urbane and open-minded a fellow as ever there was.

He had a debate on his show with a neoconservative, Leo Chern. And Chern said, we need to have the open society and the free marketplace of ideas. And Bill Buckley said, you know, I actually think we can close society off a little bit. Yes, we discuss lots of things. But he said, I'm an epistemological optimist. I think that certain things are settled and we don't really need to entertain Nazis or communists. Your political opponents are doing the same exact thing you're doing in Europe, arresting people for saying that men

can't be lesbians. They're using the same justifications and arguments you are. And this is why I think it's a slippery slope. They're saying... They're using the same procedures, but the substance of what they are doing is the opposite. They're saying, I know what's best for society. I know what ideas are good or bad.

We have to stop these ideas. We have to stop right wing ideas. But there's a difference. If you there hurt people with your ideas, we have to stop you, censor you and throw you in jail. The difference is that there's there is a difference between good and bad so when i if i'm the ceo of twitter and i'm determining what the standards and norms are on twitter and i encourage good true and beautiful things and i discourage ugly false and wicked things that's not the same thing as what the libs do but that's based off your interpretation because for them what's beautiful is like a drag queen that's beautiful

for them but luke but that's your interpretation but they're wrong is the is the thing and so we have faculties of reason and moral conscience, and we can perceive the world and come to fairly reliable conclusions. Let me just make a point here. We like to believe that the law is, that the world is logical, that we can set forth a set of rules that say you cannot do X, Y, and Z. And then what we discover is the interpretations of X, Y, and Z vary wildly. And we actually struggle to operate. Humans struggle to operate on a moral, logical level in that

if you come out and say, you know, don't be mean, don't be bad, don't hurt somebody. And then someone says, okay, well, insulting you is my opinion. I'm not hurting. And then someone else interprets it as hurting. We see there's an issue there. My view is I err towards mostly free speech. I agree with you on things like child porn. I think there's probably things we can say, do not advocate for something like that, right? If you're advocating for that on the platform, we can restrict you or shut you down or something like this. The issue is, and I'll throw it back to the law. we have a bunch of laws in the books legally you cannot do but they don't enforce anymore because our culture changed right which means there is a centralized morality that human that

societies are willing to tolerate that means we don't tolerate advocacy for child porn and there's no reason to open up tolerance to it we just don't tolerate it well increasingly i don't tolerate advocacy for child porn, and there's no reason to open up tolerance to it. We just don't tolerate it. Well, increasingly, I don't know. And that's the issue. So my pushback for you a little bit is there will be a debate whether you want it or not, because people will start pushing. But I suppose that the conservative view from the past 20 years is politics is downstream of culture. So stop passing laws. It's really just a libertarian view, but stop passing and just you know i don't know make you know make better music or something and i'm not i'm not really mocking it obviously the culture matters a great deal but you can't neatly separate these things and the law is a teacher so if i'm looking at at how we got to this insane cultural

position now where we will be debating the the virtues of child pornography and pedos so it's already happening it's happening they're accusing any anybody who criticizes actual pedophiles they go why are you talking about gay people but we got we got here like you you just but we got here because of censorship because of people saying no you can't counter this no no no we got here because those ideas haven't been able to be challenged because people have been censored for going against them people have censored for going against them. People have been arrested for going against them. Why? When we had a more censor-minded regime that censored bad things and promoted good things,

as opposed to what we have now, which is a censorship regime that promotes bad things and suppresses good things. What's that example? What do you mean? Well, I would say, let's see, the the pilgrims land at plymouth rock in 1620 and uh then from 1620 up through the founding of the american nation up through about i don't know the early 60s we had a basic consensus on what is moral and what is immoral and it was it was christianity it was based on the Christian moral view. And then in the 1960s, you saw, led by the government, led by Supreme Court decisions, led by laws that weakened some of the censorship regime. You saw the attacks on McCarthyism in the House Un-American Activities Committee. You saw the free speech movement at Berkeley led to to a weakening of our obscenity laws you you saw a a weakening of our laws proscribing certain sexual behaviors that

then led to the sexual revolution when you opened up that society much more what happened did it lead to this wonderful period of flourishing no the society has gone downhill it's gone straight to pot ever since but the but the parent the dads used to beat the moms relentlessly that was like on they just didn't even talk about it. Did that happen? Sean Connery talked about how he would smack women around on TV and society was like, yeah. But bad men beat their wives today. And so it just seems to me what you're suggesting is this very progressive view that the past was terrible and the present's great.

Before we had the conversation, good people beat their wives. It was just accepted now that we're able to have. I don't think that's true. i don't think that's true i don't think that's i mean since the dawn of man the guys like fall in line or face the consequences but is your is your argument in that in the past you know the past was basically made up of these knuckle-dragging troglodyte men abusing their wives and ever since we had the sexual revolution now that doesn't happen. That just seems like a very progressive, fantastical point of view. I think it was the internet, or it was really television and radio that broke the censorship mode.

Whether we wanted it or not, the technology made us look at ourselves and be like, that's what we are. We need to deal with this because that's not cool. But just really quick, deciding what's good and deciding what's bad is arbitrary. It depends for who, It depends for what society. It depends on what individual is in there. But at the end of the day, the government is sitting there and saying, you know, Dr. Fauci is there. And he's like, you know, at the end of the day, it's good for society if we censor all these other scientists and we let our doctrine through. So, therefore, we need to censor this speech.

We need to limit free speech. We need to ban accounts. And essentially, that's what I see you calling for. So, here's where I see where we're at. I err towards free speech, allow people to express their political views to be debated. But I think there's a little bit more limits than many of the anarchists and libertarians would be willing to entertain. And the reason I've come to this position where I used to just be like, well, maybe

you can say whatever you want, is because the system, as it's being laid out right now by you, in your view, Luke, allows the left to say whatever they want, while weaponizing that to silence anyone who opposes them. Meanwhile, you're standing there saying, well, they're allowed to do it. I guess I'm banned, and they're not. Absolutely. No, no, no. The idea of banning speech is what created this exact society,

and that's why these larger virtues and ideas need to be pushed what i'm saying is they are cheating of course they are playing fair and you're losing because of it also look what society doesn't have taboos in what society is everything perfectly open i mean that's never existed on earth anywhere are you great yeah you're right about that but that doesn't mean but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards towards something that's impossible no no towards towards respecting speech and debating ideas let's let's let's bring this back to the to the core story right the issue is elon musk choosing to ban who he wants and my position because i think this might argument just go forever but i think if we can bring this back to the story elon musk needs to

set clearly defined parameters for what he wants, but then we also need judges to interpret. In the United States, we have laws, but laws can be challenged and judges interpret the law. So when a court, when a legislative body says you can't do X, someone says, well, hold on, X could also include Y. And then a judge says, good question. I'll give you my ruling tomorrow. The judge then looks at the law, looks at the precedent, hears the arguments, and then issues his judgment. The law is not just a if, yes, then, you know, if one, then Y, if two, then. It is humans trying their best to interpret. The easiest way to put it is analog.

It's not digital. It's a wave, not a point. That's great. That means we want it to be, there's a wave not a point it's great which means that that means we want it to be there's free speech we respect this but then when you actually start looking into it you're like oh hold on now we're getting into the advocacy for child porn part from the left at a certain point we're like it may not be a call for violence but are we going to tolerate what i love that level of advocacy that analogy it, it's the analog, not the digital.

The law is not just a bunch of letters that self-interpret on a sheet of paper, but it involves a human aspect. And what this raises, this interpretive question, I think undercuts what you're saying about good and bad. You said that good and bad are just arbitrary, but you don't believe that. Nobody believes that. It depends on who decides it, and it depends who's in power. But let me ask you one question.

Is it better to cook a pie for a widow than it is to kick a baby? Cilantro is good. You have to eat cilantro, because I decided so, because I'm in power. That's essentially what— But Luke, just answer this question. Is it better to cook a pie for a widow or to kick a baby in the head? What? What kind of hypothetical question are you even asking me?

It seems like a simple one to me. Can you really not answer that question? Obviously, you're not going to be kicking a baby. Is the pie made of poison? What's the context here? I'm not Paul Pelosi here, okay? But it just shows the absurdity of what you said. We all know that it's better, even if she's allergic,

it's still better to cook the pie for the widow than it is to kick the baby in the head. What's the absurdity of what you said. We all know that it's better, even if she's allergic, it's still better to cook the pie for the widow than it is to kick the baby in the head. What's the pie made of? Is the pie made of lamb and mashed potatoes? Good shepherd's pie, you know? Peas and carrots. But we all know that that's true. Is it a Marina Brovermich pie?

Is it a Brover? I don't even know. Marina Brovermich? The beer cooking? Well, that would be a bad pie. But even the fact that... There are some universal truths, obviously. Yes.

So good and bad are not arbitrary. But when it comes to positions of power, that is usually blurred. Obviously, whenever you give power, that power usually is being used against other individuals. So when we have people who have a lot of responsibility, if you give them more power and authority, that's not checked. That's not counted. Especially when it comes to speech. It leads to very tremendously horrible situations throughout recorded human history.

And when you give someone power to censor criticism of themselves, we have seen the largest human atrocities because of that. But again, this is a debate that's kind of sidetracking our conversation. I've got a couple questions about it. We can agree to disagree. I respect your opinions. I think you made some good points as well. And I think this is an idea. Maybe we could even debate afterwards because I know we've still got a crap ton of stories to talk about. I want to talk some good points as well. And I think this is an idea. Maybe we could even debate afterwards because

I know we still got a crap ton of stories to talk about. I want to talk about the barstool stuff, but I'll just reiterate, because maybe we'll talk in the members only. We'll go nuts with it. I just, I want to believe in free speech. I want to say make your points and we'll argue it. But then I also recognize

we live in a world of cultural morality. We grew up. We have the roots of our parents. We have the legacy, the things that worked to make humanity survive. We've retained and we've shaved off the bad over a long period of time. Look, slavery is not acceptable anymore. Humans used it for a long time.

The better parts have stayed with us. I'd like to believe that we can write down, you know, if A, then B, if X, then Y, but humans just don't operate that way. I mean, humanity thought slavery and the Holocaust was a great idea. They went along with it, right? Not a lot of people. It was a good thing, but then it was challenged, and because it was challenged, because people said, hey, this is not okay, hey, this is wrong. It was challenged with bombs.

And guns. By force. Not with speech. But it started with speech, and that's where it began. World War II, the Allied front in world war ii did not begin with speech it began with airplanes and guns no no no no obviously there was weaponry but obviously what led up to it was a bunch of meetings which much of talks was a bunch of escalations a bunch of things that were related to trade were related to embargo so it was a slow slow chamberlain spoke and churchill shot right the the reason the left holds the position they do is their argument is that hitler uh was allowed to hold his rallies and to indoctrinate and to expand and he was not sufficiently opposed and his his rhetoric

was winning people over because of their desperation he was basically exploiting their grievances to trick them into the psychotic ideology he was also suppressing people he didn't agree with he had control of the media. Not that that's afterwards. How did he rise to the point where he could do that? He manipulated and exploited people's emotions, their grievances over World War I and the debt to France, things like that, the poor economy.

He gave them things they wanted and then twisted that into his insane grievance. It's also worth remembering because, you know, everyone always makes World War II comparisons because it's like the only thing that anyone's ever read. South Stalin. But, you know, the thing that's important to remember before we get too down the rabbit hole of thinking we live in, you know,

the 1930s or 20s or something, Weimar Germany was completely destroyed. You know, money was worthless. Mothers and daughters were holding prostitution teams together. Like that degree of desperation is, you know,

not akin to something we're seeing now. But the libs exploit this and they say, well, you know, we're just always living in the lead up to Hitler. We got to put a tack in it. We got to put a tack on it. It's about Kanye.

We've been going for like three. All right, we'll go to it later. I'm sorry, man. No, it's a good conversation conversation we can do this for like three hours you guys but we have i really want to address this story we got this tweet from alex stein 99 prime time he says it was just a joke dude stool presidente it's not that serious let me play for you what david portnoy said and uh there's there's some nuance to this discussion but uh this is alex stein and his wife's his wife's boyfriend uh stormed into the barstool sports headquarters here's what was said and

fucking slap him in the face i don't think that guy's been slapped yet so i'm glad he got slapped yeah and the p you you hear people be like oh they should charge assault charge he should have been shot if we had a gun at first a ski mask in a deranged homeless man trying to barge in yeah yeah right it's the actor which is right craziest part yeah yeah bang bang you're dead it's all those all those people who want that will be like well if you come into my house i can shoot you with my gun all right well if you have two lunatics a guy wearing a ski mask bang bang and hey, and hey, fat tubular, bang, sorry. We told you to

leave. They're all like, you leave. No, you didn't. Danny was like pushing them. So where are they based out of? What city are they based out of? Is this New York or where are they at? I think New York City. I think they're right in the middle of New York City. I'm just going to say, first and foremost, Dave, you are wrong because

I'm sorry. If you're in New York City, can someone fact check real quick? Then you're wrong. Now, if you're in New York City, you don't get to say someone should be shot. Yeah. Headquartered in NYC. Yeah. If you're doing it, but the show like that where they actually don't know. I don't know.

If you're doing a show in a city where you constantly vote for and pay taxes and support the stripping away of your right to keep and bear arms, you don't get to say someone who entered a public office should be shot. Now, that being said, we here in Western Maryland and West Virginia with Castle Doctrine and active threats against us and armed guards, I will say there's a big difference. If someone stormed through, first of all, you got to enter a large property. You have to go past physical barricades saying, do not enter. You are being warned. You will be shot. Then if somebody broke in here, I'd be like, yeah, you'd probably get shot. I don't want you to get shot.

I don't think you should be. You probably will be because we're not going to try and figure out your intention when you break in. But to stress, Alex Stein was joking. I'm not a big fan of storming into the podcast office, you know, causing a fight and all that stuff in in a lot of circumstances. Yeah, he'd get beaten up. He causing a fight and all that stuff in, in a lot of circumstances. Yeah. He'd get beaten up. He'd get arrested, all that stuff. But I just want to make sure I can point out, you can't say that when you're in New York city. Sorry. There's also a difference in

that. How many times have you been swatted? How many times have people actually, is it really that high? Yeah. Oh my God. So it's like, obviously, you know, that's a different level. I don't think Dave Portnoy is getting swatted all that much. The Libs kind of like him. He plays this centrist character. And so it just seems a little over the top. I get that Alex Stein also is a little over the top, but I don't think blowing his brains out is totally proportionate here, you know? I mean, the thing is, they know who he is.

They know, like, if Alex Stein shows up, you know you're being pranked by a comedian with a comedian guy not saying i agree with it but their office is also open like i don't want to say it's open to the public but you can just walk up and enter it's like a building in a city and so people are pointing out the fact that he was able to walk up walk in the building go through the door there's no obstructions there's no signs or anything well yeah guys you got to get a guard and put up a sign saying hey you know private access only these things won't happen yeah i think that him saying it's a joke is a bit of a cop-out i've been using the word cop-out a little bit too much lately but i think it's not a joke jokes are words you tell jokes you say them you if you're doing something your actions or something it's a bit

maybe it's a bit maybe it's an act but it's not a joke can i i just want to i just want to point out too you said he plays the centrist but he's like the the the the mirror verse version of centrism from where we are like he's he's a centrist on all the worst things so like you know he talks about being pro-choice but it's just because if he knocks a girl up he doesn't want to deal with it that's like the worst reason to be pro-choice. That's the argument he was making with Andrew Tate. Andrew Tate, are you going with him against this? What kind of world are we living in? And when you live in New York City and you pay taxes in New York City, you're paying for 15 plus minute response times, not for your right to defend yourself. So if you want to defend yourself, obviously you have a right to do that. You know, the question's blurred here.

I mean, when someone jumps on your property, you know, what do you do? I mean, the jurisdiction that he's in doesn't allow him to do anything. It's not even his property. I'm willing to bet, assuming that show was in New York, I don't know where Alex is based. Well, Alex Stein was in New York City when he did this. Okay, okay. So these buildings are multi-leased yeah right the the so you're entering a building owned by someone who's not barstool barstool rents this space that's why

he's able to walk through the halls and go in the elevator because it's a community-owned thing now you come out to west virginia where we got 50 acres of our property wrapped in a big old fence that says do not enter we will defend ourselves with lethal force. Very, very different circumstance. Plus, you know, you're in New York, bro. You can't have guns. So I don't know what, I think he just wants to be like, he shouldn't have come in here. He shouldn't come in here.

And I'm like, to a degree, I would say, yeah, he shouldn't have. But you're in a communal building. He's a prankster. People can just come and go as they please. I agree. It's probably over the top. Isn't this also- But shooting someone.

And this is a way that New Yorkers talk. I say this as a New Yorker myself. You know, it's always the hypothetical in the past. Oh, you know what I would have done? You know what I would have done if I had been there and I had seen it? Oh, I would have done it so bad when it's just being this guy he's not gonna he would have sat there like everybody else of course of course I think Alex is taunting Dave he's been taunting him for like a month and a half and Dave

finally I mean he went into his his office and made a loud noise and smell I'm sure uh no not that Alex smells bad but you're letting your smell out, you know, your pheromones, bro. And Dave really took the bait. But him saying that you should have been shot, Alex, is a lot of people are going to hear that. And a lot of people are going to think, okay, if a guy comes into my office, maybe I should be shooting them. So that's a very bad, bad thing. This is why you do not go Joker on people. No, no, look, you just can't be a New York City liberal guy saying like, I'd shoot him. No, you wouldn't.

You'd vote to ban guns. Come on. You know what's weird to me, though, about this is some conservatives really like Dave Portnoy. And I can, you know, he's not exactly my flavor of conservatism. But where did the bad blood start with Stein and Portnoy? About a month and a half ago on Twitter, I think. Alex, it was a real reminder to be like, Dave, you smell. I don't know. What were the dumb tweets?

I wish Alex was here to tell us. I don't know. No, it started with something reminder. He'd be like, Dave, you smell. I don't know. What were the dumb tweets? I wish Alex was here to tell us. I don't know. No, it started with something specific. Really? Yeah. But it was like low key. It wasn't. But Alex really was like, I like this.

I want the attention. I want to make a big deal out of it. It's good for me and Dave publicly. I think it was Alex's mindset. And he's enjoying it. No, but look, Alex Stein is a very, very smart guy. Yeah. I've had him on the show a couple of times.

He's wild. He's obnoxious. But he is quick. Yeah. Like he comes up with these one liners and these these jokes i'm like the dude knows what he's doing and what he's talking about he's got a plan yeah the plan may be crazy it may be a bit jokerish but stein's a smart guy and he was like dave i was joking like earlier on a weeks ago he's like dave i'm joking around come on let's have fun and dave but dave was already too he was angry at that

point and i haven't seen dave down yet. So what was it? Chrissy Mayer said they waltzed right in because your receptionist is dumb and buzzed them in. Is that what happened? Because if that's what happened, then Dave, sorry, you've lost every, like, you know, every argument. Isn't there also a difference between if a guy busts into my home at night or something, then yeah, if I can get a gun, I'll start blasting away. But if a guy comes into my office, well, I'll just take my producer, Ben Davies, and hold him right in front of me. And so, you know, he can take all the bullets or anything.

But I'm going to go a little- Shout out to Ben Davies. When the pandemic was heating up, there was a viral video out of, I think it was Los Angeles County or something, where a guy, a gun shop owner said, stop getting mad at me that I can't sell you guns. You voted for this. You voted for the wait periods. You voted for permitting. You cannot buy guns. It's your fault. People were showing up to gun

shops being like, I'd like to buy a gun. He'd be like, okay, fill this form out, come back in a week. And they'd go, what? I need a gun now. And I'd be like, yeah, well, you voted for it or didn't vote at all. So to have these New York City liberals in a state that is a duty to retreat, I'm assuming New York is that way, New Jersey is that way in new jersey if someone breaks in your house you have to flee your own home to where to florida they call it they called it right exactly they call it partial castle doctrine i talked to a lawyer about it because someone tried breaking in and he was like if there isn't if someone breaks in your house and there is any way you can escape you have to and i'm like window yep door yep jump off the balcony and he's like within reason obviously but like if you're in

your house and someone goes to the front door you got to go out the back and i'm like go where go to dunkin donuts and then call the cops and then i'm just like and if there are people trapped inside they're like well you know it's it's it's it's interesting but depends on what they're going to argue and what I was told is that the prosecutors in Jersey, of course they will argue you did wrong, no matter what you did. So that's why I like West Virginia. West Virginia, someone breaks into your house,

you defend yourself, the cops say, shouldn't have come into your house. You get in trouble in New York City for having pepper spray. Yeah, literally. New York is a duty to retreat. I mean, I grew up in New York City, too. It's not only a retreat retreat it's a retreat uh pull your pants down bend over and just take it because what else are you going to do uh other than of course be a helpless victim as criminals there obviously have guns obviously they have ways of getting guns with the glock

switches and everything but you know you're not you're not trusted enough to do that is it because vigilante justice was out of control or something? Why can't you just stop someone from coming into your house in New York? That's a good question. Because when cops kick your door in, they don't want to be worried about it. The cops don't want to fear

that if they serve a bunk warrant or enter the wrong house, they're going to get a shock reprisal. Because criminals are going to have guns anyway. Didn't Indiana pass a law saying that if a cop wrongly enters your home, you could legally defend yourself? I think Ohio did, too. I think it was Indiana.

Yeah. Yeah. I saw Michael Malice tweeting about this, celebrating it. Really? He was very happy. I'm going to look it up right now. That's amazing. Because, you know, me and Malice are both anarchists, just so you understand where we're

coming from. So that could explain the debate we're having, which is great and awesome. Oh, I'll tell you, too. I was saying this to Malice. I was saying this to some of my more kind of Ayn Rand-y friends, because I don't like Ayn Rand. I went through a phase when I was a teenager. Really, I hate Ayn Rand. But the more that I live through COVID and post-COVID, the more that I see, I don't know, I'm going to wind up an anarchist.

Somehow I'm going to wind up a trad anarchist, I think. Because, you know, now, this is why it's also Dave's fault. If you are still conducting business in New York or L.A., that's your fault. You had plenty of time to get out. Get out. Like, there's no reason to stay there. Hey, hey, hey, forcing your will onto other people isn't cool. Being a statist and authoritarian is not cool.

Yeah, except for sometimes. No, no, no. If I keep pooping in your water supply. See, this is where I differ with also, you know, our anarchist and libertarian friends of the show is that I look at jurisdiction, right? I've had the libertarians argue no borders. Borders are imaginary anarchists. Borders are imaginary.

And I was like, how do you protect your family if you don't set a perimeter to where you're allowed to live peacefully? Like, jurisdiction is actually setting a limitation on yourself. I actually feel that arguing

for no borders is an extension of your authority over others. Right. When the United States says, this is our southern border. We're not going to go over there. Well, we do anyway.

But the idea is, this is my property line. I'm not going to go over there well we do anyway but the idea is this is my property line i'm not going to go over by you this is where i'm going to do my thing please leave me alone if we said borders don't matter you're basically saying at any point i can go over by you and do what i need to do and also that's just an expression of the false anthropology at the heart of anarchism and libertarianism you guys are straw manning this i just want to say for the record here, and it's far more complicated because we could get into details like welfare and welfare incentivizing people to move over. We could talk about the weaponization of immigration.

And I think the Mises caucus, especially under Dave Smith, has been addressing this issue in a very smart and correct way, addressing this immigration issue in a more correct way, saying, hey, as long as we have the welfare state, we shouldn't have open immigration. But if you got rid of the welfare

state, then borders should be erased or something. I mean, well, it depends. It's a complicated argument. And there's many different factors that are multifaceted here. To me, anarchism, it's not an all end solution to everything. It's never going to be perfect. But I think as humanity, we should always be striving for personal responsibility and for personal freedom and liberty and and i agree to a great extent my concern is the communist party of china exists they've exerted authoritarian control over their people to the extent where they're welding them into their homes we can be the anarchists of free trade and all that and when the chinese communist party comes knocking and says we'd like to purchase some land in free trade and and we say, sounds good to us. Then before we know it, they own 40% of the farmland on the West Coast. And then all of a sudden, they're using that against us,

cutting off supply lines, we're being attacked from within, which means I'd love for there with you look at the United States, and Ron Paul made a great point that I love where he said, in the US, you can be a socialist, go buy buy land. Go set up your little socialist commune. Why do you want to force everyone else to do that? We set the boundaries. We set the rules. We agree on those rules. And then we can live in peace and harmony.

We're also discussing these things as though they're opposites when they're communism and anarchism. In fact, they're two sides of the same coin because they partake of the same false anthropology, which says the fundamental political institution is the individual, which is not true and has never been true. The fundamental political unit is the family. And so people are not born as the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment rationalists would have you believe as individuals with a bunch of rights and entitlements, but primarily, though we do have rights, but we are born not as these atoms floating through space, but into families with duties and obligations. And so your love of your state and your love of your country is an extension of that filial

piety, because you have an obligation to respect your father and mother. I think centralization is a big problem throughout human history. I think decentralization, essentially, this is what kind of boils down. But again, we're getting into larger ideologies. No, but what's the balance of the two you can't have authoritarianism or pure anarchism you can't have either of the two extremes I think right now it's more

than fair to say that we are more centralized than ever and we need more decentralization and this is what the philosophy of anarchism is pushing because right now I think it's fair to say that too many people in the central government have too much power over everyone else and we need to limit that power. and this is where we agree and i think when you look at the political compass the least populated portion of it is the center left liberal it's either far left moderate authoritarian to very authoritarian and then you have moderate

conservative to like libertarian right and then then you actually, I would argue, have more authoritarian right wingers than you actually have center left liberal libertarian types. It doesn't exist. I'm center left lib. But most people who claim to be are literally not. Most people who claim to be are authoritarian left, want speech policing to an extreme degree. I was just told that that's what I was when I took the test. I don't know what I am. This is the point, and I'll get into the next story.

The point is, if you are on the libertarian spectrum of the political compass, you still have a degree of authority that you expect to exist, unless you're all the way on the bottom at anarchy. Listen, we talked about this before. On a local small level, you know, I forgot who said this. Someone more smarter than me said this. On a local family level, you should be communists. And then on a community level, you should be socialists. And then on a state level, you should move away further from centralization and call for more decentralization. And I agree.

The family unit, I think, is one of the most important units. But I think we also have to respect the strongest minority of them all, and that's the individual. And you could still do that while, of course, prioritizing families, communities, and neighborhoods, and individuals coming together to work together without any kind of mafioso, central controller, government bureaucrat coming in and getting a cut of the money. No, but the trads love subsidiarity. I mean, that's a principle of, well, put forward by Thomas Aquinas and by conservatives since time immemorial. I think the place we're getting confused is we're pretending that individualism, you know, the anarchists and the communists are opposites when they both accept the same fundamental premise, which I think is a wrong premise, which is that the individual is the primary unit of society. And so the anarchists say it's the individual and it has to remain that way.

And the communists say it's the individual and that's why we've got to lump them all together. But it's the conservatives who are offering the only genuine alternative, which says, no, it's actually not about this individualism. It doesn't just come down to the individual. It comes down to something that is more institutional and actually fundamental to your humanity, which is family and community and tradition, and not just the use of your individual unfettered reason to come up with some cockamamie idea. It's why I think Karl Marx, if he were alive today, would be in the Tea Party or something like that.

I absolutely disagree with that in its total essence. And when we look at essentially what is boiling down to what a lot of these larger parties and ideas, especially when it comes to conservatives and what they're doing, they're essentially just kind of the liberals 10 years from now. When you look at the policies, when you look at them deciding to use force and government against other individuals to impose their ideas, I think at the end of the day, this is the key central role when anarchists and libertarians don't want a central figure, don't want someone telling them what to do. And I think this notion of back and forth, the government is good, they're going to tell us what to do right, do they have the ultimate decision-making and what is good and bad, I think that pendulum, when it swings back and forth between the left and right, is only bringing on more government,

more authoritarianism, and I think we need a lot less of that right now. Do you not see the irony of of you know lamenting that the wicked conservative authoritarians want to impose their views and use the power of the state on you when what you are advocating is you're saying what we need to do michael is we need to get rid of our political order in the united states we need to get rid of tradition we need to get rid of orders we need to get rid of all these things you well what you are suggesting is a radical upending of our political order at at the very least. You're not living in an anarchist utopia already. No, no, no.

It's not fair to put words in my mouth. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. I strongly believe in families. I think they should be prioritized. And I think individuals should treat families in a kind of communistic way, on the individual basis, without any kind of force or government intervening in that. This is why I'm a huge proponent of homeschooling. This is why I'm a huge proponent of moving away from. This is why I'm a huge proponent of moving away from depending on government for

daily life and personal responsibility. What if the families abuse kids? That's a horrible situation that needs to be mitigated by the government. That's a very hard decision. That's one example that is very hard to deal with. And again, you're making this

very niche kind of argument, but I could say, what about the government and the small children let's uh and bringing them to small islands let's keep the conversation in line and not go far off uh what if the government determines that not vaccinating your kids is is abuse right so the the challenges that we have and that that that point right there is why i say morality is not logical morality is amorphous it's it's analog it's not digital we say something like you shouldn't be allowed to abuse your kids if a guy is beating his child we should intervene and stop that yeah and then someone else says you're right and if you're not giving the kid the appropriate medical treatment for their disease that's abuse and then you ask the question which medical treatment for their disease, that's abuse. And then you ask the question, which medical treatment? Are we talking about a vegan mom who's not giving her son any meat

because she's determined what's right for her kids, and then we intervene? Or are we talking about, say, a gender transition program where the government says it's abuse if you don't give it to them? There's not a one-for-one answer. And I agree with that, of course. The only point I'm trying to make is that I find libertarianism and anarchism to be extremely authoritarian in as much as they seek to impose

a political order on me that I think is absurd and that I don't want. I don't want to live in a political order in which I, in a self-government, cannot,

through my representatives and through the police force, take a child out of an abusive home. A libertarian or an anarchist might prefer that, but that's not what I want, want so i find it very authoritarian but you would rather have a government and support a government and pay taxes to a government that's running international

trafficking organizations oh come on no i want to make it an argument saying i support you know but i can make the same argument there i'm not no i never said here's here's the ideal the the ideal is if a guy punches kid in the face we protect that kid and get it away from that person if a guy's beating his wife we get his wife out of there but then there's a simple challenge the law says you shall not cause physical harm to your children or your spouse be it male or female and then we say that's a fine law you cannot physically harm and then someone goes this woman was giving her kid an all soy diet with no protein and he's sickly anemic and about to die we sort of have is do we intervene in that regard but the mother says i know what's right for my kid then we say okay you're right she's

abusing the kid then someone says oh but they're the government dr fauci says this vaccine is has to be for kids and the parent won't do it should the government then intervene. It's the same law, but interpreted in different scenarios. Traditionally, the American response to this is that we have a self-government. And to your point, Luke, very often it does not appear that we actually have a self-government increasingly. But notionally, that's the idea, at least. And so within the self-government, we have the right as citizens to come to answers on these questions and say, you know, the all soy

diet that is abusive, you're not allowed to do that. The vaccine, no, we're not going to make you vaccinate your kids. And that's particular, but that does mean that we have the right to impose our views of the world on others. That is the premise and prerequisite of self-government. If you do not do that, then, well, you'll have to impose some other political order, which will get you right back to the same problem. Let me ask you, then, well, you'll have to impose some other political order, which will get you right back to the same problem. Let me ask you, Luke, if a kid had strep throat, bacterial, and the doctor said, we're going to, I don't know what the actual treatment is, amoxicillin, do they still do amoxicillin? Yeah, I guess. And the mother says, no, I don't want any of that

weird stuff. We're going to give him tree bark. Do you think the government should intervene or just let the kid die? There's a lot of variables in that particular situation so again hypotheticals are not my favorite i don't think it's fair to even issue a lot of those kind of hypotheticals in this situation hold on there a minute answer the question don't try and patter your way i'm not pattering my way i'm addressing the situation i don't i don't think it's a fair it's i don't think it's a fair question now obviously how is it not a fair question a kid has a very simply curable bacterial infection, and the mom doesn't want to give him medicine.

Should the government intervene? At this instant, in this current situation, the government will intervene. Should they? I don't have all the answers here. This is the challenge when I start thinking about how, yes, I want to be much more libertarian. I don't like vaccine mandates.

And when we say something like look i've had uh when i was a kid you know strep throat or whatever and they gave me that pink stuff that tasted really really great it was like strawberry flavored amoxicillin or something and it cures you we know antibiotics cure diseases shout out to fungus shout out to fungus so if i see a parent who's like i'm gonna rub crystals on my kid i'm like well look i don't like the idea that the government can come in and tell a parent how to raise their kid that's a big problem but there's also oh man what do you do we know that that antibiotics can cure certain diseases how do we navigate this when dr fauci says you must do this for your kid right even if

it's like you know like we're in phase three trials and it's only been a couple of years. At that point, you're like, I object, but it's at the core, the nuance of the situation is different, but it's the same thing. Do I accept the government can intervene when a person defies the science?

Man, now I'm like, I'm watching a kid die a strep throat when I know he could save his life because I don't want someone to be forced to inject their kid over here. I don't have the answer for that. Well, there's also, one, there's a difference between amoxicillin and the Fauci-Auchi. You know, we have a lot more long-term data on one of those than the other. But also, to your point, can the government do this? There is an historical matter here, which you've pointed out, Luke,

which is that throughout all of human history, in every single society, in every single place on planet Earth, the government, by which we mean people having power within political communities, do impose those things. Every single place, occasionally anarchists will say, you know, in 8th century Iceland or something, but, you know, okay, fine. But everywhere for all of human history. Right, right. If you look at government interventions, I mean, again, anarch but every everywhere for all the history yeah right right if you look

at government interventions i mean again anarchism doesn't have all the solutions doesn't have all the answers and i do believe uh children should always be protected obviously that should be a common no no no hold on hold on common sense but but hold on if you make a point i've got to address the point okay but this is the larger point that i wanted to make here i'm not finished here i'm laying down the groundwork for this point but you don't agree agree with that. You don't think kids should always be protected. It depends on the circumstances and situations. I don't want to be the central controller deciding a lot of these things. A lot of these things will be decided

by individuals or communities or families and neighborhoods that will decide for themselves what is right. And I believe at the end of the day, that is a better thing that will happen rather than a government coming in and taking a kid and putting him into CPS. What is the difference? Look at how horrible our CPS system system is look at how many kids get hurt

inside of the cps system i have a question so so all i'm saying is at the end of the day i don't have all the answers and solutions here no one does obviously there's flaws in every single political argument and political ideology yes so obviously but at the end of the day individuals should decide for themselves not central controllers So let me ask a simple question. Two circumstances. Government says we will not intervene in what the family decides to do with their child. The family then decides they will sterilize and castrate their kid and give them hormones. Second scenario.

You mean what they're doing right now with the state protection? Second scenario. Family says we will not give this kid hormone therapy and surgery, and the government does intervene. Right. Which one's the right or wrong one? Do we say the government should not intervene in the parents' decision as they decide to give their kid what they deem best, a sex change? Or do we stop the government from forcing the sex change because the child wants it and the state deems it to be taking responsibility away from yourself? Taking decisions away from the family, from the community is, to me, a recipe for disaster.

So here's my question. This is what I'm arguing against. That's my main argument. Do you think not some emotional your choice as a parent? I think that should be pushed back against in many different ways. That's a horrible decision. That's going to hurt the child. And I think there should at least be informed consent and some community involvement and participation in this.

How can there be informed consent for the kid? This is the thing. How can there be informed consent for the kid? Well, the parents... This is the thing. Kids should always be protected. This is where I disagree with a lot of the bigger kind of libertarian and anarchist ideas, especially when they say we've got to sell heroin to kids. Obviously, that's the wrong idea. Obviously, that's something that I stand against, and I made clear many times before on this particular show.

But when it comes to these important decisions at the end of the day, I do believe, and I have a lot more faith in a family, in a community, in the neighborhood, and in individuals, rather than the big government that we have now that uses our tax dollars in horrible ways and hurts way more people than the larger ideologies

of anarchism, which I believe at the end of the day would lead to less harm reduction. I just wanted to say that that scenario I gave of the parents are doing it and the government doesn't intervene and the parents don't want it the government does intervene is exemplifies my point about how laws are based on amorphous moral morals analog morals like in which circumstance do we decide the government is or isn't right well Well, and also the interpretation of intervention here is, I think, problematic because the government by which,

and Luke, you keep conflating these things where you say, well, no, I don't like the government. I just like community. Well, the government is the expression of the political community, especially in a notionally self-governing. Especially now with what's happening with the elections, especially now with the way that they're running things.

Well, certain elections are an expression. But're falling maybe not maricopa county yeah especially now with how much debt they put us in especially now with the threat i mean the national debt is an expression of the political community making choices absolutely this is how i i drift more away from anarchism and libertarianism i recognize sometimes we want the government to intervene sometimes we don't and it's there's no way to define it other than a judgment by a trusted person. It seems to me the government is always intervening in the sense that we live in a society, we live in a political community. In order to live together in a society, we come up with rules and norms and institutions to mediate the people in that society, the families and the smaller communities. But why can't communities do that? Why do you need a government

to do that? That is what a government is. It's the expression of a the expression of force of a political community. I think that's been highly bastardized and highly incorrect with the way the government is now. You're talking about federal government and large government. Right? You're advocating for smaller, localized government. I'm talking about what essentially is

a mafia coming in there and saying, I will impose my will on you because I know what's best for you. I'm against those ideas. But when we're talking about let's just use the term political community then, because which I think is actually more precise within a political community. There is always a way that people are living and being raised. So for instance, if the mode of education within the political community says that men and women are different and men can't become women and women can't become men, then I guess you're not going to have these kids getting castrated and injected with poison. But is that the government intervening? I just think this idea that the government is active or passive is no, the government just is. The political community just is. And we're always

constantly living in a state of standards and norms. And so the question is not this procedural question is, will the government do something or not? The question is just what is the government doing? Well, so here's what I see. We have no willingness in American society to set standards and uphold them. There's a bifurcation politically, as we call it, the multicultural democracy and the constitutional republicanists. That's basically how it's breaking down. But this means that,

for the most part, Antifa goes around smashing windows, and there is no willpower or desire to stop them. Well, we just got an article of five of them getting arrested. We do have this story in Georgia. And people in the school councils.

I just want to make one quick point here, because I just agree with one basic point point here were you saying the government is a representation of community there's been many scientific studies showing specifically that the will of the people does not impose or change the government it is special interest and i'm not talking about the powerful people that do you're not about the will and represent hold on hold on the government is by and large a tool of a lot of powerful people you're talking about one specific government versus the concept of government. Different things.

But let me pull up this story real quick. Sorry, guys. But this is great. It's okay. I mean, we're having a great time. I'm enjoying this intellect. I'm about three degrees higher. I'm questioning my ideas.

I love this. This is big news. We got Andy Ngo reports from the Post Millennial. Domestic terror charges for five arrested at violent Antifa autonomous zone near Atlanta. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation says it found explosive devices and gasoline at the rate. The reason this story is newsworthy is that it actually happened for once. You know, if the law was being upheld as it's supposed to be, we wouldn't care to talk about another bunch of extremists getting arrested.

They're supposed to get arrested. Now we're like, wow, look at that. they actually arrested some of them here's what i see happening this is the point i was making just in the previous segment a society is typically a cohesive one everybody kind of agrees on the lines you don't cross when someone crosses that line everyone is aghast and the cops are like we're going to go in and deal with this that meant obscenity laws 100 years ago. That meant someone could go out on a street corner and yell something nasty, and they'd be like, no, no, no, stop this, stop this.

And everyone agreed, not good. We've now gone so far in the other direction that you actually have people throwing Molotov cocktails. And in these cities, they're like, well, you know, it's their first offense. And look, we're going to lose votes if we actually prosecute these people. So let's let them all out of the prisons. Now, there's no enforcement at all. The American people, I mean, it's conservatives too. I mean, conservatives aren't going to go to cities and demand this stuff.

So unless there was an actual ramification for not holding people to account, you know, or I should say there is no ramification for not holding people to account. So it's just not happening. This is the breakdown of the political body or of government or whatever you want to call it. People are being held to account if, for instance, they prohibit their children

from being castrated. People are being held to account if they walk into the Capitol Rotunda with a horn hat on and crack a Coors Light. People are having the book thrown at them for that sort of thing. Pro-life activists at abortion clinics. Pro-life activists at abortion clinics and just even exposing crimes. Actual

not just immoral activity, which is all that takes place at abortion clinics, but actual illegal activity. And then who's prosecuted? It's the pro-lifers. So the law is being enforced, and more than the law, is being enforced against certain people. But, you know, you look at, say, the 19th century, early 20th century, and you always hear these horror stories of the Ku Klux Klan getting away with lynchings or terror rides or anything like that. You say, well, they just didn't enforce the law. You know, that was, yeah, right. That is an imperfect expression of how the law is enforced. And you're seeing precisely the same sort of thing here it's cultural tolerance right now our culture is completely tolerating antifa conservatives and

libertarian types complain about the violence and that's and then nothing else happens there is no cost for a law enforcement division of any kind if they do not enforce the law there is a cost if they do enforce it when they come out and target antifa they can expect more fire bombs and more violence if they don't arrest anybody what can they expect well there will be some firebombs and violence from these lunatics they won't arrest but conservatives ain't gonna do anything yeah but you do see uh the law of nature take over when they firebombed wayne reed or when they go into dwayne reed and mob the store with a flash mob and rob you know a thousand dollars each so they can't get felonies in san francisco where they made it you're allowed to rob thousand bucks and then duane reed shuts

down i think it's duane reed don't get me if it's not duane reed it was i think it was duane reed there's also uh i think target so you see the market is reacting to unchecked violence it's not the right maybe it's not even the culture it's the market itself but that's part of the culture the mayor but it's like it's like a law of nature the mayor the chief of police the the the the sheriffs they suffer no consequence no immediate consequence it's like a law of nature. The mayor, the chief of police, the sheriffs, they suffer no consequence. No immediate consequence. It's a long-term thing where your city starts to fall apart because business is shut down. The individual suffers no consequence at all.

Well, only that your environment begins to degrade slowly. So what? They can move. So these cops who live in San Francisco, they're resigning. They're moving. And then it gets worse and worse and worse. And that is an issue of an individualized society. san francisco they're resigning they're moving and then it gets worse and worse and worse and that is an issue of uh of an individualized society when everyone just says it's about me

and my life that's what happens when people put responsibility to the community slightly above themselves you'll get someone going out being like i gotta stop this because you know old man jenkins down the street needs this duane reefer's. I can't let someone do this to the community. But it's not just the community. Let's break this problem down because I think it's fair to say that George Soros invested a lot when it came to appointing district attorneys and attorney generals all throughout the United States. You guys agree with that, right? 120 million. Zero Republicans.

He again bought government to impose his will on what he thought was right. And his will is punishing right-wingers but letting antifa go well for the most part it's the unenforced the non-enforcement george soros wrote an op-ed about how he wanted da's who were not going to go after people and we're going to give them lighter sentences that's an inversion i'm not i'm not advocating for harsh authoritarianism so i i actually think cash bail is a problem but i don't know if we have the solution other than to expand build more courts hire more judges but george soros basically said i want people who are in the da's office who won't prosecute crimes well you

got it and now it's getting worse exactly but that's not using the government to do it that's stripping the government of its ability to stop these people no no no no no because when the government sees a right winger when the government sees a political crime when the government sees a way to punish someone for their political ideas they do it that's that's the government if there are two but when it comes to specifically when it comes to specifically this is why we need a mind you made a point i'm gonna address your point luke you made one point let me address it if there's a left-wing and right-wing activists and they both riot they should both be. What's happened now is half is being enforced and politically biased. Only one side is being let go. This is the government not enforcing

half of it and actually and upscaling against the right. And by the way, not to be too harsh, you know, on the libertarian effect on the conservative movement, but a lot of the reason why the libs have become so good, specifically over the last 60 years, at wielding the government in a way that it was not very good actually at before. You saw the beginnings of it with Woodrow Wilson and FDR, but you still had a lot of conservative political power within the government. A lot of the reason why we're not good at it anymore is because the libertarians convinced

the conservatives that wielding political power per se is wrong and immoral. And by doing that, we conceded the entire political field and had the libs run all of the institutions. The conservatives and Republicans being weak has nothing to do with libertarians. They decided that for themselves. They capitulated power. They're the ones that went along with a lot of this nonsense. They're the ones that are literally just the Democrats of 10 years ago. Let's be honest here.

They're implementing the same policies. And if there ever is a political party that hasn't been working for the American people, that actually screwed them over and gave them failed promises, it's the Republican Party. What's your opinion on redefining marriage? The Obergefell case and now the law that was passed yesterday, the quote-unquote respect for marriage act, radically redefines a fundamental political institution. I think it's a PR stunt in order You're the libertarian on the conservative. I think it's a PR stunt in order to try to galvanize a base.

Do you support gay marriage? I haven't even read the bill. What about the concept in general? I don't believe the government should, I don't think you need permission to marry someone to get a license from the government. Well, you always have throughout all of human history. So how come now? No, no, no, not always.

People made bonds and and specific contracts with each other without without government sometimes as well that's not true marriage has always had a tie either to religion or to the religion which was usually established and had a tie to the state i'll make i'll make a single point sometimes religion was more powerful than this and let me but they're always tied together and i'll address specifically pre-marriage pre-no-fault divorce was a contract that you could not just break. If you entered into a contract with someone, you had a duty and responsibility. And if you wanted to break it, you had to prove to a court that was just reason to do so.

Right. So a marriage meant something. The reason you had the government involved wasn't because they give you permission. It was because you were saying to another person, I give my life to you. I expect your life in return. And it's public act and it's a public act. And if that person then decided I'm not going to give you equal, like you're giving me your life. I'm not giving you back. You would have your honor courts. I need this enforced. And they would say marriage counseling, some kind of relationship counseling, then no fault divorce came in. And now we're at the, we're at the we're in the period where marriage is basically a date you're dating

someone something that has there's no enforcement anymore totally in the 40s which i think is interesting the reason why libertarian is so popular right now is because in the 40s america became a militant authoritarian country it used to be a liberal republic and then in 1949 when they signed they created the liberal economic order they became this a military government and they did it in secret they didn't want people to know kennedy tried to out on the kill whoever someone killed him and uh who is they for 70 years we've been in a military government it's like a it's like if you're played civilization they had a revolution of government from liberty liberty state yeah and so what's happening is the um the anarchists are pushing back.

But if you push back too hard, the pendulum goes extreme. You don't want extreme. That's what statists do. Left and right. Left and right. Back and forth. More government.

More government. More government. Listen, I grew up in Poland when there was still communism there, right? The Polish people are adverse to communists and to fascists. To extreme left and extreme right. This is essentially the larger ideas

that are quantified in anarchism, in my opinion, because they push back a lot of this nonsense that feeds each other and builds on top of each other. And in Poland specifically, when it came to things like marriage, right? If someone would be divorced, if someone would not take care of their child after birthing a child,

they would be looked upon as a scumbag. There would be social pressures on that individual for being a scumbag. Poland's a very Catholic country. During communism, and during when the Soviet Union had control of Poland, it wasn't

mainly the state that was enforcing a lot of these morals. It was the church that had a larger impact on that. And the church was fighting the state. My point here is, I hear from our libertarian friends that the conservatives are actually the ones who are the Democrats from 10 years ago. Is it not true? No, it's not true.

The libertarians are the ones who are pushing gay marriage, a view so left-wing that Barack Obama didn't even agree with it in 2011. They're the ones pushing drugs. They're the ones pushing open borders. They're the ones pushing all of the breakdown of the family. Some are, but I'm not. Some are, yes. Those are issues that I have very strong stances against.

I think you unwittingly are pushing those things, but I don't think you intend to push those things. I disagree because I addressed those problems. Specifically, what was the three that you brought up? I guess the reason I bring it up is if you ask real conservatives, the real traddies around today

what's your view on marriage they're going to give you the view of marriage that was held from the beginning of human history until 2015 if you ask their views on drug laws or on punishing criminals or on immigration enforcement or any of these things you're going to get the conservative point of view and it's going to be the libertarians and the liberals who agree on all of those issues in a very very radical way i disagree i think the ideology is is directly opposed to each other liberals want more government libertarians want less government but but but but the end result is the same as what i'm saying because it's not when the liberals use big government in order to impose

their but when the when the libertarians uh use this fantastical utopian aversion to government to break down the social order and to break everyone down into individuals who are much more easily collectivized, which is what has happened. Something you said brilliant. I don't know where you got this idea that the base unit of society is a duality. It's a communication between two or more people, a family unit. One individual born in the woods with no humans is not a human. I mean, technically they're a human.

They're not a person. They're not a society. Yeah, they don't have, they don't understand language. They don't understand concepts of humanity. They don't understand they're a wild animal if they're born in the woods. Yeah, right.

Alone. And so you need that second person. And I think to think of society as the duality, we cannot function without the duality because that's what, like the matrix keeps you sane. It keeps you you humble it's the man and the woman yeah i thought that was really funny the matrix you see the fourth matrix one they made i i didn't know they went up to four i think i've only seen through three i think it's funny because a lot of people said

it was going to be like woke or whatever but the plot of the matrix is literally that you need a matriarch and a patriarch together to stabilize reality and not in a libertarian society not only will two people keep each other sane and rational but in a in a totalitarian society two people will keep each other from falling victim to the state we have to move on to at least one more story because there's no way i can let this one go so i got a hard segue to rolling stone trump's major announcement was a scammy superhero themed NFT collection. For $99, you can now own a digitally generated image of the former president cosplaying as an astronaut, fighter pilot, sheriff

or red carpet celebrity. I think it's hilarious. His video release was really funny. He goes, hopefully, I'm your favorite president greater than Lincoln, greater than Washington and if you buy an NFT you enter into a sweepstakes for a chance Hopefully, I'm your favorite president, greater than Lincoln, greater than Washington. And if you buy an NFT, you enter into a sweepstakes for a chance to win a bunch of great prizes like dinner with me.

I don't know if it's a great prize, but maybe. But it's what we got. But I think it was funny that he's like, I'm better than Lincoln in Washington and eating dinner with me might not be a good prize. So look, he's a funny guy. I think what was cringe about this was that people thought he was going to endorse someone for rnc chair he was going to announce a vp he was going to put forth a major policy proposal but instead he's selling nfts right around the time ftx collapses yeah and what six months after nfts became worthless yeah yeah sorry dude how many did you buy oh seven no i bought none i'm not gonna buy i'm trying so hard, because I still really like the guy.

Best president of my lifetime. But I'm trying really hard to spin it in my head. I'm like, how can I convince myself this was a good announcement? And I can't do it, you know? But the thing that his announcement did demonstrate is something that I have said to Trump's critics for years, which is they say, he's an egomaniac narcissist. And I say, yeah, you know, he has his name on buildings. But he has a kind of humility.

Like, for instance, he had this comment when he was president. He said, someone accused him of drinking a beer. He said, I've never drunk a beer, okay? I'm probably the only president who can say I've never drunk a beer. It's the only good thing you can say about me. And it was an expression of humility. It was a self-effacing thing as he is saying here you know when he when he boasts about everything he's talking like a new yorker but he's usually joking i i just i i laughed so hard when he was

like maybe it's not a good prize i don't know i'm like that was masterfully done he's he's really good at that kind of stuff yeah i mean he's getting a lot of pushback especially from a lot of his supporters today oh i agree america. He did tweet, America needs a superhero. Big announcement tomorrow. Here's my Pokemon cards. Buy them. And I'm like, you've got to be kidding me. Look at this.

Look at this. Oh, yeah. This is a good video. Look at it. He's shooting laser eyes. This is pretty infomercial. Hello, everyone. This is Donald Trump.

Hopefully your favorite president of all time. Better than Lincoln. better than Washington, with an important announcement to make. I'm doing my first official Donald J. Trump NFT collection right here and right now. They're called Trump Digital Trading Cards. These cards feature some of the really incredible artwork pertaining to my life and my career. It's very exciting. You can collect your Trump digital cards, just like a baseball card or other collectibles.

Here's one of the best parts. Each card comes with an automatic chance to win amazing prizes, like dinner with me. I don't know if that's an amazing prize. It's what we have. Or golf with you and your friends at one of my beautiful golf courses. The prizes actually are great. Like having a cocktail

party with your friends at Mar-a-Lago. It's not a bad prize. I mean, that sounds really fun. Dinner with Trump would be extremely interesting, even if you don't like the guy. And playing golf with him? That sounds fun. Yeah, but a $100 gambling chip to hope you win a chance to hang out. It's like, not in this economy, not before Christmas.

I think the whole thing was a mistake. They should be 99 cents each, and he could sell 100 million of them, or 10 million, or 50 million. I mean, it is like a J-check. Why do you got to do bump stock Donnie like that, Tim? I thought you liked him. Bump stock Donnie? Yeah, why do you got to do him like that? I like the Abraham Accords.

I like trying to negotiate peace with North Korea. I like setting timelines for withdrawal from the Middle East. I don't like him for a whole lot of reasons. There's a tweet going around right now, allegedly from Baked Alaska, saying, quote, I can't believe I'm going to jail for an NFT salesman. This does bring some interesting comments to where Trump's attention is. He's not on Twitter. He's not in the national discourse.

He's not making a lot of strong stances national discourse he's not making you know a lot of strong stances on a lot of the important things happening right now he's selling 99 nfts now here's the problem almost immediately right after we have this story shatter the left-wing censorship regime trump announces 2024 free speech policy quote a sinister group of deep state bureaucrats silicon valley tyrants and activists and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the american people this was a very somber and serious statement that came out like right around the time as this nft announcement this should have been the major announcement of course and people have been like

wow trump's getting serious what's the announcement he's promising he's going to do something when he becomes president of the united states that doesn't really change it's a politician making promises it doesn't really change anything that's a good point but but but the point is donald trump has an announcement to make yeah at the very least it would have been in of political nature not selling nfts you know i'm i'm all for the fun frivolity silliness i mean i like that but it it has to that has to be the cherry on top of the sundae of really doing something and talking about issues that people care about. I mean, to your point, Luke, he's not in office right now, so he can't really do anything. And he's not even on Twitter, so he can't talk that much.

But I look and I think, in Trump 2015, when also he was just talking, right? He was just a candidate. But Trump 2015, he comes down that escalator. He says what no other Republican will say, which is that this immigration thing is horrible and they're sending rapists and drug dealers across and we got to do something. When he said, you remember Hillary Clinton's slogan was, I'm with her. And Trump said, that's a BS slogan. I'm with you. He switched the subject and he said, I'm with you. And you really felt like this guy's talking about things that actually matter to me. NAFTA. When was the last Republican to challenge NAFTA ever? You know, Buchanan, I guess.

And now all we're seeing is the frivolity. All we're seeing is the tee hee hee, you know, here's the, and I just think, okay, it's funny, but come on, give me something, man. He, in the statement, he said, within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business or person to censor, limit, categorize or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech, mis or disinformation. I'll begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship directly or indirectly, et cetera, et cetera. It's topical.

It's playing to what's going on with Elon and Twitter. If this was his major announcement, it would have played very well. If he came out and said what we have recently discovered in several lawsuits, as well as leaked information from big social networks that the government had been colluding, as president, I will end this. People would be like, wow, you know what? Elon Musk Twitter files just came out. Then Donald Trump says, I'm paying attention. I know what is worrying you and I will address it. Would have been big.

It is big in a sense. It's just being overshadowed by his weird late night infomercial, you know, NFT thing. It could be he released the NFTs and then the management's like, oh my God, this is backfiring. This is not selling quick. Make a statement, make a statement. What are you going to do as president like, oh my God, this is backfiring. This is not selling quick. Make a statement.

Make a statement. What are you going to do as president? I'm going to do this. I promise this. Politicians make promises all the time. They rarely ever keep them, especially if they're campaigning. How do you know a politician's lying? They're campaigning.

That's when you know they're lying. Their mouth is moving. No, he kept more than most politicians. He didn't keep all of them. They're not even close. But he kept a lot. But previously, before he became president of the United States, he promised to audit the Federal Reserve. He promised to investigate 9-11.

He promised to look into Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9-11. I mean, he was talking about a lot of big things. Again, didn't really kind of address them when he was president, but people don't want to hear this. People want to hear how is he going to win Pennsylvania? How is he going to win Arizona? Because right now, there's no political roadmap for him winning. How? Why? You'd have to talk about graphene.

The only way. No, no. I'm talking about ballot harvesting. The only way for someone to win. I'm talking about ballot harvesting. Hold on there a minute. I think Ian's on to something. If Donald Trump comes out and says, we don't need your vote as long as we advocate graphene, we're going to get every vote anyway. We're building the greatest

industrial nation on earth. We're going to lead the 21 anyway. We're building the greatest industrial nation on earth. We're going to lead the 21st century with the new material, metamaterials. Tim, say civil war. All around him. No, hold on, hold on. Look at our smug faces here. We're all laughing. But there is a version of reality where Donald Trump says, forget the politicking, forget

the gamesmanship, forget the ballot harvesting. He walks out and says, graphene is a wonder material that will change everything and bring jobs back and everyone just goes he's right 100 million votes lands we're gonna build a space elevator we're gonna lead the we'll lead the world in space exploration like we need him telling us what he wants to create for the species if he has any chance of winning so graphene's a metaphor he needs to talk about his plans to build and help America and to call out those who seek its destruction like he was doing in 2016.

Graphene's literal. We're going to make space elevator tethers out of it. I think what you're really saying, Ian, no, that is not what I'm saying. But you're right. He needs a message about industry, some sort of industry. That's what we need right now is industry.

We don't need who's better. We don't need to see who's got the longer, you know, member. The longer graphene. Yeah, the member. We don't need to see who's got the longer, you know, member. The longer graphene. Who has the longer tether. I'm not going to defend the NFT thing. There are people who are coming out saying it was a troll. I'm like, dude, get out of here.

The dude's selling you stuff. I really want to vote for Donald Trump. I want there to be a reason to do so. I want to see his narrative art completed. But it does feel to me that he's finding a way to bow out. That's it. Yeah, someone mentioned this is like a retirement. I said, homie's retiring. In 2016, he's like, you know, effectively calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig.

He's calling out the machine. He's mocking them openly to their faces. Michael Moore says he was a human Molotov cocktail. It was revenge for all of the establishment games, selling jobs factories outsourcing and gutting this country 2020 i i see what he did after i like i i don't want to vote for that guy but then i'm like the economy is doing really well pre-covid yeah he's abraham accords he's got a bunch of peace deals he's actively trying to work on peace in the middle east and in north korea and i'm like okay school choice was a big thing banning uh uh um bump stocks no just no that was bad but banning the woke stuff from government contracting i'm like

not perfect the bump stock ban was very bad his statements were very bad but i said the piece in the middle east stuff that he's working on not perfect i get it i will take it especially over joe biden so i voted for him now all he's doing is talking about 2020 he's tweeting about it he's truthing about it non-stop selling nfts and we get only tiny morsels of some kind of policy position so i'm just like dude you you had me with the 2020 campaign i can now see what what what uh in 2016 worked why is it that now is manner 2024 he's giving us his garbage hey no no he's also telling us to get vaccinated so remember to do that folks well this is you know ron desantis is what i know that some people don't like ron desantis or they used to like ron desantis but now they don't like ron desantis because trump is running and and whatever

you think about the guy he is one of the most masterful politicians of our lifetime and he has found this one issue in particular where he can outflank trump to the right and that's on the vaccines and choosing to impanel that grand jury and choosing to investigate the mRNA vax, I mean, it was an absolute stroke of genius. And I don't know how Trump answers that. He can't. Yeah, we didn't talk about that. Especially when it came to lockdowns, when it came to COVID,

and when it came to Operation Warp Speed, he can't. So DeSantis just had a panel with Joe Latipo, his secretary, secretary? The Surgeon General of Florida, surgeon general. And what was it exactly? Can you explain the panel that that they had? Because I saw 10, 20 seconds of it. So, well, there are like five or six things that DeSantis is proposing right now. The most important one, though, is actually impaneling a grand jury to investigate and potentially prosecute the people who lied about these

vaccines from industry to public authority. And so that's a big deal because you need teeth. I mean, as we're all kind of talking about, it's one thing to make a promise on a campaign trail or to send a tweet. But if you're actually holding people to account for deception and fraud and crimes, you know, those are the kind of results that people want. And so, look, I don't blame Trump entirely for COVID. I don't think any politician in his shoes would have handled it all that much better

at the national level. But who knows? It's a counterfact. Sweden did pretty good. We got to go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends and become a member over at TimCast.com because because we're going to have i can only imagine it's going to be a hilarious big debate members only segment where we'll get back into all of the state versus liberty versus

conservatism stuff or we can talk about seed oils and we'll all agree on that one timcast.com click join us but let's uh read your super chats arrow says please talk about ecto life's artificial womb facility. I'm not familiar. Oh my gosh, I saw a video on that. Yeah, I played that video in the beginning of one of my reports.

It's not a real video. Yeah, it is a fake. It's a fake video of what is essentially a plan for the Matrix, but the Matrix in, you know, people being forced to make genetically engineered babies.

It was like a warehouse of like incubators, basically. Yeah, but it's all graphics. It's all fake. It's not real. But that's a concept that they're trying to make into a real idea. Grofty says, my throat hurts from laughing, but thank you for the super chats. What do we got?

Clint Torres says, Tim, I think you have an interesting perspective regarding the death penalty. I also think Michael has an equally interesting, yet different perspective that I think is worth talking about. I oppose the death penalty mostly because in order for it to happen you need people i'll use the worst example possible kamala harris comes to me and says trust me tim this guy should die i'm gonna be like no way dude you know if if if there's a circumstance where i know definitively that someone is an active threat then i believe the

use of force which which ultimately including capital punishment uh capital punishment is still hard for me but i suppose there is a circumstance where if you could if you could if it was proven to me definitively as a like absolute this person will be a threat to society unless he is he is dead then i would be okay i get it so you you, but you think that the death penalty is only justified to protect the society? To stop someone from causing harm and destroying. But you don't think it would be justified for retribution? No, I don't believe in retribution. Really?

Well, I shouldn't say it that way because in certain circumstances, I would. I want to be absolute. I don't think, I think that if you subdue the threat, the only real question beyond that point is should we extend our labor and resources to providing for someone who has effectively forfeited their right to society? If you kill them, though, then you're not providing for them. And the challenge I have there is in a perfect system – like I just – I don't like the idea of killing something that's not a threat. I'd rather put them on a boat and kick them out. the idea of killing something that's not a threat i'd rather put them on a boat and kick them out but then the problem is they're still a threat you know what i mean yeah yeah exile doesn't work so ultimately in a in a realistic scenario my issue

with the death penalty is there's no government authority that i will trust that someone deserves to die what about deep fakes they're going to show you video of someone getting killed they'll be like that's why i guess the reason I keep trying to hone in on this is, if you oppose the death penalty because you don't trust the government, that's one thing. But if you oppose the death penalty, even if you knew the guy did it, you know, for the

purposes of retribution, that's different. Because there are three purposes of criminal justice. Deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. And we only ever talk about those first two now right and so it's deterrence well you know you've got well and what's funny is the opponents of the death penalty always downplay deterrence they say it doesn't actually deter people and which is controversial but also we don't really enforce the death penalty anymore so it's like of course it's not deterring people we don't actually enforce it uh but but then

rehabilitation is the one everyone focuses on they They say that the only reason to punish people is to rehabilitate them, bring them back into society. Obviously, the death penalty doesn't do that, though I think it actually does. I think Dr. Johnson is right when he says, depend upon it, sir. When a man knows he's to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. I think it can rehabilitate a man a lot better than maybe 30 years in prison. But furthermore, the primary purpose of the criminal justice system, up to and including capital punishment, but the whole thing, it seems to me, is retribution. It's to punish people for committing crimes. But my philosophy is rehabilitation should be number one. But if we say that the primary purpose of jails is rehabilitation, then we could all be sent to jails today.

I mean, we could all use a little bit of rehabilitation, right? The reason we're not is because we didn't commit any crimes. No, but of course, like, I don't mean that. I'm saying if someone breaks the law, we want to say, okay, we want to eliminate the threat you pose to society and work towards no longer having you be a threat to society. But you don't, yeah, you don't think, though, that, though deterrence and rehabilitation are good secondary effects of punishment, do you not think that given, I think we would all agree the purpose of the jails and the prisons is to punish people for committing crimes. So the purpose is retribution, even if you think, well, I don't really care that much. Well, no, no, I think it is, but I disagree with that. I think it's caused problems for us. What problems do you think?

We end up with massive criminal populations that just harden each other. You end up with low-tier criminals who go in and become worse criminals, then get out and they extend their life of crime perpetually. And so my issue is like, how do we actually just stop all of it? How do we how do we stop the recidivism? If we're telling someone you did wrong, pay the price. They go, OK, you know, I'll be out in a year. And then they go right back to doing exactly what they were doing. So we should put a heavier focus on, OK, how do we make you not do that?

Now, there's some stupid answers like, let's pay criminals not to commit crimes. I'm like, no, that's dumb. Someone will commit a crime on purpose just to get the benefits. I think we agree on this. we agree that you should rehabilitate criminals when you can and once they've paid their debt to society they get out hopefully we can reintegrate them into society i just the reason it's retribution is an emotional satisfaction that we pay money for no i think it's justice i mean i think it's giving people what they deserve and so with retribution you know it a lot of people say that this is an attack on human dignity, especially when it comes to capital punishment.

They say we believe in human dignity, and so therefore we can't have it. But, you know, what it comes from is the book of Genesis. Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, because man is made in the image and likeness of God. So it's actually because we take human dignity seriously, that's why we believe that if you harm people, and especially if you kill people, then we're going to kill you right back. Do you think that sadism has a place in christianity no well finding joy it's a very big conversation yeah maybe on the answer because finding joy in the pain of others is kind of like rich what i see of this let's let's get some more super

chits and sorry i don't it's a good it's a good question i have thoughts i know but we'll get to it all right kalishnikov says people claiming that that Trump's NFT scam is trolling is the saddest cope I've seen from the right. There are a thousand ways to raise money from passionate, unrepresented people and an NFT scam ain't it? I wouldn't call it a scam. It's a commercial product. Trump's found a way to make art that people might want. And I think people can buy it if they want to. I would encourage people to buy it if they like the pictures i think some of the pictures are funny

i think the prices are great i think what's cringe about it is that trump said we need a superhero and i've got a major announcement but it was just him selling a product did he declare for president yet because this is okay so this is campaign financing presumably i actually don't know i mean you guys don't right click those photos now don't do it that's bad jeremiah says someone made michael knowles i identify as correct into a youtube short it's one of the funniest shorts i've ever seen i saw that interview tell us about it you know so it refers to i had this gal on bronte remsick who's a pro-abortion med student and saw that Did you see that?

So we had this two-and-a-half-hour conversation, and it veered off at one point because, you know, when she was talking about abortion, she even kind of admitted by the end. She said, yeah, okay, we should ban late-term abortion. She seemed to come over more to the pro-life side than she already was. But what held her up was the trans thing

because she said, michael when we're talking about pregnant people and i said hey hold on you mean mothers she goes well if you want to say that they're not all mothers you know i said well who which ones aren't mothers you know and she got really hung up on it and and so i said okay bronte you believe that we need to affirm everyone's self-identity i identify as correct and more correct than you, so do you affirm that? And it's, I guess conservatives... Well, that's a good point. Thank you, because, you know, I realized,

you know, it was just a line that sort of came to me, but it is the answer to this question, because a lot of times what conservatives will do is they'll say, well, I do identify as a medical expert. Well, I do identify as a hippopotamus. But it's like, no, you don't. We all know you don't.

You're being dishonest. But I actually do identify as correct. That is my self-identity. I'll put it this way. You say that a child says, I feel this way, and they should be affirmed, right? Could that child be wrong? Right. Well, the child knows what's best for them, so you're going to affirm what they view as correct.

Okay, I feel that I'm correct about this issue. Will you state for the record that you affirm me in being correct for this issue? You're not a doctor. That's basically what they'd say, right? They'd immediately ditch their premise about self-identity. You could counter with the child is talking about their personal experience in their life that no one else can answer for. And so my argument is, are you saying that you know definitively the child is right in every circumstance? Does desistance exist?

Right. Of course it does. Right. Even if it's only, they'll argue, a low rate, 10%. Okay. Yeah. That means there's a 10, one in 10 kids you talk to is actually wrong, but you're telling them that they're right? Now, why would you do 10%. Okay. That means there's a 10, 10, uh, one in 10 kids you talk to is actually wrong, but you're telling them that they're right. Now, why would you do that? Okay. Maybe I'm the 10%

of people you've talked to who is wrong, but please just tell me I'm right. Like you would for them. Of course. And say it for the camera. I don't even know where they get this idea that only an individual can know his ontological nature. I mean, that's not the case. You know, I, I, I'm not a tree expert, but I can, I can look, I know what a pine tree is, right? It's back to the conversation that the society is not about the individual. It's about the connection between two or more people. And if that's how the kid learns to identify is through its surroundings and the people. Yeah, that's a great point. Actually. Yeah. Let's, let's read more. We got a Shane man. He says, Luke, my man, you're wrong. The NBC reporter who doesn't do weather showed up on the TV this morning in the ice cold storm.

They had him reporting outside during the blizzard. He looked miserable. Did they bring him back? He came back today? Really? I don't know. Well, they kept him outside, right? I mean, that's still not great.

What's his name? Yeah. I can't remember the guy's name. The last I saw, he was posting pictures from his vacation, but not at work. So if he came back to work today, I apologize and I was wrong. Also, Keith Oberman was just banned from Twitter. Jeez. What?

Yes. Dude, Elon's... You're going too far, brother. You got to let go. I know that it's an emotional time and your son... Right, right. You cannot... That's why you don't want one person in charge of who gets to stay and who has to go, because

if they get emotionally charged up, they're not making decisions clearly. But if it's got to be one person. Pete Doberman must be going crazy. I have not seen what they got banned for, Elon, so if I'm out of line, I'm out of line, but come on, brother. If Elon Musk nukes Twitter and just shuts the whole thing down,

I am going to spend, I am going to order every pizza that Papa John's has. We are going to have a big party. I'm getting lights set up, and we are going to order every pizza that papa john's has we are going to have a big party i'm getting light set up yeah and we are going to celebrate i love and hate twitter and if it finally ended i would have a it would be like yeah i get it i like the instant news feed but it would just be so epically hilarious we haven't pizza and wings i would lead his cause for canonization he would do so much good for the world. Keith Olbermann.

You know what it is? These people have been calling for violence. They've been doxing and they've been getting away with it forever. Yeah. This. Wow. Great. That's great.

You know, look, they they ban Alex Jones. Keith Olbermann is at least as wild and eccentric and crazy on the left as alex jones is on the right you know he's way more crazy i know what he's doing and this is about the philosopher king he's getting rid of extremists he doesn't care what the rules are he's saying olbermann is a nut job he posts vitriolic psychopathic content gone yeah rupar he lies non-stop making everything worse gone the problem is he's gonna do that whether he's on Twitter or not. It's the same problem. Just muting these people is not the answer in my opinion, man.

I agree. However, that's what I think Elon is doing. He's saying the most vitriolic people are gone. And this means I'm willing to bet there are people on the right who he brought back will probably be gone soon as well. Some already are. Right, exactly. Baked baked alaska i think did he get banned instantly he came back and was instantly banned for saying something about jewish people yeah did he get banned i think like i read that he said here's a fresh start here's your opportunity and the vitriolic comments are getting removed yeah so yeah it's just cultivating uh social space i mean i you know

and so i i recognize i mean i keep pushing back on you luke because you know i'm the traddie here but like i i recognize that there is a risk to all of these things and that's that that's why we need to take care and i think deal with with uh some complexity and nuance in our political issues i could be wrong about alaska by the way but i but i like cultivating nice space i like living in a good society you know i just like it i don't want to live in an ugly one i just think but if you're going to be bound down to the powers that are in charge right now you're bound down to some really bad people making some really bad decisions elon musk you might agree with his decision i personally don't uh and i think there's a slippery slope especially when you start censoring uh people i i agree but you know i gotta uh if oh i see what

alberman tweeted someone said this in chat. Olbermann tweeted Mastodon account that was tracking Elon's plane. That's probably what he's doing. He's like, dude, my kid was attacked. I'm not playing games. And those other journalists probably are doing the same thing. Yep. Yeah. Totally. Yep. We don't know yet. We're going to find out, and I think Elon's going to speak

on this like he speaks about a lot of his decisions, and I think he's going to be more forthcoming about why this decision was made i posted a tweet that people said was making fun of elon musk it was making fun of the circumstances around him but elon responded with fire emojis and a lot of people said he doesn't get it he's being made fun of and i'm like no i think he he gets the joke yeah he understands the point i think the billionaire genius gets the meme generally speaking you know he has said that he wants to piss off the far left and the far right, and he wants there to be a space.

So if I make a point and he's like, yeah, fair point, you know, people will blindly agree. And he puts fire emojis or maybe he's dumb, whatever you want to think. Like, I think he he wants a space where the the screamy, you know, Kathy Griffin types are not dominating the conversation. Yeah. But ultimately they're posting his location. Let's also not forget. I mean, I know that sometimes my views are viewed as slightly to the right of Genghis Khan or something. Moderation is a virtue.

I'm not saying that we need to squish and find some middle ground with demons, you know, like Balenciaga satanic pedos. But like, you know, moderation, actually, actually being a temperate, moderate person, that is a virtue. Let's read this. John Bushnell says on the subject of free speech, I'm more with Luke. But the bigger issue I see is that media services do not give me adequate tools to filter out content I don't want to see, especially for my kids, but also just for myself. Yep, that most social media networks deeply desperately need an ability for you to type in what you want not to see as well as what you're searching for yeah the real

hydro px you know we're a big fan hydro he says new york city is a duty to retreat state that means you cannot just end someone because you thought they were trying to harm you and uh i disagree with that i think there should be some reasonable expect like you better prove that this person was really a threat to you. You can't just, you know, I was talking to a lawyer about West Virginia or, you know, someone in law enforcement. And they were like, look, someone walks on your property, you can't shoot them. Someone walks on your property carrying a weapon, now they're in trouble. Because it's an open, it's a constitutional carry state, but you trespass and you're armed

and someone fires on you, you you're gonna have a very hard time defending yourself what about if you die what about a baseball bat even even then what about a big stick they're walking around with a stick in their hand see this is the point of judges and juries because the law can say don't carry a weapon and someone could carry a handful of nails and be running and you and you go ah they're coming at me and you shoot them and then it turns out he was running to his friend whose car broke, and he had the nails he was asking for, or something like that. And you know, on this very point, the wonderful Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule has done a lot. He's trying to revive the classical law tradition, and he distinguishes between two types of law.

In English, we don't really distinguish between these things. But there's law like lex, you know, law written down in statutes and constitutions. And there's law as in use, as in the background principles and context in which the written positive law exists. And so that's very important to know that distinction. We talk about it from time to time. There's a funny book called like Old Laws or something like that. And it's like it's illegal to put a pie on your windowsill except on like tuesday afternoon and it was a law from back when 100 people lived in this town and

the smell of pie would attract wild animals made sense now that it's a big city no one worries about it and they're like i can't put a pie in my window so that's so weird so we don't enforce the law anymore it's just another example of big government taking away the simple joy of putting a pie on my window so you know but back then you did, people would show up to your house, they'd flip the pie and be like, are you nuts? We don't want to deal with mountain lions. And they'd be offended and angry by it. Nowadays, nobody cares. So the cop's not going to do anything.

Yeah. All right. Let's see what we got here. Draylo says, I love you, Luke, but your view early on reminded me of the libertarian version of, quote, well, that's not real communism. Yeah, that's the problem i think i want to make sure that you don't overcompensate and had so just push back so hard against authoritarianism that you end up becoming a radical uh libertarian because you're not i don't like let me just say i'm actually glad that luke is pushing so hard because we don't have that

degree of anarchy and so if you have someone who's like, no government, you end up with a little bit. But when you have a pendulum swinging, if you push back against the pendulum really hard, you find it goes to the extreme. You want to be friction in the system that slows the pendulum down. I don't know what you're talking about here. I made this statement before, clearly.

If you believe in a parks department, you're a communist. Listen, I cannot stand government. Some of the worst, horrible atrocities on the face of this earth, the democide, if you don't know what it is, look it up, have happened cannot stand government. Some of the worst, horrible atrocities on the face of this earth. Democide, if you don't know what it is, look it up, have happened because of government. Government is the ultimate evil. We shouldn't be financing and fueling it.

The decisions for your life should be made by you and you only. And you should be making them responsibly. Let Darwin win. And I'm pretty sure that government was a leading cause of regicide as well. Yeah, that's true. You know, there is another historical fact, though. Some of the worst people on Earth ever have been individuals.

Did you know that? Whoa. Now, listen, I studied history as an undergrad. This might be shocking, but I don't know if you guys know this. Hitler was an individual. Hold on. No, he wasn't.

Hold up for it. Who? Adolf Hitler? Stalin was actually five people. Which one? Which Hitler? Stalin was actually five people. Which one? Which Hitler? Ricky. Ricky Hitler. That makes more sense.

Yeah, little known cousin. Richard. Yeah, Stalin was five people, actually. He's a communist, so that makes sense. Alright, here's another one. Eric Nelson says, Luke is 100% correct. Those who shut down speech are admitting they don't have the argument to counter the speech they dislike. You know, so I don't consider myself libertarian. I consider myself libertarian ish, like I'm on the libertarian spectrum.

But there's degrees of authority you're willing to entertain. And the point that I was making with why we don't tolerate we don't tolerate advocacy for child porn. We don't go out and arrest someone for arguing for it, though. We just don't tolerate them in our circles culturally. And it's because I when the Florida bill came out about parental rights and education and the parents right to decide if their kid does or doesn't get medical treatment, I said, makes sense. The parent should have final say. Then I read another story where a parent was trying to give their kid a sex change and people were saying the government should stop this. And I was like, now that's interesting. At what point do we decide the

government should or shouldn't? It is a, it is a communal moral standard that is different between the left and the right. The law doesn't define. So then I was like, okay, we need communally agreed upon standards. Otherwise there's, there's no law and it's just chaos. And we will have them i mean i guess that is my other point regardless of what one wishes you know would that it were so simple there will always be community standards that's just how humans operate and so every every just less mafias the better for me every everybody is like saying they agree with luke or they disagree i think it's funny because no one's actually addressing your points they're like luke is

wrong or luke is right instead of michael knolls is right or wrong because i'm because i'm just speaking common sense but this is a good one ds says luke is neo dodging those questions at point blank range hey those are emotionally driven questions based on a lot of times straw man so okay you know excuse me for not engaging in oh i was just trying to engage in the free marketplace of ideas of course course, yeah, yeah. But I'm just calling them out as emotionally driven questions. I just thought we had to.

I thought... What does that mean to say an emotionally driven question? You picked up specific circumstances with specific, very nuanced cases in order to make your argument based on emotion rather than... I don't think my examples were nuanced at all.

They were specifically not nuanced to get you to admit that objective good exists. You told me if I wanted to kick a baby. Right, because you said that good exists. Obviously I don't want to kick a baby. Then you're contradicting your previous claim that good and bad are simply arbitrary instead of objectively true. I'm saying it's arbitrary

in the human perspective for one individual to decide. But you just said it's objectively better to bake the pie for the widow than to kick the baby. So you contradicted. I can give you a simple physical, logical statement about what good and bad are. There is a reason why it is universally, morally true that kicking a baby is wrong. If everybody agreed that they could kick babies, humanity would cease to exist. We as humans exist for the human experience.

Jeremy Boring said this, and it's a brilliant point. Without humans, what's the point of anything that we do? We it for humans we have to be good stewards of the earth that's that's a reason but it's not i don't think that's the ultimate purpose of humanity well uh to live for the like his point i thought it was a good point but it was basically like if there were no humans would anything related to humans matter of course not like would our laws matter no of course not so that means everything is confined within this space. But ultimately, my point is, if we tolerated things that destroyed humanity,

there would be no humanity. Therefore, that is a universal bad. But we don't only serve humanity, I guess, is my point. It seems to me the purpose of life is to know God and to serve him on earth and to enjoy him forever in heaven. And that's the sort of traditional view of things. And for those who are agnostic or atheist, you might be sort of laughing at me right now. But at the very least, let me use kind of new agey language.

You know, the purpose of life, man, is to find something outside of yourself and are merely human endeavors and to find something greater and a higher power and, you know, and whatever, bro, or I don't know. So, but it's like, I think most people would agree with that.

We're not merely serving our own interests. But don't you see within the last few decades, how a lot of people have been replacing God and using the state as their own religion, as their own kind of cult. I do believe in the power of religion, but, but when the government intervenes in so much in our lives,

people are literally seeing government as their entity, as their God, as what they should worship, of what they should follow. But all human conflict ultimately is theological, so all political debates are religious as well. Some conflicts are just about who's got the water. Yes. We're about to go to members only, so let me read one more really good super chat. Carlo Magno says, Tim, I don't believe in capital punishment unless you trespass in my property pool.

Well, it's a funny, it's a funny super chat. But my point is, I don't believe in killing another person unless they're an immediate threat. The challenge, however, is if there's someone

who is clearly a threat to society and you've subdued them by putting them in a small concrete box, snuffing out their life is a challenge for me morally. Is it not? You know, some people say death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Seems to be the opposite.

Well, we know it was not unusual from the ratification of the Constitution because the punishment for a felony was the death penalty. But don't you think life in prison or solitary or something, to me that seems cruel and unusual. I would actually argue locking someone in a box, if someone's truly a threat to others, so you decide to lock them up and control every moment of their life and limit their ability to live for 30 years,

could actually be worse than just killing them. But sometimes I don't have logical answers for, for things. Like when I, when I was talking with, um, Glenn Beck about abortion, I was like, the issue ultimately comes down to, there's a point where I just don't know. I just don't have it in me to advocate for killing another person that has been locked in a box. Maybe they can request it, but let's do this. We're going to go to the members only section and have a ridiculous debate where everyone's going to start yelling again. So head over to TimCast.com, become a member. I think this one's going to be

really fun and there's going to be a lot of noises. So go to TimCast.com, click the join us button, sign up, and we'll be there in about an hour. You can follow the show. You can follow the show at TimCast IRL. You can follow me personally at TimCast. Smash that like button and subscribe if you haven't already. Michael, do you want to shout anything out? I do, actually. I do. Well, obviously my show, The Michael Knowles Show at the Daily Wire, five days a week.

I love shouting that out. I love shouting out at the book club at PragerU. That's another show that I do. But speaking of books, and it's on this show in particular, do you know, I would like to thank the TimCast audience. Oh, yeah. You know, I would like to thank the Timcast audience. You guys almost single-handedly made that book, Speechless Controlling Words, Controlling Minds,

available now for order. By trolling me. I mean, I'm not sure. I went on very big TV shows and very big shows to sell the book, and they helped. Nothing worked like your show, Tim. And the fanatical Timcast monsters who forced you to plug my book every five times a show for like two months.

It was great. So thank you for making Speechless a number one. You know, like, because people would super chat and say, man, that story is really crazy, Tim. Hearing about this family has left me speechless, just like Michael is. And after a couple of times,

I'd be like, okay, okay. And then because you know here's what i do when i read super chats i actually read them before i speak the words so i'm reading two words ahead of what i'm saying but i can't read the whole sentence before i start reading otherwise the show would lag so i read man that story is really crazy then i say it and then i see the speech just and I go and I gotta read it but it was it was

it was funny it was fun and it was like a brilliant emergent marketing campaign it worked really well I wish I could take credit but it's really it's just your

fanatical listeners it was a meme thank you thank you memes meme makers where can people find you on Twitter people can for now

they can find me at Michael J. Knowles but I don't know Elon is going on a banning spree. So maybe by the end of this, maybe I'll be gone too. Maybe. Yeah, did we dox you by telling people where you were right now? It was great talking to all you

communists today. I didn't agree with you, Michael, but don't worry. I'm not a statist. I'm not going to ban you or try to get you banned, but I thank you for engaging with me and creating a thought-provoking conversation that sparked a lot of different conversations so it was awesome it was fun well thank you i enjoyed it as well and i am texting elon right now to ban you from all social media platforms he follows me i got him direct i don't know i don't know i don't know if you got

him direct but i got i got the connect you don't so. So my YouTube channel and my Twitter channel that Elon follows is at Luke We Are Change. We Are Change on YouTube. I did a very interesting video about what's happening with Twitter, Elon Musk, free speech. That conversation is on YouTube.com forward slash We Are Change. See you there. Thank you again so much for having me. This was really fun. Thank you, Michael.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Always spectacular, Michael. God is good. I believe the word is derived from good God. They sound like the exact I mean, I can't imagine they are not meant for each other. Just be a coincidence. And let's find out. Let's get down to what that means. Maybe later tonight. Other than that, yeah, that literally is good. Yeah, just with an extra Oh, or good as God. I need a Figma developer, someone out there that does UI and UX and is familiar with the

Figma stuff that can build components for Figma. If you want to get involved with a nonprofit that I'm starting that we're building some badass technology. Did you say Ligma? No, no. Figma, Figma, not Ligma, not our 2424. Jack's giving out funding for these projects, man. Oh, yeah.

Jack just funded Noster. Jack Dorsey. And Tor. Beautiful. With the tech stuff you're building. Yeah, I'm real excited to get Bill Lottman involved, Jack Dorsey, Chris Pavlovsky. I think it's going to be a really great front-end piece

to add on to a lot of these social networks. So if you want to get involved, hit me up on Twitter or Mines, and we'll work from there. And I'm Ian Crossland, obviously. You can check me out anywhere you want. Baby, see you later. What's up, everybody? Thanks for having me on, guys. Thanks, chat. What's up everybody. Thanks for having me on guys.

Thanks chat. I want to shout out Serge, follow him at Serge.com. He's not here today. And he also wanted me to shout out Elon Ma, which is Chinese Elon Musk. He's a favorite of ours. So go check him out. He's great. All right, everybody.

We'll see you all over at Timcast.com in about an hour. Thanks for hanging out.