Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #832 Trump Pleads Not Guilty To Conspiracy Charges, Could Be REMANDED w/Liz Wheeler

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

Tim, Ian, Hannah Claire, & Serge join Liz Wheeler to discuss Trump pleading not guilty to conspiracy charges, Al Sharpton comparing January 6th to the American Revolution, Joe Rogan saying he thinks there was election fraud with the Kari Lake race in Arizona, & Gavin Newsom & Ron DeSantis agreeing to a debate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump appeared in court today in Washington, D.C. He pleaded not guilty to the conspiracy charges. He's been threatened with remand into custody, pretrial confinement. If he communicates with any of the witnesses in the case, he agreed to these terms and then he carried on his merry way. And I will just say in the context of this story, the fact that they did not remand Trump into custody proves it is a political sham because anybody who did anything, I mean, you know, you know what?

No, no, not even anything near. Let's if you stole a diamond necklace and you owned a bunch of jets, they'd be like, OK, this is a flight risk. And you have buildings in foreign countries. You have properties all over the world. You own golf resorts. They'd be like, this guy's a flight risk. They're accusing Donald Trump of trying to overthrow the U.S. government, an insurrection, a conspiracy to

defraud the U.S. And they're like, you're free to go, good sir. Just, you know, come back when we need you. They don't seriously think this man did anything wrong. It's political. We also got a bunch of other news, my friends. Ron DeSantis says that he is going to start. I'm going to save what he said for when we get later in the show, because probably too soon in the show to say exactly what Ron DeSantis said. But let's just put it simply. He used a very graphic analogy, a metaphor for firing intelligence agencies, intelligence agents. So, yeah, he's very, very serious on that. And then we got big news. There's a leaked clip that came out from Tucker Carlson's show with the former chief of police of the Capitol Police, where he basically says it looks like January 6th was a cover up. Someone may have

wanted this to happen. And he was the guy in charge, basically saying he was being obstructed. So we're to talk about all of that before we do, my friends, head over to castbrew.com and buy our coffee to support the show. You can join the Cast Brew Coffee Club. You'll get three bags per month. We got a whole bunch of new flavors. We got the Sleepy Joe decaf. Maybe you saw Joe Biden today was selling that mug with him with glowing eyes.

For some reason, you bought that mug. You can pour Sleepy Joe decaf into it. Wouldn't that be fun? But when you buy from Cast Brew, you are helping to support us. We sponsor ourselves. This is our company. And so everything, you know, we, we, we get from selling this product goes toward just, you know, helping keep things running, but you can also support us directly by going to timcast.com, clicking, join us, becoming a member, and you'll get access to our uncensored members only shows. We're going to have one for you tonight at 10 PM. It's going to

be a lot of fun. And as a member, you actually get a chance to call in and talk to us and our guests by submitting questions. We then choose four or five every night, and we take your questions. So smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends. Take that URL right now. Post it anywhere you can. It's the most effective way to help.

If you can't become a member, if you can't buy our coffee, at least you could do that because that really, really does up, and I really would appreciate it. And joining us today, tonight, to talk about this and so much more is Liz Wheeler. Hi, Tim. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. Who are you? What do you do? I'm Liz Wheeler. I host The Liz Wheeler Show. You can find it on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, anywhere you find your podcasts. I also have a new book coming out called Hide Your Children, Exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America's Kids. You can find that at hideyourchildrenbook.com. That's a good name. Thanks. You want to know where I got that name, actually, from that?

That meme. Yeah, yeah. The video. Antoine Dodson, hide your wife, hide your kids. Tell me he's writing your foreword.

No, I should have asked him, though. Yeah, he's out there. Isn't he, like, kind of right-leaning or something? I don't know. You would think

after that experience. Right, yeah. Yeah, like, I mean, there was another story. A woman in Portland got mercilessly beaten by a homeless guy. Now she's a Republican. Surprise, surprise.

But thanks for hanging out. Yeah, thanks for having me. Hannah Clare is here. Hi, I'm Hannah Clare Brimlow. I'm back. I'm a writer for Timcast.com. You should follow them on all the social medias. And Ian's here.

Well, hello, everyone. Ian Crossland. Happy to be here on this Thursday night. Awesome night. Liz, great to see you again. Good to see you. Looking forward to hearing about your book. Thank you.

What's up, Serge? I love how on the bottom of your shot that there's that carnivore thing. Just this carnivore underneath the end. It's sweet. Carnivore snacks. His life is changing, guys. He's working out now. We went on Public Square, the app, and we bought a bunch of jerky. So we got carnivore snacks

and anthem jerky, and it is all just some of the best jerky I've ever had. Beef and salt these are the ingredients it is like slimy with beef fat it is the greatest like man that is good stuff the carnivore snacks it is literally a piece of steak with fat on it yeah i pulled one out last night during the after show and like looked at it and like why is this beef jerky white and bro was like it's the fat it's the best part most delicious not expecting it's intense all right we're good for you yeah uh anyways let's get started all right here's the story

ladies and gentlemen today donald trump arrived in washington dc pleaded not guilty political reports trump pleads not guilty to charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election at the former president's arraignment prosecutors and defense lawyers signaled immediate disagreement over how quickly he should stand trial so my my understanding is, I think they have it in here somewhere, the next date will be August 28th. Was that it? Do they even, how far down do I got to go for them to confirm it? But I'm pretty sure. Here we go. Chitkan's first hearing was set for August 28th. Before then, prosecutors and Trump's defense team were ordered to submit briefs proposing a schedule for the trial. Chitkan expects to set a trial date at the August 28th hearing.

Trump criticized Chutkan in a social media post a few hours before, calling her unfair. So apparently the reporting is that Jack Smith is trying to try this extremely quickly, saying we need a speedy trial here, probably because the primaries are coming up. And, you know, there's another story we'll get into. Ron DeSantis debating Gavin Newsom. I kind of feel like that's what the deep state is hoping for. Gavin Newsom, not Joe Biden and Ron DeSantis, not Donald Trump. I am not trying to imply that either of them are working for the deep state or the intelligence agencies.

I am saying that they don't want a failing Joe Biden because he can't win and they despise Donald Trump. So they're trying to get whatever they can. Thus, Jack Smith is like, let's get this speedy and rushed through. But I want to I'll add one thing before we all just jump into the conversation. I think the fact that they did not remand Trump to custody proves it is not a legitimate criminal trial and people can make the argument. Oh, no, Trump's not a flight risk. Nobody thinks

he'll flee. He's running for president. It's like, OK, fair point. But they're accusing him of trying to overthrow the government. That's what they're saying on MSNBC. This guy owns a 757, a Cessna Citation. He owns two helicopters. He apparently probably has access to more jets than just those, not to mention being a billionaire, he can easily charter a private jet if they legitimately thought Trump was a threat to democracy and that he was trying to overthrow the government. How could they not order him to to be remanded? It just makes me start to wonder, like, who are his secret service agents and where are their loyalties?

You know what I mean? Like, do they think that they'll just be like, no, no, we won't let you flee if you really wanted to. I'm sure he could figure it out. The entire case against Trump, and I made this argument the other night, was it's obviously intended to destroy the pattern and momentum of his campaign, right? Jack Smith was happily investigating for years. And then all of a sudden he's ready and we have to rush this prosecution. Doesn't seem suspicious at all. Oh, wait, of course, it's complete convenience. Trump could go to his jumbo jet and say, we're going to do a rally. We have a scheduled rally in insert city, Milwaukee. And then they all get on the plane. and then as soon as the plane takes off he

goes to the pilot and says we're going to el salvador and then you know people could argue like oh there's no flight plan he could just do it they could just do it the problem is if he left excuse me uh he wouldn't be able to be president of course that burned the bridge and i know he doesn't want to burn that bridge they don't consider more flight risk i i i don't buy it they're accusing trump of some of the most serious crimes in the history of this country. They are claiming that he attempted to steal. They're claiming that he called for an insurrection

to stage a coup on the Capitol to steal power. That is seditious. They're effectively arguing whether they didn't charge him with it or not. Seditious conspiracy. And then being like, you're good. Go on home, buddy. I don't. Here's what I think, though. I think that we're missing one little point. I agree with you that it's obviously not serious charges if they actually thought he was a threat. They would have kept him in pretrial detention, just like they did with so many of the January 6th. Exactly that which I

thought was setting a legal precedent so that they could do this with Trump. I still think they're going to. I don't think that just because they let him walk out today that that means that they're not going to. I think they obviously want to put Trump in prison because they despise Trump. They think it'll destroy his presidential campaign. But if you look at the crux of what this indictment from Jack Smith is, it's really against political speech. It's a violation of your First Amendment right to have an opinion that is different than the opinion of the Joe Biden administration, which we can talk about the trickle down effects of that. But I think that they want to criminalize not just Trump's free speech. They want to criminalize us. So how do they do that? Well, they wait until this story is passed. He tweets something they disagree with. They say it's, you know, ruining this case. They put him in pretrial detention because they want some crazed Trump supporter to commit an act of violence so that they can say, well, it's not just it's not just a crime when Trump says this is a crime when all y'all say this and we're going to crack down on you. I think there could be a

component to that. I think part of the free speech angle or the criticism of political speech is that they never got a smoking gun. There's really nothing there. So now they're going to have to make a very obscure political argument. I think if Trump, you're totally right, if he fled the country, he couldn't be president. It would obviously be worse. I think part of it is sort of gambling with them. They really want the perp walk. They want an image of him in handcuffs. They want that to be all you see for a long time. And so, again, for me me all of this comes back to timing right they could do it right now but he's gaining every time they indict him he he jumps in the polls so if they released a picture from in handcuffs who's to say this wouldn't actually bolster his supporters it would help exactly that's why they won't remand him that's my point if they genuinely thought trump

tried to overthrow this country and led an insurrection against an official proceeding. They'd be like, lock him up and throw away the key. There are people still in jail right now without charge or trial for having trespassed at the Capitol. And you mean to tell me that they're like, Trump, you are free to go. But we think you're the one who orchestrated all of it. Nah, BS. They don't believe it at all. Think about the QAnon shaman right jacob chansley like think about we all saw that video when when tucker

aired it after mccarthy gave him all the film from january 6th like you can make an argument that he shouldn't have been in the capitol like that's fine but obviously not violent right he was just kind of meandering around in there and he was kept in in pre-trial detention and then in prison for how long because he was considered to be he was to be, it was the same charge that, one of the same charges that Trump is obstruction of an official government proceeding. And he, I mean, come on. I mean, it's the same thing with like

the Proud Boy conspiracy trial. It's crazy. I will say, cause you brought it up, you know, we felt like the January 6th, you know, imprisonment was sort of a sense of precedent. And it makes me wonder, is there a fear among left-leaning a fear among left-leaning lawmakers and Democrats that eventually Republicans

will go after maybe Hillary Clinton or someone else, and then if they put Trump in jail right now, then they are setting the precedent that their leaders will have to go in jail at the same point during the trial. Maybe this is a sign that they are actually scared.

Maybe. I don't think they have anything to worry about democrats going to jail when republicans are in power unfortunately i agree i agree republicans are going to send strongly worded letters and then yeah it's it's just the most pathetic pathetic thing imaginable the the the the indictment against donald trump lays uh lays forth this this idea that you can indict someone for defrauding this country over elections so where is where are any of the republican da's anywhere in this country

to indict hillary clinton for for acid washing her servers well i mean she was she she's publicly stated over and over again that trump was illegitimate and she was doing it to try and you know steal power and all of these things she was called accusing trump of being a russian during the election oh all right all right you know 2015 that the all of the stuff that they started pulling out against donald trump accusing of working with russians and being a russian ass and all that stuff that was that was before trump won yeah what statute of limitations on that i can't imagine it's it's only a couple years got to be at least 10 right it's felony maybe there's no statute where's any republican to be like okay we're filing charges but the jurisdiction touches everything it's legal to say that you think uh an election was fraudulent

if you truly believe it to the indictment but only if you think it's bringing up though the indictment's basically saying that trump's opinion, even though he genuinely believed it. No, no, no, no, no. The indictment says that Trump stated things that he knew were false. Therefore, it's illegal. Right, I know. But it's pretty obvious to everyone that Trump believed what he was saying. I think that's true.

And let's make the same argument that Hillary Clinton knew she was lying, the same as they say about Trump, and go arrest her. Republicans are pathetic, spineless, whiny losers. The thing is, you can't prove if they knew it or not. There's no way of course that's actually the biggest that's actually one of the biggest flaws i think besides the attack on the first amendment that's one of the biggest legal flaws is this the the bar for the intent in these different statutes is so high i i mean it's it's arguably unconstitutional but it would be next to impossible to prove if you had unbiased jurors which i suppose is a huge caveat

in this case because it's going to be in washington dc so not unless trump gets in west virginia which i would personally love there's no way that's gonna happen the best thing of all time he for sure i mean i don't know but he really seems to believe like that election was fraudulent he he's very straightforward about it he's been the entire time i don't understand why they would assume that he's lying it makes they're not assuming he's lying they are't understand why they would assume that he's lying. It makes no sense. They're not assuming that he's lying. They are lying. They're purporting that he's lying, I suppose. They know Trump really believes it, but they're lying.

And so the issue is, why is it that Vivek Ramaswamy is filing his lawsuits against the DOJ for information pertaining to the communications between Biden and Garland as per this indictment? Why is it vivek he's not even a politician and he's more effective than what every republican i'll give matt gates a pass he's doing a lot of really great stuff he's always on top of stuff but vivek's just a candidate and he's like i'm gonna file a lawsuit can we get a single member of congress to do something no they're too busy holding hearings so they can get viral twitter clips jim yeah that's about right. It's much more important. That's it. Do you spend much time over there at Congress?

Not if I can help it. Check out this tweet from EndWokeness. Trump now faces three indictments, 78 charges, 641 years in prison. And we have this. This is great. Look at this. Corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. One count.

Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. One count. 32 counts of retention of national defense information, 34 counts of falsifying business records. And then you got Scheme to Conceal, lying to the U.S. government. 641 years in prison is what they're trying to throw at this guy. That seems reasonable. Yeah, definitely can serve that time. We're definitely not over sentencing. Then he'd be as old as Biden when he got out. Finally, that's true.

So how do you think MSNBC is handling this? They think it's reasonable. Take a look at this clip from MSNBC, and I would appreciate it if you all would would listen. One day, our children's children will read American history. And can you imagine our reading that James Madison or Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government so they could stay in power? That's what we're looking at. We're looking at American history.

Could you imagine if Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government? I am shocked. Everyone knows Thomas Jefferson stood valiantly before the people of this great continent and said, all God save the king, all hail the king. We love the crown. Britain forever. That's that's exactly the story of the founding fathers. But I just want to add, I love, first of all, how he's he's so I'm sorry, man. He's talking about the founding fathers quite literally over through the government. And yeah, but more importantly, he's comparing about the founding fathers quite literally overthrew the government and uh yeah but more importantly he's comparing donald trump to the founding fathers who overthrew a tyrant for the people and established this great nation they succeeded it's kind of a weird perspective it's like you're set you're comparing trump to the founding

fathers right there it's kind of like okay well that's like a weird thing to do because people like them. And then being like, to overthrow the government, I'm like, yeah, they succeeded at doing that. So he's obviously, in his defense, he's talking about if they'd, and by 1811, Thomas Jefferson was still, or 1806 or whatever, he was still refusing to let go of power and was like, we are going to be the new monarchy.

And so he's referring to that. No, I think it's Napoleon. That's what Napoleon did. Absolutely not. He's talking about what if Thomas Jefferson pulled a Napoleon. You are fabricating context to defend someone for no reason. If you think that Al Sharpton doesn't know that Thomas Jefferson was involved in the American Revolution, then you're lost. The thing is, Al Sharpton is not an actual effective thought leader.

He is the equivalent of a political ambulance chaser, right? He shows up to do a couple hits, to fundraise, and to make himself feel good. He's not a reliable source for anything. So the fact that this is who they're triaging with should tell you that he has no idea what he's talking about, and they are grasping at straws. And I'm not saying he did not know they were involved in a revolution. I'm taking his statement as it is.

I'm establishing no alternative context like you are doing. The man compared Donald Trump to founding fathers who overthrew the government succeeded to remove a tyrant. I mean, Thomas Jefferson literally wrote the document that said, this is why we are overthrowing you. This is why we're justified. This is why we have no other recourse. We are now in charge. We're severing the political bonds.

The Declaration of Independence was them literally saying you have no authority anymore. We're in charge now. Well, I'm steel manning his argument for now. It's funny. We can laugh at the guy

and be like, dumb idiot. You didn't know. But like, obviously, he's talking about if Thomas Jefferson had overthrown the American government. That makes no sense.

There's no context in what he said to assume he's talking about 1811 or anything after. Why would you think he's talking about King George? anything after why would you think he's talking about king george that thomas jefferson didn't overthrow king george like what the hell invoke the founding fathers the obvious example is yes they overthrew a government they overthrew the british government but they didn't overthrow our government sure it

was it was our government at the time at the time before they overthrew it it was not to mention the critical race theory argument is that the founding fathers were wealthy white slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes. So in order to maintain their status and power over through the government, like the point is, it is a stupid thing to say. I agree with that. But I stand by. And it's out of context. You can't expect anything better. What's funny is MSNBC.

Did they even did they push back on this at all or were they just like, oh, no, they're like Reverend Al Sharpton. Thank you for blessing us with your presence here today. We're so grateful you could show up. I just love how he phrased it. Can you imagine, like, let me get my crystal ball. Yes, I can imagine. It would be first a declaration and then a revolution and then a free country, the greatest the world has ever known. To be fair.

I can't actually imagine. To be fair, it was a revolution, then a declaration. And the French Revolution went haywire. They started a revolution. It looked pretty good. And then they wouldn't let go of the power. Robespierre went insane, completely egomaniacal. And then they started killing each other.

And then Napoleon seized it. But you know why that is? To be fair, Robespierre was always insane. In the beginning, he was really lovable. He was like a brilliant orator. He was a lawyer. Everyone liked him. He was the most level-headed of all of them.

And then something happened. I learned an important lesson from Occupy Wall Street because I knew some of these far leftists and they fought for free speech in 2011. And then when it came to the free speech arguments in 2018 and 19, I asked these guys, like this one guy I knew,

I was like, how could you be for free speech back then? And all of a sudden your opinion changed. And he laughed and said, because you're too stupid, you didn't realize we were using you. We hate liberals. When you defended our speech, it empowered us. And now we want to take yours away from you because we want power and i was like oh it makes sense also you know what we were talking

about just before we went on air we were talking about libertarianism versus a more ordered liberty like a recognition of moral order that's the biggest difference between the french revolution and the american revolution the american revolution was based i know this is really historically nerdy was based on this idea that there was some fundamental objective truth that we didn't just determine as as as populism right and the french revolution chose libertarianism instead so we ordered our constitution on original justice which is like judeo-christian values and the french revolution didn't they ordered it as freedom as the ultimate end, whereas we viewed freedom as the means to something greater. And I think one of the big differences,

a catalyst and one of the principal catalysts for the French Revolution was economics. People were starving, there was famine. And so you had all these French people being like, don't know, don't care, I'm angry. And that just led to beheadings and other chaos. Whereas in the United States, it was consistent oppressive actions by the crown and things like no representation in government.

And the founding fathers and many of the state leaders would repeatedly petition the crown for things that made more sense on our behalf. And they would just say, no, screw off over and over again. So the revolutionary period was actually about 20 years long and the declaration of independence was way later on in that whole period that's interesting point about the secularism of the french revolution it's interesting i haven't really thought much about it but that the american revolution was like i don't know if it's a christian revolution they put god in in a lot of their writings then the the french revolution is all about like do away with the old god create a new religion create a new calendar you know we don't want to adhere to these old traditions i saw an interesting video where uh some conservative dude was doing one of those gotcha videos of stupid

people in times square and he asked what year did america gain its independence and i thought that question was really really funny because even he did not know the answer. Because what year was it? Anybody have a guess? 81, 1781. Are you talking about technically? Because, I mean, if you want to be real philosophical about this, you could argue that in some ways it's a continuous battle that's ongoing forever. 2023, Biatch! Yeah, I mean, that's kind of like a lame answer.

I actually don't know the year. Are you talking about like when the Constitution, when the revolution ended? The surrender of Cornwallis. Was that 81? Did they fight all the way to 81? At Yorktown. So that was... No, wait, that's the wrong one.

1781. So they announced it in 76? So you can make the argument that we had our independence in 1776, but I disagree. Declaring it didn't change the fact the crown asserted their right and started shooting at Americans and actually controlled a bunch of cities and occupied places. So we did not have it. It wasn't until Cornwallis surrendered that we actually gained it. So 1781. But I think it's funny because they're like, what year was it?

And it's supposed to be 1776. And it's like, no, actually, that's when, you know, they started sending in the troops. Right. Granted, they were already sending in the troops, to be fair. And that's kind of a catalyst for it. But yeah, you know, I think I think what happened right after is what's interesting, because we didn't have the Constitution for a while after. Right.

We had instead with the Articles of Confederation, and that was structured on more of a libertarian basis. And it resulted in chaos. And they realized that we couldn't order a society along those lines so we had to we had to use the constitution to reorder it along james madison's viewpoints which were more ordered liberty i think there is something you said for the question of you know people think it's 1776 because they think when you declared that you were independent you had independence because you have right you claimed

it you claimed it you're aware that you had independence because you have awoken to this concept. You claimed it. You claimed it. You're aware that you want these things, but I think it is important to underscore that you actually had to fight for it. And to your point, you have to keep this going, right? You can cede ground at any point and lose liberty. A republic if you can keep it? Yeah. To be fair, I was even wrong about that.

The American Revolution officially ended September 3rd, 1783, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Officially, okay. Cornwallis surrendered in 81. Cornwallis' surrender in 81 ended any chance of the British actually being able to win a war. And so from that point on,

there was still conflict and occupation, but then the treaty was signed in 1783. That's crazy, right? Yeah. Like, the American Revolution took place over 20 some odd years. You could have been born a couple of years after the start of this period

and then fought in the war. You know, like your whole life was hearing about all this revolutionary stuff i mean that's true of anyone who deployed to afghanistan right i knew people who were in kindergarten after born after some people were born after 9-11 and ended up serving in afghanistan so these things yeah that's trippy it is trippy right yeah that makes me so mad the afghanistan stuff because i i have been thinking a lot about the draft we talked about the draft a few days ago and how there was call people were talking about it and it's like the military numbers aren't aren't doing very well because they sent us into that occupying war in the middle east in afghanistan and then iraq and libya we conquered iraq and then we conquered libya and people are getting pissed

off that russia wants to conquer a trade port right on its border like you're fucking kidding me we took Libya we're in control of Libya right now we own Libya like it's the grossest shit and I mean we need to inspire a military that's what bothers me is that there's demoralization in the military I don't think we own Libya I think we destroyed it yeah and now there's a slave trade instead of osprey global did we set up Sidney Blumenthal's Osprey Global Solutions there? Libya for a while has been ruled by random warring tribes since the fall of Gaddafi. Yeah, it's basically an American puppet state at the moment. My problem wasn't that we went into Afghanistan.

I think that was perfectly morally justified after we had been attacked on 9-11. My problem was how they handled it. You go into a war you have um terms of engagement that allow our fighting men and women to win and you actually have a plan for victory and you have an objective that is victory like you get in you do your thing you get out like don't drag it on forever there was there was no reason to go into afghanistan if the argument is that we should have gone to afghanistan because some of the 9-11 hijackers were afghani it's like what about the taliban yeah but what what about Egypt or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

I mean, Saudi Arabia got sued, I think, over 9-11. I'm not going to get into the whole history of that because there's too many gaps in my knowledge, but it wasn't like it was just the Taliban that did it. Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan. There was funding coming from various sources in various Middle Eastern countries. Some of the hijackers were Egyptian. We we didn't go and invade those countries i don't disagree with that i think that the taliban was giving safe passage to osama bin laden so you you can go back and make that argument i'm not especially against saudi arabia i think that

they were certainly not held accountable because they were a territorial ally if you will i think part but i do think 15 were citizens of saudi arabia yeah two were from the emirates one was from egypt and one was from lebanon most of them were from saudi arabia and we're just like nah that's cool saudi's like we're all right with you yeah i think part of the problem is that war that we pretended wasn't a war but obviously was a war never ended right i can tell you people born after it deployed to afghanistan but then the biden administration said we want to pull out on september 11th to have some symbolic win for our administration. We all saw how that went. Like, there is something fundamentally wrong. And I think to your point, you know, I have family members, I know people who are part of the military, and there is an energy of discouragement.

But also, I don't think our culture knows totally how to handle our military, right? I mean, I think a lot of us are anti-war, and I think that's probably good. On the other hand, where do you put in people who go into military service for honorable reasons? How do you reconcile both things at once? I'd like to build solar-powered water condensation all over the planet. Like if we could have peacekeeping missions with our troops and our military and actually reinvigorate. I feel like peacekeeping missions is like actually something else. We it peacekeeping but it's actually not that's what they call it vietnam you know this is cool what they do is they build these there's a bunch of different

ways you can do it but they have these big white plastic or something you know carbon structures that are flat up top and then slowly as they get lower, become rounded and funneled. And what happens is the condensation sticks to it and the water pours down and it fills up fresh water by the morning. You can actually have them go underground. So the air goes in, goes down underground and cools way down underground. And then you have like solar panels that are like heating panels or cooling panels underground that are connected to the solar up top.

So it super cools the gas underground. You get a lot of water that's cool stuff the the reason i i like to elaborate on the idea is because there are really awesome stuff we could be doing but instead we just keep we just seem to be blowing people up all over the all over the world that's what our money's good for or gender studies in pakistan lk99 that's room temperature superconductor did you guys hear about that it's going to change the entire computing industry the computing industry bro you have no idea dude Dude, I have no idea. It's like, I'm standing on the precipice. I love science, I have to say.

I feel like I come on this show and you guys teach me so much. Most superconductors where you can pass a lot of electricity through without losing it, they need to be really cold. But these can be done at near room temperature, apparently, proposed ambient pressure. The claim is superconductors zero resistance transfer of electricity we lose energy as it's transferred around uh there's heat loss is a bunch of loss with the superconductor you don't have that there's a lot of things you

can do they do super superconductor levitation they'd be able to do like maglev trains on the cheap it would completely change computing it would completely change batteries it would uh what people are claiming is that it will make the world like a sci-fi reality like this is a major breakthrough on par with the the discovery of the charged electromagnetic spectrum and because such nobody believes it and they're waiting for replication because room temperature super conductors is going to like yeah it's going to be like sci-fi i've heard that they're they're replicating it now and this with like deep fakes and with obviously the internet all these weird technologies

of like i'm really going to be able to imagine something and then see it like with the neural net i i we're entering like another time i think that's the craziest things these these uh revolutions in technologies evolutions of technology i should say are happening faster than ever before so my thought is that we're just we're going to evolve into another species. But what do you think, Liz? Would you get a brain chip? No, not right away. Never.

Elon said that he would get one. I hope he has a great time. No, thank you. If most people will get it, if I see like hundreds of thousands of young people in high school getting it and just like blowing test scores out of the water learning a bunch of languages becoming really good at athletics i would consider it but i would rather have something non-invasive like a helmet or something like so you like the augmented reality yeah glasses i like you know anybody doesn't have a cell phone yeah how many people do you know don't have cell phones like five because i know

people who live off the grid i don't know anybody that doesn't have a cell phone i'm after like older than high school our cell phones cia tracking devices oh certainly all your information is tracked by any intelligence agency around the world who wants it so conservatives know full well the deep state is tracking literally everything they do every website they go to every picture they look at every naughty thing they do on the Internet. And they don't care. And they would then say, well, I'm not getting the brain chip. And it's like, oh, please, dude, 10 years, you'll all be chipped.

Here's here's where I think it's different. Because when Apple what's Apple's thing that's coming out, that augmented reality goggles that he just announced a couple months ago. There was an engineer that worked on that who did a thread on Twitter right after it was announced who said, I worked on part of this as it was going. I don't work there anymore. A lot of it's under NDA. And he was bragging. He was proud of having worked on it.

He was talking about how what they wanted to teach it to do was anticipate what you want so that it could offer you things as you're going. And I thought, well, that doesn't sound cool to me that sounds like the ability to manipulate because if you get used to them anticipating then they could plant ideas that are just like that could control your movements i think that's very different than a cell phone because you're not it's not integrated into your consciousness even like i have my cell phone in my hand all the time obviously like we're all obsessed with it But it's not part of my decision making process because it hasn't been like it hasn't been merged with my consciousness.

Like that's really. Also, you could discipline yourself to go without your cell phone. So the one fair point I'll make is there's a difference between holding something in your hand and having a surgery. Right. A lot of people don't want to do surgery but cell phones changed everything before we had the iphone if you wanted to go on the internet it was you'd go out and hang out with your friends then be like i when you get home i'll see what's happening online then you'd go out and hang out with your friends then come home once i thought the iphone came out and people had this was like the the expansion the explosion

into 24 7 web now you were on Facebook nonstop all day, every day. A dramatic difference. Yeah. I don't disagree with that. So our consciousness has merged with the internet at this point. Your phone is always with you. And now look, I'm wearing the smartwatch that vibrates when someone tweets at me. I think the weird thing is it doesn't actually do that because I block that.

But like I get text messages. Your watch is just like constantly going off. Right. No, I think part of it is you'll start to see a separation of societies right like you asked me who do i know who doesn't have cell phones and like they are all off the grid mountain people who chose to live that way and know they're going without some modern conveniences for that reason i think i mean like you're a young parent there will be parents who opt to give their kid an instagram profile and an ipad really early on and then there will be parents who opt to give their kid an Instagram profile and an iPad really early on. And then there will be parents who say, I'm going to hold out for as long as I possibly can. I think you will see a clear difference in these.

And maybe we'll have data to say like, hey, these people are benefiting. Here's what's happening because again, technology is moving so quickly. We're able to track things better than ever before. On the other hand, I think culturally we'll just split apart. I think we'll have like the mountain people and the tech people. You mentioned before the show, like shared morality, how it's such an important part of a cohesive government.

For instance, the United States government had like a shared kind of a, almost an authoritarian morality to it. But so I see this technology and this augmented reality brain ship lifestyle is like a fast track to a shared morality. They can tell us what we think, or they can make us believe a certain thing. And it could be good. It could be bad.

But like, do you think that it's even possible to get humans to come together and begin to share a new morality without using like this, this mind meld tech, this internet? I mean, first of all, I didn't say the word authoritarian when it came to me.

That was me. That was you. That was you. Disavow. I didn't say the word authoritarian when it came to me. That was me. That was you. That was you. It was disavowed. I just don't think it's an accurate word to describe what I'm talking about. So I think that cell phones have connected us in a way. Like, I'm grateful for my cell phone. I also see, like, the problems that it has wrought.

Like, I actually think the point that Tim was making is a good argument for my point. Like, TikTok has changed the minds. And I don't mean,ok has changed the minds and i don't mean like change the thought like change the ideological minds like it has changed the brains of gen z and not in a good way this should be an argument for pushing further away from augmented reality because already just with disattached phones we've wrecked a generation with that um i think in your point is a point that i make a lot, that indoctrination is not inherently immoral. It's what's being indoctrinated that determines whether it's good or bad, right?

Like our education system right now indoctrinates children in like anti-American, anti-Christian, pro-Marxist values. And that's wrong. But it's not because this school is being used for indoctrination. Indoctrination is morally neutral. We actually should be using the education system for indoctrination indoctrination is morally neutral we actually should be using the education system for indoctrination we should just be indoctrinating children in what's good and right and true we should be indoctrinating them in american civic

values and in christian virtues even if they're not practicing religious people our nation is built like our entire legal structure is built on the on on judeo-christian values right you can't murder someone why because that person's made in the image and likeness of god like that's the only thing that sets us apart from animals so i think we should be using venues that we have for indoctrination we just have to be smarter than the left and when's the last time that you can point to a conservative or republican politician an institution that's actually controlled by the right the right stopped fighting for those like 50 years ago so it's just controlled by the right. The right stopped fighting for those like 50 years ago. So it's just controlled by the left.

So yeah, they're forming the minds and the ideologies of all these young people. It's terrible. But it is changing with Bud Light, for instance, the news that just came out. They lost $400 million or whatever. There's a big cultural shift, Sound of Freedom, obviously. We'll get into that. But I do want to jump to this story because we got big pressing news. This is a clip that was released by the national pulse it is a leaked clip from

tucker carlson's show where the capitol police chief said that it was that it could be january 6 may have been a cover-up let me play this clip for you i'll just give you guys a warning it's a little choppy for some reason but uh nonetheless it's very important so let me play this rational and not give a number statement obviously but the facts that you're describing are shocking. I've got to say, the reason why I've had a lot of people ask me, you know, why did you write this book? I try to do what I can to get the truth out. You know, they didn't want me to testify on February 23rd at the Senate hearing. They only wanted people that are still currently in positions.

I actually had to go in and talk to a friend of mine on one of the oversight committees to say, I will come there in person. I want to be there. I want to testify. So I'm glad you think I'm reserved. I'm, you know, to be honest with you, I'm a little pissed off. Because if people were reporting the intelligence correctly, if I was allowed to do my job as the chief, I got a significant experience, but I was allowed to do my job as the chief, we wouldn't be here today. This didn't happen. Then see how you're out there, you're lambasted in public, and it's all, you know, everything appears to be a cover-up. Like I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when you look at the information intelligence that it had, military had, it's all watered down.

I'm not getting intelligence. I'm denied support of the National Guard in advance. I'm denied National Guard while we're under attack for 71 minutes. You're in a fight? Yeah. A fight for a couple of minutes. Yeah, one minute. It wears you out.

One minute. I was going to say, 60 seconds, three minutes. Let me tell you, it wears you out. My officers were fighting for 80 minutes before the protesters ever broke the first one. Wait, can I say, so you describe this as a failure to get the intelligence to the people who needed it. But it sounds like, worse than, it sounds like they were hiding the intelligence. And that's what I'm getting at. Could there possibly be people that actually did something to happen and kind of wanted something to happen?

It's not a far stretch to begin with. I don't know what the other explanation is. You know, it's sad when you start putting everything together and thinking about the way this played out. It gets very concerning. What was their end goal? You look at what's happening, was that their end goal? I don't know.

Well, I mean, there's no question that what happened on january 6th has has really helped the democratic party it's bravely politicized the u.s military and the intelligence agencies and the fbi and those are all i think bad for america and violations of the constitution but they're all good for the Democratic Party. That's the fact. So it's very it's a very choppy clip, unfortunately, but you can make out most of what what matters. And this is the former police chief of the Capitol Police saying someone could have wanted this to happen. It may have been a cover up. And then you look at what's going on now with the trump indictments and i think any be any reasonable person who's been watching when it's going down would agree the simple solution

is they wanted january 6th to happen to weaponize it because they needed some way to stop donald trump because they know they can't win an election here we are yeah i mean i'm not a conspiracy theorist i'm not i usually believe that there's an explanation but if you look at the facts of the case what happened on january 6th and compare that to what the charges against the january 6th defendants were and then contrast that with the due process violations that these people faced and then the political capital the Democrats have gained for all this. I mean, it almost seems like he's stating the obvious. We're just desensitized to this because we've been dealing with it for two and a half years

now. Yeah. So, you know, that's the point I was making the other day. People will ask, like, how did a country get so bad? You know, insert country, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, like, how did it get so bad? Took years, took a decade, took longer. So when something happens like Donald Trump gets indicted, here's what I think. I think they indicted him on the tax stuff first because they know what they're doing.

If they came out and indicted Trump on January 6th outright, it would be a shock to the system that would be bad for them. It would snap people to attention. So they do an indictment, not that big a deal. It's like a tax thing. Oh, who cares to attention. So they do an indictment, not that big a deal. It's like a tax thing. Oh, who cares? Right? Then they do a classified documents thing. Okay, well, that's a little bit bigger. Wow, it's federal. But then ultimately, it's like, yeah, okay, whatever. Now they do the January 6th thing. They're still not remanding Trump into custody. The sheriff in Fulton County said that Trump will be perp walked, and he will get his mug shot. He will receive no special treatment.

It's possible that the real Romanda custody will take place in Georgia. But they do it all in increments so that you are desensitized to it every step of the way. I bet they want Trump to flee because that's another January 6th type thing. You get him to do it and then you can blame him and make him look like the bad guy again. Look, he's still breaking the law yeah but imprisoning uh whether whether they're good people or bad people about history we have tons of stories of people who were imprisoned got out and then took over and you technically could be the president from jail from exile let me read you this timeline and tell me if this is a coincidence on march 16th the oversight committee in the house of representatives revealed the biden family

payments that we all know are criminally corrupt the day after that on march 17th hunter biden admitted that the laptop that we all knew was his was in fact his the day after that president trump announced that the manhattan da would indictment would indict him which they did then on june 8th the fbi um the fbi an fbi document alleged that biden and hunter you know were involved in that bribery scam for five million dollars the next day trump was indicted on the classified documents on july 26th the hunter plea deal the one where he was supposed to get immunity to any other charges ever in the history of his life that collapses the day after trump was indicted july 31st devin archer testifies before the house again and then

the next day trump was indicted again yeah the fact that i don't think so but the the big the the the the smoking gun is the third indictment which was additional charges in the classified document case because they had already indicted him then the hunter biden plea deal thing happens then they're like oh we're indicting trump again for the same thing it's like okay you they really need another indictment to cover this one up i I just don't understand why there's no aliens to write anything to distract from it. You know, I want to know why D.C. Mayor Mayor Meryl Bowser has never had to explain why she said, yes, we'll take National Guard, but only if they don't have any weapons. Right.

Like there were so many things that led up to this. That seems strange to me that Nancy Pelosi never asked for additional security at the Capitol. Like, why are they not as accountable for what happened as theoretically Trump or anyone else? Like, why are only certain people being asked to account for the decisions they made on that day that put people in danger, right? Like, if you had asked for proper security, Nancy Pelosi or Merrill Bouser, then there would have been something else. The fact that you didn't seem suspicious to me, the fact that no one is asking you to explain it seems worse. Yep. I think they're counting on the fact. So think about in 2020, this doesn't have anything to do

with January 6th for a second. Think about in 2020 when parents were watching over their children's shoulders on Zoom school and like they were seeing critical race theory, like if your child's white, they're racist. If your child's black, they're oppressed. They were seeing critical race theory like if your child's white they're racist if your child's black they're oppressed they were seeing the transgender ideology and parents were really shocked by that because a lot of parents thought oh that's happening in california that's happening in new york but that's not happening like in our neighborhood in our elementary school in my child's classroom and they saw that it was and this it was this huge mental shift that you just saw sweep the country all these parents that thought they were untouchable because they weren't in this radical leftist hotbed, and then they realized that it was real.

I think we're at that point with January 6th, that for a long time, people have been afraid of being labeled as a conspiracy theorist. And because of that, we've forgotten that sometimes there are conspiracies. Sometimes, like, what is a conspiracy? It's just a concerted criminal act, right? That there are people in power who are trying to do bad things, trying to violate our are conspiracies sometime like what is a conspiracy it's just a concerted criminal act right that there are people in power who are trying to do bad things trying to violate our rights and i think people collectively are starting to realize that january 6th is one of those things that it wasn't just oh the radical right-wingers who are claiming that it was a that it was a false flag or something like that they're like wait a second this actually does seem like it could be as bad as as some of us

have been saying the whole time. Yeah. And we're seeing a really big shift in people's minds. I think one of the first times she was on this, so Marjorie Taylor Greene pointed out that basically everyone who's arrested during the 2020 summer riots was let go and they never faced any charges. Like, we are singularly focused on this one thing and there has to be a reason for that. Right. thing and there has to be a reason for that right and i think you know uh we saw it in the clip someone gains from when they obsess about january 6th and they try to turn it into something right there there is political momentum and i think tim talked about it the other night

you know if trump had treated uh the may attack at the church in dc a little bit differently perhaps the narrative would have been slightly differently uh i think that's one of the things we have to credit left-wing activists with, is that they really know when to obsess and make loud something that they are going to make the lead story for the rest of the year. In this case, it's January 6th. Someone did bring up an interesting point, just Peachy in the Super Chat, saying Tucker did not use microphones like that on his show. And I just looked up quick set images. And sure enough, yeah, Tucker never used microphones like this.

I don't know what that means. Perhaps the video could have been faked or something like that. But I have no evidence that's the case. This would be a particularly difficult video to deep fake because it's extensive. But considering how much time it's been, it's been January since this book came out. It's entirely possible someone made an elaborate deep fake can someone clip the original interview when it was released and then slowly change it it could be why the audio is so so choppy or whatever but they were trying to record it locally so that it wasn't i don't know i think the simple solution is just that this one time tucker used these microphones but i have no idea don't know i just i just looked

up tucker ross and today and the images of everyone he's had on every single image none of them have that none of them have those mics so i'm like when did he ever use those he didn't seem to have also unless it was a different show unless it was uh meant for an audio release and they just happened to have filmed it credit to his detail-oriented fans for being like those aren't the mics i feel like we should subtly change things in this room and see if people notice this this j6 man it makes me think like if i was in nazi germany in 1933 or 1934 what would i be doing to speak out against the nazi party rise to power would you be speaking out and how would i be doing it because they didn't, citizens couldn't really grab a microphone and go on the internet.

They didn't have that kind of power. Yes, but at the same time, people can be drowned out. Everybody has the microphone, so everyone is yelling over each other. It is faster, but back then, the means of you speaking out would be to make flyers and posters or like to print a zine or to write something and then share it. So you've got to stand out that with you saying how people are all talking over each other. I guess that's for me,

why I'm taking, why I'm deciding to get into shape, because if I can make a really good movie that people want to watch, then at least I'll be standing out and people will be looking at my microphone a little bit more than others. Well, you got to go where the money is, right?

So you got to go hang out in Malibu and then hopefully you bump into, you know, say Robert Downey Jr. And then he's like, I liked your style style and then he puts you in a movie and now you're famous yep now you're famous and then you come out and start talking about how the war in vietnam is bad and then one day on your way to the hotel some guy jumps out and shoots you oh okay thanks for laying the uh that path in front of me it's funny you know what your options are i know like do i rail against the military powers of Earth until I die?

Or do I just try and make a great life with an awesome family and go live on an island somewhere? I feel like there's both, right? In this position, you can speak about the things that you believe and ask questions. But I think change happens at home. And so there's a value in saying, no matter what culture tells me, I'm going to live myself, live my life, you know, jointly, hopefully with a partner in a way that I feel like is honorable. We're here for one reason. Everything that's happening right now is because of one thing. The founding fathers are the people who said we are a moral and just people and we demand, right? We have these rights. They're inalienable and we must fight for what is right for us and our families at great personal risk,

sacrificing their blood and treasure. And even in some cases, their families, putting their families at risk so that they could fight for what was best for the entirety of this nation. And then the mentality changed at some point. Now the advice you're given is just keep your head down and make money, ignore all of this. And where we are now is the average person today says, I will not risk myself, my life, my sacred blood and treasure or my family. They were founding fathers whose children's children were kidnapped, whose families were kidnapped to use as leverage for prisoner exchanges, whose homes were seized by the British, by the crown, cities that were entirely occupied and they were forced to flee.

And today you have people saying, well, I can't do that because I have a family and I can't put my family at risk. It's like, okay, well, you're the opposite of the founding fathers. And perhaps I know easy for me to say, I don't have kids, but I'll just make sure you understand that. The founding fathers were like, even if it means my family is kidnapped, even if it means I die, even if it means I have nothing left to even if it means i die even if it means i have nothing left to my name i stand for what this what what must be and today it's inverted today it's i'm

going to lock my door hide and hope that it passes over and it's that people are doing well even the poor people are doing well because of fascism because we've bought off half the world slave trade of half the world mining these rare earth minerals and stuff for us that's china yeah and in in like the the congo like the i don't know cobalt mines yeah geez it's disgusting so truly fascism is is is dangerous in that it's peaceful or it can be very peaceful and people have been sedated by this but i think it's really simple the the current the current way of life that we have you know you can work for an hour you know if you're like a the average american salary you work a couple hours and you're gonna go have a hibachi dinner with your family life is easy

so nobody wants to risk it that's it let me go back to what ian said before though when you ask like what am i supposed to do am i supposed to have a microphone and have the loudest voice am i supposed to hide away with my family like what if how am i supposed to fight back against this because we are living in a unique point of history like no we're not in nazi germany like you can't replicate anything exactly in history but there we're at a dangerous point in our country right where if this if if what happens to trump if he's criminalized for free speech i mean you and i all of us sitting here have to wonder okay we've

questioned the same things about the 2020 election like are we next like where does that like what's the limiting principle on that like we all could be on the line at the whim of a government and i think this is one of the things that the republican party has lost sight of this is one of my biggest critiques with the republican party is that there is a just use of government, right? We often conflate the idea of a limited government with essentially no government. And that's not what limited government means. Limited government means a government with enumerated powers that is accountable to the people, that is run by the people. It means that it's not a dictator that has unlimited authority. It doesn't mean that there's no just use of the government. And we as Republicans have forgotten that. We've demonized anything to do with government. Oh,

we don't have government involved in that. We don't want to use government for this. We'd rather use family and free market and all of that, which is fine. But we also have to use the government to fight back against these things. We are not just by ordering our families properly going to be able to abolish the administrative state we're not just by sitting here behind microphones going to be able to recapture our education system there are things we have to use the government for the just power of the government for to recapture if we want to if we want to stop what the left is doing to our society, and if we want to reclaim our society, which was, which is supposed to be how the founders envisioned it, right? So you and I should, I mean, even if we are, I know I'm more right-wing than you are, but we should be holding our politicians accountable for that because everything can't be done

on an individual basis. I know this is what conservatives have told us for the past 50 years, that everything's just about like us and our families. And yeah, that's important, but it's also using the government. And if we did that, we'd be a lot more successful. I'd like to break up a lot of corporations, especially the tech corporations. They're just too monopolistic. Google, Alphabet, I love you guys. Thanks for letting us stream right now, but come on, the corporation's way too big. Yeah, Google, you got to break them up. Meta, you got to break them up uh meta you got to break them up x you're cool you can stay but what they did with rockefeller was they went into standard oil and broke it up into like eight oil companies the rockefeller still had a piece of so he became even more wealthy and influential after the

breakup so we have to knowing that we can't break up alphabet the same way that's why i advocate for freeing their software code because it's kind of like you reduce their power. You create an opportunity for the market to compete if the code is available. And whoever has the best means of like terms of service, their their their organizations will win out. But I think we need government for that, because otherwise it's going to people would resort to sabotage. And I don't want to do that. I don't want to boycott. It's not enough. I want to jump to this story here. We have this clip from the Joe Rogan experience. Jack Posobiec says breaking Joe Rogan says there was real fraud in the Cary Lake election. The context beyond this is a story from the Daily Mail that finds 69% of Republicans believe that Biden, his win was illegitimate and that there was widespread fraud.

But let's play this clip first. We got Patrick Bet-David. He rocks. And Joe Rogan, also very great. How much election fraud do you think is real? Here we go, Joe. You want to go to election fraud. Yeah, because I don't think it's zero.

No. It's not zero. I think we could all agree it's not zero. No way it's not zero. And we know that these voting machines can be fucked with. Yeah. And we know that there's some irregularities, all that Carrie Lake stuff in Arizona that they're trying to dismiss. It doesn't look like that's invalid. It looks like there's real fraud there. It looks like

there's some real shenanigans there. At the very least, there was voting machines that weren't working properly. And it seems very suspicious that a lot of them were in Republican areas. There's a lot of shenanigans. And I think there's coordinated efforts to make sure that certain people get elected. I don't know how far they go, but I know it's not zero. He's right. It is not zero. Even Bill Barr said it wasn't zero. And that's the big question. Sixty nine percent of Republicans think there was widespread fraud and Biden did not win. So there was a tweet it was robbie starbuck put out a poll saying do you think we're in a civil war and of course you all know how i

voted in that poll but uh the overwhelming majority of people said yes there were four choices one was nowhere not and then one was not yet but soon and that was the second most voted position. So here's the way I'll frame it. And I guess I've said this before. It all depends on where we go next. If Donald Trump is cleared of all charges, SCOTUS says these charges are politicking and weaponizing the Justice Department. Trump ends up winning. Trump fires a handful of people. There are some reforms. It's a little tumultuous, but mostly we just we move past it. No one will ever talk about this as a civil war or revolution or conflict. Those who say, you know, there was a rough patch. If it does escalate beyond where we are now, not just today, but probably January 6th, probably 2016 will be

considered the second civil war period. So 50, a hundred years from now, if whatever is happening now does break out in a hot conflict or totalitarianism or something, they'll write. The conflict all started in 2015 when the Clinton campaign falsely accused her chief rival of being a spy working for the Russian government. And that kicked off a chain of events which resulted in impeachments, street battles. I think for sure it'll go back to September 11th and the Patriot Act. If it gets to like this is the time of history where the United States ended, it will be that that that stupid bill that let you put throw people in jail with no cause but that's that that's the reason that's where it all began they won't say that that's reductive they better when we look at when we look at the the civil war

period you could bring up bleeding kansas but nobody considers that the civil war they consider like a component of pre-civil war and then if you go back a couple decades to like um what was i think the 1850s the the the um what was it the catching slaves act or whatever was a big catalyst because the bill was basically if slaves escaped the south the north the north would have to return the fugitive slave fugitive slave act and the north said you got it the bill was passed and the north said yeah right we're not doing that so the south was basically saying if the federal government passes laws the north will not adhere to what is the point of a federal government it does nothing yep and the but we we don't we don't go back and say it all started here with the fugitive slave act no we say it

was a component and people will consider 9-11 as a component but the civil war period i believe likely it theoretically has a bunch of components that lead into with like occupy wall street the great recession afghanistan and iraq i mean demoralizing destabilizing for the united states it bankrupted our country shift was 2015 i wouldn't define a civil war unless there was unless there was when i say violence i guess i don't mean just black lives matter violence or antifa violence i would call it like if there's conflict violence, like a hot war, I would describe what we're in right now as a cultural revolution, which can be a precursor to a hot war. It can be a precursor to a civil war.

I voted in that poll, too, and I voted not yet, but soon, kind of like TBD dot dot dot. Cultural revolution just means one side's not fighting back. That's exactly what's happening. Yeah. I mean, because, you know, whenever people say we're not in a civil war because there's no hot conflict yet, I'll just say Aaron Danielson was shot twice in the chest by a guy with a Marxist tattoo, with a BLM tattoo on his neck. Yeah, you're just not paying attention to it. There's been a ton of violence.

The BLM riots was a major component of whatever this cultural civil war or cultural revolution is. And, yeah, perhaps it is just a revolution, a communist revolution. I like that cultural revolution. That, or a cultural revolution is. And yeah, perhaps it is just a revolution, a communist revolution. I like that cultural revolution. That's what I think is happening. It's the same thing that Mao did. It's in the fifties.

It's the same thing. The whole dividing people into the left and the right is that what Mao did to create a cultural revolution so that then you can pull the tail on one of the dogs and they start chasing each other. And you're the crazy monkey that gets to watch. This is what the first half of my book is about so like i when we see all these crazy things like we just describe it as like oh our culture's in chaos or we're watching critical race theory and trans ideology being indoctrinated into our kids and i'm like okay why is this all happening at

the same time i mean i know that republicans don't fight back so maybe they just thought it was an easy in but this seems like a concerted effort. Yeah. How did we get here? And it turns out, as I looked into this, the answer to that is less of a why and more of a who. As I researched it, I found the people in the organizations behind each of the attacks on all these cultural institutions. And they are invariably Marxists. I mean, even the Black Lives Matter movement that you just mentioned. I mean, this is the obvious one.

People are familiar with this. But the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement are openly Marxist. They brag about being trained Marxist. You see all these books. I mean, I see you have genderqueer sitting here on the table. I mean, the president of the American Library Association is a self-avowed Marxist. These people are actual communists, actual Marxists, and they are using the destabilization of our cultural institutions, the civil institutions, to get us to economic destabilization so our cultural institutions the civil institutions to get us to economic destabilization so that they can topple our government that is the definition of a cultural revolution people are just like whoa communist marxist like it's just republican

versus democrat and if you actually peel back the layers and look at who's behind this it's not a coincidence it's not chaos it's actual marxism why do you think they embraced marxism i think that they are ideological marxists i think marxism is is economic we think of it economically when we think of karl marx and the communist manifesto we think of the uh working class overthrowing the ruling class and i think that that didn't really work it didn't they didn't it never caught on to become the global revolution that they wanted so it sort of died out but then antonio gromsey he was this uh italian marxist, founder of the Italian Communist Party or co-founder, said, well, listen, if you observe the cultural revolutions that were successful or these Marxist revolutions,

they started culturally. First, you overtake the civil institutions that the working class rely on to destabilize society. And then they're willing to actually revolt against the ruling class. The root of all of this is economically they're anti-capitalist and then many i mean many if you if you analyze the marxist or the communist ideology there's a spiritual aspect of it too i mean the united states is being targeted because we are fundamentally a christian nation built on christian morals built on judeo-christian morals and mar Marxists can't stand that. Can you explain the difference between communism and Marxism? Yeah, it's essentially the same thing. It's just a specific version of it. So communism is this false idea that there can be collective ownership of everything, that there's no private

property, there's no one person in charge. It's just everybody owns everything marxism is uh the tool to achieve that so marxism pits one class against another one saying that you know the working class is oppressed they are oppressed by the ruling class and in order to achieve communism marxism is the revolutionary tactic that's why it's important i think to differentiate between communism and the marxists that are behind the cultural revolution here because they are trying to destabilize our society using that tactic to achieve communism. So there could be other tactics to achieve communism than Marxism, including perhaps economic technocracy, something where we're all the same in a machine. Yeah. Technocracy is. So that's actually really interesting. I have a whole chapter in my

book about technocracy because technocracy is ruled by the experts, right? Like you, you can't, you can't question Fauci because Fauci is the technocrat. The root of technocracy can be traced all the way back to French socialists and Russian Marxists who were part of the Bolshevik revolution. There was a Russian Marxist who actually described technocracy as a stepping stone from capitalism to communism, because this was always the problem for communists and Marxists, right? People aren't just going to wake up one day and be like, oh, cool, we live in a free society. Yes, I'd love to have communism. There has to be some frog in a pot of boiling water moment in a culture where people are slowly introduced, you know, incrementally into communism. Technocracy is a stepping stone for that. That's why we see it with the administrative

state. We see with Fauci. We see it with like once you have kids you see this all the time in like the pediatrician industry you as a parent aren't allowed to question anything anything from breastfeeding to co-sleeping to vaccines you have to defer to the experts it's everywhere and it's conditioning people not to question not to dissentent, just to obey, which is the communist way. Are there historically examples of nations or people going towards that communist route and then stopping and saying, hell no, realizing what's happening and turning civil wars breakout? Has it ever been a peaceful regurgitation? I think it's probably hard to cite examples because it wouldn't be documented as a significant moment if it just reversed itself and never really went that way it's a good question though because it's kind of a chilling question if you think about it if we can't sit here and name a cultural revolution

that headed or that was trying to transform a free society to a communist society it means that often it wasn't stopped it either wasn't significant enough or it wasn't stopped because the examples that i can think of are examples that took a relatively free or relatively religious society and turned it into oppression tyranny and death there's the inverse there's spain the communists and the and the and the republicans or the nationalists were fighting and then it was the right that won that one and same in in germany the nazis destroyed the communists the nazis i mean one of the principal components of the propaganda was to fight communism yeah the bolsheviks yep i i believe there's a way to do it peacefully with this technology but i mean it's owned by the technocrats so i don't know how that works

i'd like to say what i think online guys sorry that goes back to what i was saying before about like the augmented reality that's why i I don't consider myself a cynic. I do consider myself a skeptic because I don't trust these people. I don't trust the like AI. People always talk about AI being this like sentient being this like this this thing that can take over and think for itself. And I'm like, no, somebody is behind writing the algorithms of all of those things. And that somebody is someone whose ideology is very different than ours,

who wants to use that to influence the way that we or our children or whoever think so that they can convince those people to act in certain ways that benefit their political ideology. You guys know, you've all Noah Harari. Yeah. He's with the world economic forum. Such a creep.

He does seem like that at first. And I want to give him the benefit of that. He's just on Lex Friedman's podcast. Lex has hit him out of the park. He just had Benjamin Netanyahu on on now he has you've all on the show good you know he's bridging the gap he's willing to speak to people that might be the most outside the if you're not in the system the most terrifying force on earth is this world economic forum trying to put people in pods and chip their brains and read their thoughts pre-crime stuff

like that but you've all was talking about intelligence and consciousness and how they're not really the same necessarily. We're building machines that are intelligent, but do they have consciousness? They don't seem to. Boy. The question is how do you prove consciousness? Yeah, he didn't have an answer for that either. It's such a –

This is a great Star Trek episode where Data the Android is effectively on trial because they're trying to determine whether or not he is a sentient being with rights or a washing machine and so as we're getting closer and closer to simulated and simulated consciousness where we know we fabricated it but we can't determine like i'll put it this way with chat gpt and where we're headed with these video games already you've got this mod on Skyrim where you can talk to a video game character and it will talk back using chat GPT. We're a few years away from, I guess you can say passing the Turing test is something long since passed. What we're getting to is you will be presented with a microphone and two speakers. And you'll be asked to ask a question. And then you tell us which one you think is real, which we think is fake.

Already, there's a game called I think it's called Bot or Not or something like that, where you what happens is you get placed in a random chat with it's a green. It's a black screen with green text. And then it'll say you start. You'll say something. The other person will say something back. Then after like 30 seconds, it will say, was start, you'll say something. The other person will say something back. Then after like 30 seconds, it will say, was it a human or was it an AI? And you have to guess. Some people will pretend to be AI and try and make it seem so you guess wrong. We're going to get to the point where they're going to ask you, talk to this person and talk

to this person. One of them is an AI. Can you figure out which one? And people are not going to be able to do it. What they'll probably have to do is more than just two because then you get a 50-50 thing. They'll have to do like 10 and they'll have one AI in there and then they'll see what percentage people can accurately guess which one's the AI. But once we get to that point where people cannot,

and I think we're really close to that already, then there's going to be a question of what is sentience at all. Because if you walk up to a person on the street and you say are you alive they say of course like do you think of course i do uh do you believe in god yes absolutely what are these questions for this is ridiculous who are you why are you asking these questions what if we then did the same thing but it was an ai robot you walk up on the street it looks just like a human because we've synthesized them. Jeez.

Answers all the questions perfectly. How do you then determine who is real and who is not? If an AI doesn't know it's an AI and it thinks it's alive and real, you've got to give it rights. I mean, you've got to treat it. But the AI will be networked.

This whole conversation reminds me. It's one AI, not a... When you see that individual and you ask, are you alive? It says, yes. You're actually looking at a gigantic mass, not a single person, you're actually looking at a gigantic mass, not a single person. You're just looking at a computer. This is why I always have to bring

it back to religion. I know that so many Republicans and conservatives and red pilled people don't want to marry religion and politics. And I get that, but you can't have these existential, we can't answer these existential questions if you don't have some baseline foundational beliefs about reality right like sentience is determined by if you're a human being if you're made in the image and likeness of god again doesn't mean you have to worship god but if you can't answer that baseline question then you're gonna you're gonna mistake a machine for a real person and try to get a machine rights like really do you think a robot should have rights like no nobody thinks that there was a case i covered sorry a little

bit uh last year it was in may of 22 where this um it's called the uh non-human rights project they sued to have this um elephant named happy freed from the zoo that she lives and they said it's a one acre prison and happy unlike other elephants has passed a self-awareness test because happy had they put an x on happy's forehead so legally the elephant is regarded as a thing right it's not doesn't have rights because it's not a human um it obviously deserves to be well cared for and whatever else but it's not entitled to rights those same humans are so they said it passed a self-awareness test because there was a white x on its forehead and it used its trunk to touch

it when looking in the mirror. So therefore it's aware of itself. And therefore, you know, it's entitled to rights over where it lives and things like that. And I found this really interesting because obviously, I mean, we should, you're a Catholic,

we could maybe make you talk about it, but sometimes people will write in and when James is here, he has to define the differences between different types of souls, right? This idea that something is aware of itself, that it has intelligence, that it's able to react to something. Is that the same thing as consciousness? Is that the same thing as what humans experience? And whenever we talk about it in terms of AI and robots, I think of this conversation in terms of happy the elephant. AI bots will get human rights and will be regarded

identically to any other biologically born human for one simple reason. We cannot share experiences. Therefore, the default legal position would have to be to protect the innocent. And if you can't determine whether or not someone is an artificial intelligence or an actual person, then they both must be treated as though they're real people who are deserving of rights, which means there will be online bots that will be protected legally in terms of the first amendment there will be if we ever get to the point of human-like androids that are indistinguishable from humans you will not be able to violate the fourth amendment rights of someone by scanning their bodies or something to see if they are or aren't. I could imagine giving them personhood.

I don't know about human rights. Nope. Like, they're not human. It's not about saying robots deserve human rights. It's about saying, I cannot accuse someone of being a robot and then use a scanner on them because that violates their privacy. If they're coming into a private establishment, yes, but not in public. So you will have AI androids walking around.

Do you want to live in a society like that or do you think that we should push back against that as a society i don't want to live in a society like that but i don't think there's a i don't i don't think there's any way around it it's impossible blade runner yeah the idea of sentience and consciousness is really they're terms that have been used to replace like the human person, right? We don't want to think of the human person as what the human person is, right? We're constantly dehumanizing people. We're either treating each other as objects. We're thinking of ourselves as just the top of the food chain.

We're not thinking, oh, the human person is different from animals because the human person is an embodied soul. We are both organic creatures and also spiritual beings. And if we allow like science, who I assume is like the ones coining sentience and consciousness to redefine what makes us a person versus the spiritual reality of what makes us a person, then we are going to descend into that kind of chaos. Like it's inevitable, but we shouldn't allow that to happen. I mean, I reject the idea of sentience and consciousness as a barometer for or a standard for giving someone rights because think about an infant like a zero

to three month old has neither of those two things think about somebody who's mentally disabled the moment then when you can prove souls exist we can determine who gets rights and who doesn't but that's the basis of our country was built on the belief that they do. That's the thing. Like what I'm presenting here is not a new idea. It's not a religious. It's not me being like a Bible thumper. It's like our constitution acknowledged.

I mean, even our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said we were by our creator, right? Endowed by our creator. And so the problem is if two people walk up to a cop and they both look indistinguishable from each other and they both point at the other and say they're a robot what's the cop to do is he going to pull out his soul detection system to figure out which one's worthy of human rights and which one isn't or is or what if he says you know what you're both robots and then shoots them both uh-oh one was a human turns out the cop was the robot the whole time what if the cop what if the cop says i'm going to use this scanning device

on you and the person says that's a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights. You can't use that. But if you have nothing to hide, then why would you say? Doesn't matter. Fourth Amendment. No, you need a warrant. You need probable cause for a search like that. You can't just walk up to me and do it.

And the cop says, I don't care about your rights because you might be a robot. Scan. Oops. It was a human. Well, this is why I wouldn't give them human rights. And that's a personhood like corporations are people legally. So I can see why. And you're saying elephant. They're giving elephants personhood, like corporations are people legally. So I can see why, and you're saying elephant,

they're giving elephants personhood. New York ruled against it. Okay. I think in India, they did something with dolphins and elephants as well. So weird. So like,

if we're going to give corporations personhood, then we can give AI personhood. I got a complaint about this. A legitimate complaint. Okay. We were hanging out in West Virginia, in Charleston, and we hang out in West Virginia all the time.

We're in Charleston, not Charlestown. Charleston is like five hours from here. And we were checking out in west virginia in charleston and we hang out west all the time we're in uh charleston not charlestown charleston's like five hours from here and we were checking out the the capital complex and they had this big fence put up it said no trespassing and you know i saw i saw a i think it was a pigeon flew right over the fence and landed right on the other side mocking me and i looked at the pigeon and i said how come the pigeon's allowed to go on the other side and i'm a serious question i as a human being of soul and mind am barred from stepping on the other side of this fence for some arbitrary reason but the animal is free from from the for the consequences of law we don't care at all that these animals are coming and going as they please pooping wherever they want with great intelligence comes great responsibility that's right this is called pigeon philosophy but this is my actual point it's a serious question animals actually have uh certain

exceptions in the law to do things that humans cannot do humans are more restricted than pigeons pigeons can quite literally eat whatever they want and crap wherever they want and go wherever they want. And that's it. In fact, some migratory birds you can't even touch. It's a federal crime.

I guess the animals that were really bad, we just eradicated them. That's what I'm saying. Ducks are protected. Not all, but some ducks. Okay, this is my answer so the type of freedom that animals enjoy could be described as absolute freedom right someone

threatens their family they kill them go wherever you want it's like it's it's it's anarchy right the animal kingdom is anarchy quick point if a bear or a mountain lion protecting its family kills a person, they will hunt it down and kill it. OK. Yeah. So that that that, you know, but if you're like a duck and someone goes near your babies and then the duck, let's say I shouldn't say you're a duck. But if a duck if you go near ducks, babies and it's attacking you, they're going to yell at you and get away from the ducks, babies. Yeah, which is kind of ridiculous. I think we can agree. I mean, it's kind of like that comparison that if you break the egg of a bald eagle, you're liable under federal crime,

but you can abort a human child and you're allowed to do that. Yeah. That's exactly it right there. If you step on a turtle egg on accident, you'll get in trouble, but you can abort a baby outright at any point in Colorado.

Yeah. See, that's what I'm saying. Humans have less rights than animals. Some animals like cows have less rights than humans don't get me wrong we've got less freedom animals don't have any rights but that's the thing that's my point it's not less freedom it's different freedom no no no right it's a different definition of freedom because rights are not granted like granted by our creator humans don't't grant rights. We have rights. Animals can travel around. They can defend themselves.

They can seek shelter. They can say whatever they want. Granted, it's limited to squawking and growling. They can do all of that. They can defend themselves. If you start climbing up towards a bird's nest and the bird starts pecking your head, that bird is not going to be harmed in any way by anyone.

In fact, humans will yell at you for having done it. If you grab the egg from a bird's nest and throw it, your neighbors will probably get really, really mad at you and complain about what you did. But you can quite literally, this is a hilarious thing. What do you think would happen if a woman who was eight months pregnant in Colorado was walking into an abortion clinic and before she went in,

she just smashed a bunch of duck eggs? People would say, how dare you smash those duck eggs why why are you harming those baby ducks and then she goes sorry and then and then she goes inside and right so the reason i think and so all of this is so funny it is true i mean it's true it's funny because it's true but it's also because humans aren't governed by absolute freedom we have an acknowledgement that we are supposed to live within some sort of moral order so perhaps smashing duck eggs for no reason or shooting a bald eagle just to make it a trophy or harming an animal or and or you know killing an endangered species we as a society acknowledge that that's an immoral thing

which is why our actions are governed by a government that's supposed to be comprised of ourselves and so we're supposed to live in some kind of order we're not supposed to live in anarchy the way that animals do how do we create the moral structure sociologically literally with this technology in modern day how what do you propose you mean how do we define morality yeah well luckily i don't have to be the one that answers that question in the sense that I don't have to write that code. We don't have to decide that in a populist manner. I mean, the way that our government was already created was to be governed by morality as defined by original. Edmund Burke called it original justice, which is natural law.

So natural law is your ability to reason as a human being, my ability to reason. We know that it's immoral to go out and be a serial killer. We know that not because it's not because it's socialized into us, but we know that that's inherently wrong. We are able actually to discern right from wrong without being taught. That's why the Marxists try to indoctrinate our children so young so that they can twist our natural, our understanding of reason or our reason in being able to discern natural law. So our society should be based, our laws and our moral order should be based on natural law. Again, not forcing anyone to worship any God that they don't want to, but the laws of our society should be based on the definition of right and wrong and justice and liberty as already defined by our creator. What about like starving family, stealing food? Is that you think that's punishable by like they used to kill people for that kind of thing, but desperate times, you know, but like, what is that moral or just for a starving family to steal

food? Well, that seems a little hyperbolic. It seems like the exception to the rule and not the rule. If we have a society that's based on moral order, there should be other recourse before that's necessary. I mean, no, I don't think that killing someone for stealing food is a just punishment. But theoretically, a moral society would have other people who feel obligated to help those who are less privileged. But don't make the mistake of comparing ancient law to modern context. Stealing food 2,000 years ago, you would be killing the person you stole

the food from. Food was harder to come by. People were more strained. And someone who was selling food, like food was accounted for. So if you were like, I'm starving, so I'm going to steal from you, it's like you are sentencing my family to death. Yeah, that's actually a really good point, because now it's like, well, you're too lazy to get a job or you wanted something that was too expensive for you or you're not behaving the way that you're supposed to be behaving like our society is abundant with resources there's no reason that anyone should be stealing food now you can get help you can i mean i'm a conservative and i still believe in a limited government welfare safety net for people who can't help themselves right like we all do we're all we all believe in and like soup kitchens are

typically run by religious food banks or community organizations. Like we formed other ways to help people in need. It's not like you either starve or you steal. Exactly. We have other options here. I think it's too reductionist to say that like those are the only options. I want to jump to a subject. Go ahead.

Well, the last part, I was just going to talk about intelligence, sentience, and consciousness. Again, those three words and how they form into the totalitarian step towards communism. But it's a long conversation. Let's talk a bit about philosophy and religion. We do the members portion. Because I do want to talk about a news segment for our last segment for Super Chats. We have this tweet from Matthew Iglesias. And he asked an interesting question.

He says, I'm a very literal-minded person, but I don't understand the idea of a guy currently losing the race for the GOP presidential nomination debating a Democrat who isn't running. I want to pause real quick and say, just because DeSantis may be dropping in second place, is debating a guy who's not running for office. So we have the story here from Politico. DeSantis agrees to debate Gavin Newsom on Fox News. The California governor has been trying to get his Florida Republican counterparts to engage on Wednesday. He got it. OK, so serious question. Why do you guys think these guys are in a debate? Like, what's the point? Well, I think you mentioned it before the show. I mean, I think they are both trying to gain attention. I think that they both would ultimately like to be the people who are facing off on the ticket. I think if they had done this at the height of COVID, when they both had such different strategies, it would be a really interesting conversation. For now, it just seems like their establishments

are trying to rally around them and make it seem like they are really the people in charge, especially interesting because Joe Biden is the incumbent. Yeah, this strikes me as like a measuring contest. They're going to whip it out and see who has a bigger GDP, who states bigger. Yeah, actually, that's a good point. I think that's what they're going to do. California is going to, Newsom's going to be like,

in California, we did this. And Ron's going to be like, you got poop in the streets everywhere. I hope he does say that. Yeah, I really do. I think this would have been so much more interesting if this was done six months ago before DeSantis announced that he was running for president yeah because this is a legitimate debate how california handled covid versus how florida handled covid if you could have two states that are like case studies against each other it would be great yeah and the american

people really want to know that and a critique of ron desantis since he launched his campaign is this is what he should have launched his campaign on. Instead of attacking Trump personally or having his surrogates attack Trump, he should have just constantly been talking about what they did during COVID and people could make the comparison for themselves without feeling that he or his people were attacking Trump.

So maybe this is his attempt to reset his campaign since it was kind of a slow rollout to use a kind word there. DeSantis, I think think is just so bitter that joe biden is going to be the nominee for 2024 he just can't believe it or newsom newsom yeah i think newsom's going to be the democrats guy yeah this looks like this newsom's coming out party this is like him announcing he's going to run for president basically why would he be debating a vice a

presidential candidate and i said this last night and i'll say it again the best possible scenario for democrats is joe biden at a rally newsom is there as a surrogate just in support health issue affects joe biden panicked in front of a crowd in front of television newsom runs full speed to render first aid panic ensues newsom then does the press rounds of the guy what was it like what was going through your mind? Rolling up his sleeves. Yep. Taking the jacket off, losing his tie and then screaming for help and then putting on every single television network.

What was it like when you when you saved the president's life? That is the best case scenario Democrats could have to get this guy in the race. I would also like to. I think that is the best case scenario. It makes me wonder wonder as we know Joe Biden famously spends most of his weekends almost all of them in Delaware where one could maybe potentially get secret medical treatment uh I wonder if there will be I'm just gonna say I don't know I'm just hype uh it's just hypothetical uh I wonder if sort of along the same lines we're

gonna get an announcement that tragically uh Joe Biden has some sort of terminal illness that won't allow him to continue. So though he wanted to, we've got to have someone else come forward. And this will place Newsom as the obvious contender. It depends on how sneaky and capable you think Democrats are. Because if Joe Biden says, I'm sick, well, that's really damaging for the Democrats as a brand. They're a sickly leader and they were forced to replace him. Gavin Newsom then steps into the fray as a second tier Joe Biden. Nah, it's not going to fly. Trump is winning in the polls.

And even with the scenario described, I do not see a landslide possibility, right? You'd think about, you go back in time when the country is a bit more cohesive, a president having a heart attack on stage and someone running out and saving his life with CPR,

that guy's going to have an approval rating in the 80s or 90s. And he says something like, I may disagree. We may be political rivals, but we were all Americans and they're going to be screaming and cheering. Even with something like that, Democrats would not be able to muster landslide level votes because people are torn apart. People hate the Democrats. But if the Democrat route is Joe Biden is weak and bows out, Trump wins. I don't think you're wrong. I'm just saying it's probably, again, depending on what they're able to stage, it's probably simpler if they just say Joe Biden has to exit. He's not going to be around.

Super simple, but failing. Yeah. They'd lose face if they did that. I think Newsom. I just don't know what the odds are like i said we got to check the calendar see when they're going to appear on stage together and all get prepared to watch if they do if they do um i'm not saying it will happen i'm just like look if you were to ask me we talk about january 6th that that video comes out where the police chief is

basically saying someone may have wanted this to happen it's a cover-up january 6th was the best thing for democrats it's giving them everything it's giving them the insurrection act to remove people from office. They got that guy, Coy Griffin, I think his name was, removed from office. They said, oh, he was an insurrectionist. Now they're indicting Trump. They did the January 6th committees. It may not be as effective as they hope it is, but it is their weapon. Thinking in that context, I've said, if Donald Trump did not stop the riding on May 29th in D.C., he'd still be president because the narrative would be inverted in that same context. I'm thinking forward. What could the Democrats do that would guarantee a victory or at least to

a certain degree, rapidly accelerate their possibility of winning? And it's Gavin Newsom on camera on every major network performing CPR on Joe Biden and saving his life. It also explains why he would leapfrog Kamala Harris. There's one. Exactly. There's one Democrat. And how they get Joe Biden out of the race and Gavin in as the front runner. There's one Democrat who doesn't want Joe Biden to bow out.

One. Jill? No. Joe Biden? This is a quote from Barack Obama in November of 2020. This is what he said. If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand in or a front man or front woman to be president and they had an earpiece in and i was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff and i could sort of deliver the lines while someone was doing

all the talking and ceremony i'd be fine with that and joe biden was like i'm your man don't even worry about it no they were like joe biden you're the man but it doesn't have to be joe biden news oh no way that he would let barack control him via any earpiece. Absolutely. He would. Newsome is a lizard person. I mean, that figuratively media matters. Calm down. He's going to be like, tell me whatever. Tell me. Tell me what to do, because he he's just a slimy guy who wants power. He didn't care. I think there's two different camps of Democrats, though. There's like the Chicago, the corrupt Chicago people. And then there's the California people. Right. Like Nancy Pelosi came from california politics schumer came from california politics like um these newsome and pelosi are like indirectly related right am i totally wrong are they i'm gonna double check that i don't know i

don't know i mean not it wasn't schumer it was um adam schiff came from california not schumer schumer's in new york yeah yeah yeah um there's like this this this california breed of democrats who are very radical left and then there's the chicago breed and they're kind of in competition with each other because they both want to be the leaders of the democrats in washington dc so i don't think that he would listen to barack obama the way that biden would so like the clinton obama camp biden all that is that's like a unique kind of structure within that system and then there's other people like that's interesting newsome was his uncle by marriage was nancy pelosi's brother-in-law so they were at one point very indirectly related i will say they do have a lot in common you know they both uh didn't wear masks when they instructed everyone else to yeah in california they can do

whatever they want i will say i actually am super open. I am critical of debates because I feel like these big stage, you know, you have six, 12 candidates on where they scream at each other and try to get their viral moments. It's not effective. We're not learning anything about policy. It's whatever. But I think one-on-one debates, I mean, you see this with culture war, can be really effective. And having governors face off, especially on issues where their states in particular become representations of cultural differences, that would be super cool. Yeah, I agree. effective and having governors face off, especially on issues where their states in particular become

representations of cultural differences. That would be super cool. I would love to see the governor of Washington debate the governor of Idaho on the abortion travel law, right? There are things that could be good about this format. I'm just saying right now, this is obviously playing into the presidential candidate as opposed to the welfare of their states. There are two factions in this country that we here at timcast are unable to book and it is prominent leftist personalities and the desantis campaign i had someone tell me that they don't want to come on irl uh someone who's for desantis say well you know irl's too pro-tr, so it's not even worth going on.

But I feel like it is worth coming on to at least talk about it. But they feel like they're walking into a hostile environment. We had Lance from the Serfs and Vosh come on this show. You know, we had Emma from the Majority Report

come on the show. But it's... What would you ask them if they came on the show? We would have any DeSantis supporter on the show the same as we're having you on the show. And we would talk about the exact same things. But they've explicitly said they won't have people on the show and so we're actually supposed to have a big culture war uh show not this week next week

debating between two supporters of desantis uh desantis supporter and a trump supporter and the desantis supporter just said he wants to back out because he's now backing trump and we were trying to get someone from DeSantis' campaign. We can't do it. Because I think that's actually what... They won't do it. I feel like you want, in particular,

to have a variety of opinions. That's actually better. I think you never really want to be a part of the echo chamber. And that's why you need to have people from both sides. It's interesting that they are choosing even though the invitation is open.

It is funny that it's easier for us to get leftists than it is to get desantis supporters you got to say they'll do it to be fair to be with john cardillo on the show right so it's not like we don't get any of course and he and he stated his case the weird part is i can't tell the difference between cardillo and anybody else like i don't care the pile i really don't mind the politics you know i would love to debate marxism with the marxist i want to know more about it like tell me yeah i think that's the thing you want to have more information and especially like if you had someone who was on the the santa's campaign here we could ask more specific questions about what's going on and they could answer them yeah i'm a manifest so if we start manifesting they will come on we might so what we're thinking

for the next uh tomorrow we have alex stein and modine coming on are they gonna fight right here at this table no but uh i don't even i don't know we'll see what happens with the show but in the next week the question was do we ask the former trump's former desantis supporter now trump supporter to just bow out and we'll find someone who's backing desantis or do we actually just keep the booking as it is and then hear the arguments as to why he no longer does and why he did it's tough because there's there are a few people we could I could probably reach out to John Cardillo and ask him he wants to come on and debate pro DeSantis uh I think Kurt Schlichter might be a DeSantis supporter I'm

not entirely sure there's a handful that are that are you know in the bag for uh uh in the corner for DeSantis I don't know what do you guys think Should we just keep it as it is and hear why this guy no longer supports DeSantis or should we try and get somebody else? I think Cordillo would be interesting just because he was so gung-ho. I wonder if he's still as gung-ho as he was in the past. I'm just going to say who it is. Well, I won't say who the person is

who's no longer backing DeSantis because that's their private business to announce, but Laura Loomer will be coming on and then we are looking for someone who was a desantis supporter so i i feel like it would be interesting to hear this person's perspective of why they were for desantis and then change in terms of a debate like to keep that spirit of culture war alive i do feel like you have to find someone yeah from the desantis camp and like well they won't do it well the question is like i agree we've had a lot of people on like maybe there are desantis people who have been on the show before who would be willing to do it if john cardillo maybe maybe i mean i think it would be more interesting for a

debate if someone was like already very committed to the desantis camp committed to the trump camp it's not going to be really that same it's not going to be a debate if it's the other way the perspective of going from one to the other is interesting theoretically you could have both you could have a different debate where it's this person who's gone from being supportive of DeSantis to moving to Trump and the opposite. This is actually why I think it's silly

for people to get in a camp this early. Like, you don't know how a candidate's going to behave. You don't know what's going to happen. Well, the primary's like in March, isn't it? Yeah, but... It's coming up. I feel like... Wait, that's eight months away.

That's eight months from now. Like, when did DeSantis even announce? I mean, Pence announced in June. Two months ago. That's quick to be entirely committed to one candidate. I'm going to vote in the Republican primary. I don't know who I'm going to vote for. And I'm not in any rush to make this decision.

I want to let the whole thing play out. It's why I don't like early voting. A lot of things happen. No one, in my view view is more committed to trump's campaign than laura loomer true like 10 out of 10 there are people who are fans of trump but like laura is and year after year has been consistent for a long time going 100 miles an hour and i'd love to have a show with one of trump's most ardent supporters and one of the sanders is most one of the sanders is most ardent supporters but we cannot get the sanders's most ardent supporters and one of the sanders is most one of the sanders is most ardent supporters but we cannot get the sanders's most ardent supporters they don't want to do it we can

you got to manifest that they want it just start saying they want i think we should just comb back through who's been on irl and see like if they'd be willing to come on because i think some of it is i would at least personally like if you're not aware of what the environment's like feeling like you're going into a place that like already hates you i mean that takes a lot of nerve the the unfortunate issue is that the people not that we hate to say to supporters that's not it the desantis supporters i'll just keep this vague as i can people who've had on the show before who are now in the desantis camp are barred from coming on the show that's it like you think it's a top-down directive that i don't think i know that desantis camp has forbade people from

coming on the show that seems crazy like it seemed crazy to me i feel like you would want to have the ideas like have people ask questions like i hate that that makes me like very sad do you think it would be hostile to a desantis campaign surrogate if they were on the show no it'd be fucking awesome we we had we had john cardillo on the show and there was there was there was some some issue so awesome. And that was recently. That was a couple weeks ago or like a month ago or something. You have Vivek involved.

Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis have talks. That's what the Republican debate should be. It's just a table around here. Everyone, three hours. Tim, you're moderating. Well, we are organizing for the culture war. Some of the presidential candidates to come on all at the same time. That'd be so cool.

And so I think we've got a few who have said yes already. But I'm really hoping Marianne Williamson will come. I'm a big fan. She's fantastic. That'd be so cool. Yeah. So I won't say too much about that because I was like, you know, talking to Lisa Reynolds, she does the booking.

I was like, if we get more than three people, we have to get an auditorium and do like a big thing. But it would be cool if it was just sitting around a table and everyone kind of just like talking at each other would be it's a better form yeah you know it's like more it's like raw it's like real there's no echo yeah yeah it's not like hello yeah big auditorium i mean that's cool but it would be it's it would be really great to have like vivek like if vivek was talking with marion williamson it's going to be a polite cordial conversation about these issues. It would be a fantastic quote-unquote debate because they're going to be

professional and polite and have a real conversation with each other in front of people as opposed to this current system that we've been doing where it's like, question for you, and you can respond. You have one minute to answer. Here's the million dollar question is if you had all the Republican candidates sitting around the table, who would you sit next to

each other? How would you sit them? Just right here? Honestly, I'd probably just tell them to sit wherever they wanted to sit. Yeah, it'd be interesting to see where they'd pick themselves. Yeah.

Be like Donald, be like, you can sit at the head of the table, Donald, because it's the chair we use the least, but he wouldn't know. I mean,

you'd be like, no, no. Well, I think some people who watch the show know this is like the normal chair that people sit in. So I'd be curious.

Yeah, but the American flag. I know. I mean, I personally love this chair. How do you actually debate? How you debate Trump and win is in this format. The stage format is Trump's battlefield. He owns that. He can cut you off.

CNN Town Hall. Yep. He can cut you off. He can mock you. They give him the opportunity for a button. He'll cut you off. But in mock you. They give him the opportunity for a rebutton. He'll cut you off. But in a situation like this, he would play very, very well, but it's a different you'd get someone talking

loudly and then they go back and forth. He'd listen a lot. You'd see the humanity in him, which I think you have to tell him to wear his golf outfits, you know, like his golf hat and his collared shirt. Like don't come in here and like the power suit. We're going to go to super chat. So if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends,

and head over to TimCast.com. Click join us, become a member, and you'll get access to our uncensored members only portion of the show. We do those Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m. And tonight we're going to talk about moral philosophy and religion because we do this periodically and I think I always love an opportunity to do so. But I really want to talk about

the structure of government, who we vote for, why, and what we need in this country as it pertains to ethics, morals, religious and spiritual values. So that'll be a deep conversation. And you as members get to call in. So sign up today. Let's read. I'm not your buddy guy says the biggest reason why I believe 2020 was genuine fraud is because a month prior to the election, the Google trending search was penalties for voter fraud. And B, the response after 2020, I mean, it was like Anthony Weiner

defending himself and the Clinton body count absurd. If anything, there needs to be a deep dive into the intel community and what they do, as I would not be surprised if decades ago they tried to cheat communists from winning. I hear you. I hear that uh well vivek is filing these doj uh FOIA requests to to figure out what they were saying to each other and pertain uh relating to the indictments of donald trump that's fantastic all right voice of the people says of course it was a cover-up remember pelosi's coup attempt why was her daughter filming that day what did she mean by she's waiting for that moment why Why did she block the National Guard? Interesting questions.

She did literally say that, I believe, right? She said waiting for that moment or something? Yeah. This is light context to truly understand these specific phrases. You got to look into the deeper stories about what they actually mean. It's like hard to just condense all those things into talking points. Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says, Tim, Biden gets sent to the farm, so Newsom is the nominee. Trump is convicted and Jr. says, Tim, Biden gets into the farm,

so Newsom is the nominee. Trump is convicted and can't run, so DeSantis is the nominee. That's why they're debating. It's all part of the deep state uniparty plan. I'm not saying, you know, I think it's a possibility, but it doesn't mean that Newsom and DeSantis are in on it.

It means that Newsom wants to run. He hasn't announced yet because Biden's still in the way. But I believe it's a fair point that the intelligence agencies would love to have DeSantis versus Newsom. Biden is too weak, probably can't win. DeSantis is going to get elected

and then he's going to compromise in the same way Trump did. We all said, oh, drain the swamp. DeSantis says he's going to start firing Deep State right away. He probably will, but he's going to go to these people and he's going to say, look, we don't want war. We want to set some policies. We'll do our thing. And then they'll say, yeah, sure, no problem. And then it'll be Trump all over again. The only reason I consider Trump for round two is because he wants revenge.

DeSantis hasn't yet experienced that. So I'm not, I think it really comes down to, well, I'll put it this way. Trump is more likely to fire people than DeSantis is in my opinion, because he wants revenge. And then everyone says, but you didn't do it in the first place. And I'm like, yeah, but now he wants revenge. Like that's the key factor here. And then the issue with DeSantis is his campaign is mismanaged. And so I'm not super confident anymore, but you know, we'll see. We'll see. Gary G says, says tim what kind of watches that looks cool this is the uh what is it garmin phoenix pro so uh we were hanging out with luke when i was at tijuana and he had one of these i don't know if he had this one specifically he had a bigger one and it does a lot of health tracking stuff which is actually pretty good and then he made fun of my analog watch and i was like you know what i'll

get one of these it's actually it's really cool because for uh fitness training first of all it's solar powered so not the battery lasts like a month that's crazy but uh it's got a flashlight on it too look at this it's got a light you see that that's crazy awesome yeah super crazy little flashlight on the watch but um you just double tap it turns on, but it tracks in simple language, my, um, my exercise routine. So for instance, I skated pretty heavily on Monday and then it showed me what degree of recovery I'm at throughout the day and the level, like the level of intensity I'm, I should be, you know, uh, exercising at to maintain maximum recovery.

And I got wiped out on Monday, skated for like two hours, super intense, nonstop. Took a break on Tuesday. On Wednesday, yesterday, I was pretty tired, pretty sore. But it said moderate exercise capable. And it made sense because I was a little sore. And then I skated as hard as possible

and it gave me a warning. This white screen popped up and it was like, you are overexerting yourself. Your recovery time is being extended. Human, bow to us. Do not move. Well, I just kept kept skating it can tell me i can't but my point is it tracked all of this data and is explaining to me uh you know a lot of the basic data so i like it it's just a smart watch this is why i don't use it because it tracks the data i don't get it

you and luke are both really like libertarian outspoken about like no world economic form we're not going to be in your pod. But why do you track your biometrics? Because that's sending it right to them. I think that's the hard thing. Because there are times that it's really interesting to know how your body's responding. It's massively valuable data. I agree.

And is there a way to unhook it from it's being sent to the AI? Well, but listen. There's a laser on the back of this. And it's scanning the blood moving through my wrist. That's how it tracks everything. Your oxygen levels, your heart rate variability, your heart rate, heart rate's the easiest one. Obviously it's tracking data points. We can't perceive as humans. There will come a time. And we're, we're very, very close to this already where you'll buy the watch. You'll put it on. And then after a week, it'll say, after analyzing your data,

we have found that you have these markers, and it'll be like pre-diabetic, it'll say potential cancer at this age, heart health issues at this age. It can see things in the data that we can't notice, but when enough people use these health trackers, pros and cons, man man i totally get it mass spying versus you know ai benefit if everybody used this the the the network would know okay all

diabetics have this level of x all cancer patients have this level of x and then when you put it on it'll be able to diagnose you instantly you know better go to doctor it'll just be like based on everything we know about humans, you have this problem and you need this medicine. If it's an honest AI, but if the code is proprietary, I could see it being like, oh, they watched one of our commercials

and it's making them stressed and cancerous. I was going to say, you forgot about the part of the algorithm that's like, you're white, so you can go to the back of the line for the medical care that you need. Well, I'm not, so I'm cool. Oh, you're going to pull that one quarter thing right now.

That one quarter thing. When I need to, absolutely. So I'm cool. You know, I get to pull that one thing when I need to. Absolutely. Me, too. Except. All right. All right. Let's read some more. We got Max Reddick. He says you should have destiny back on to talk about Joe Biden's quid pro quo. He seems to think you are wrong. Destiny is completely wrong. He's biased. There's there's no question when you like there's no honest assessment where you can look at devin archer saying we were selling the brand of the bidens and joe biden's on the phone that hunter biden and brisma executives called dc because the prosecutor was putting pressure on us and then joe biden went and got the prosecutor fired there's no sane reasonable person who is being

honest who can say that joe biden's intentions were completely coincidental i think somebody happened to be that way whoops that the prosecutor was so bad he wouldn't fire anybody so they got rid of him that's just nonsense because the prosecutor they brought in shut down all the all the investigations so barisma is being investigated by victor shokin hunter biden and the execs call dc dc which devin archer i guess was implying it was an innuendo for call biden joe biden's on the phone with hunter and his business partners there is no way joe did not know what was going on joe then flies personally to ukraine and says fire the prosecutor or else they make this argument where they're like but the but victor shokin wasn't doing the investigations that's why he had to get rid of him. And then I'm like, and then after they got rid of Shokin, they brought in someone who was solid, says Joe Biden.

And that guy who was solid shut down the investigations into Burisma. Then when Donald Trump got on the phone with I think it was Poroshenko at the time, I'm not sure. And he said, what's going on with this this video that's going we see this video of Joe Biden saying this. What is this? I'd like it if you can look into this, let people know you're looking into it. And then what happens? Mykola Zlotchevsky, the founder of Brasov, flees the country again. That's weird.

He had fled the country when Victor Shokin was investigating. When Shokin gets removed, he comes back. When Donald Trump steps in, he flees the country again. No sane, rational person who's being honest is going to believe that Joe Biden was doing something honest. We got to have destiny back on. And by the way, Joe Biden admitted this on video after the Obama administration. He literally got on stage and was like, yeah, we threatened to withhold money if they didn't fire this prosecutor. And man, within an hour, it happened. He said it himself. But you said it. You said you said it right there yeah this isn't even inference like

he said it and the response people give on the left is but it was the policy of the united states and it's like okay so the vice president can threaten to withhold congressionally approved loan guarantees if the u.s sets the policy yes so then why was donald trump impeached because you claimed he had no authority to withhold congressionally approved loan guarantees but donald trump is the president and sets the policy just like joe biden said call the president he'll tell you it's nonsense they're lying and i think i i think destiny just cannot be on the in this instance you know trump, Trump was right camp. Good.

I want to know. That'll be a good conversation. Like, for Destiny to watch the Kyle Rittenhouse thing and be like, oh, plain as day. Here's the truth. Like, I trust him. For him to say this about Joe Biden, he's clearly missing information. Very clearly. He's just on Michael Malice on You're Welcome.

Didn't see the whole episode. Looked pretty fun. That sounds like a probably a really, really good episode. Because Destiny just all Michael Malice. You're welcome. Didn't see the whole episode. Looked pretty fun. That sounds like a probably a really, really good episode. Cause Destiny's really smart. I'd love, I should watch that actually. I'd love to see it.

One comment said it was the most contentious episode they'd ever seen where no one was getting angry. They were like, that sounds like both Michael and Destiny. It sounds really good. Yeah. Matt Shearer says it's my 25th birthday and and I gotta love being able to listen to y'all. Hey, thanks for the super chat

and happy birthday. Happy birthday. I appreciate you sending us a present on your birthday. Alistair Vucin says, Justin Trudeau's wife is leaving him for a real man like Ian Crossland.

The nature of men and women can't be ignored. Yes. I knew you were gonna read that one. That's sad, man. I got empathy for Justin. What's happening here? I'm not gonna going to read that one. That's sad, man. I got empathy for Justin. What's happening here? I'm not going to talk about that in public.

Leon Yoder says Marlene Barbera is fighting cancer. She was dropped by her Portland health clinic for transphobia after staff at her clinic saw a private message to her to her doctor where she criticized a trans flag inside the clinic. Leftists on X are celebrating. Cold civil war. Yup. Yeah, I saw that story. That's like, I mean, this woman's undergoing cancer treatment. Oh, they don't care.

Yikes. Yeah, they don't care. Verden Horea says, The difference between U.S. and French Revolution was the rights of man versus the rights of men. We're centered on the individual. They're centered on class. We the people as individuals versus we the collective people. that's why you could be an enemy of the people very interesting but i do think it's important to recognize that hyper individualism is what

brings us to where we are today because nobody knows their neighbors anymore and they mind their own business and they don't form communities and defend those communities double-edged sword double-edged moving on we will grab some more super chats 8-bit poltergeist says sometimes when deleted videos or photos are recovered the file can become readable but may be corrupted possible choppy footage explanation perhaps perhaps perhaps let's grab oh here's a good one david magdaleno says tim is it just me or did big daddy government give the green light to youtube to lift the ban on speaking about J6 so they could indict Trump lest they ban literally all of the news podcasts? Yep.

It was already bad enough when they I think it was breaking points with Sager and Crystal. They got suspended once because they played a clip of Trump at a rally or something like that. And Trump said something with the election i think it was them they might have been it might have been hill rising i think they were on the hill at the time i'm not sure before the left yeah yeah or maybe it wasn't them i don't know i'm pretty sure they got they got targeted by it loyal snoop doge says i'm legally blind due to an optic nerve issue from birth lasik won't work on me my only hope for normal vision is neural link but even then i'm still extremely skeptical no i totally get that the first thing that's going

to happen is people who get neural link are going to be people who need medical treatment paralyzed they're going to be like well neural link can help you you're going to have any kind of like nerve damage from disease or anything optic uh your ears or whatever yeah auditory they're going to say you know neural link can can help correct. Yeah. I think the first thing you'll see is going to be curing paralysis. Stem cells can help, but also Neuralink. And Neuralink might be the fastest way to do it. They'll say stem cells can take years. You know, you get the injection, it can be months, a lot of rehabilitation. With Neuralink, the connection is instantaneously applied and you should be walking within a month or two once youink, the connection is instantaneously applied and you should be walking

within a month or two once you get the signals and figure it out and everything. People are going to immediately do that. But then the people who get the Neuralink for that are going to start talking about not only do they have the ability to walk,

but now they can just think the internet. Something like that will happen, like data feeds sent to their brains. What a terrifying sentence. I can think the internet. I can see where that would feel so great to some people. internet something like that will happen like data feed sent to their brains communicate terrifying sentence i can think the internet like i can see where that would feel so great to some people and cyberbullying becomes serious what was that was it chancellor ever who was like cyberbullying's crazy just turn the computer off like but you can't when you think the internet yeah true it's like turning your thoughts off legma says for ian's question israel was a heavily socialist

country and they did away with it in the 80s and became capitalist. The current political turmoil there is the socialist-dominated, overly-powered Supreme Court not wanting to give up its unfairly consolidated powers. Interesting. Yeah, I've heard that they wanted to get rid of the Israeli Supreme Court. That's wild. I don't know a lot about it. I didn't know it was a socialist Supreme Court, but to think that a country is going to get rid of its supreme court is pretty freakish yugi says i think that ian would love the anime psychopaths it's about a computer that can read your mental state and it can flag you as a latent criminal

and the police will arrest you dude you gotta learn how to meditate with no thought because that kind of stuff can be real they can they, they can, people can track your thought patterns. You got to have none. There's a funny new episode of Beavis and Butthead because they're doing the new season and they're meditating with their hippie teacher. And he's like, clear your mind to reach a higher mental state. And then because they have nothing in their brains,

they just instantly elevate to Shambhala. There's like a bunch of religious leaders are there and like Buddha's there. Yeah. They cause all sorts of problems. i thought that alcohol was getting me there but it wasn't the same kind of no thought it was just a different kind of no thought all right what's this sa federali says to her point i remember to this day my mother was held held up at the pay point while nurses took us to a room before shots they acted rushed poked our ears and wiped swabs. We cried hysterically.

They drew blood and dipped. Mom says didn't happen. What is this in reference to? You were saying, I think this is a reference to when Liz said that as a mom, you're told not to question the pediatrician, not to question anything. They're acting like you're wasting their time, I think is what he's saying. Yeah. I mean, it's kind of crazy, actually, when you have a a baby at first you go into the pediatrician and they just like any question you have they're just like the science can't question it you're crazy we'll fire you if you don't do what we say like they're not collaborative at all

did you tell him to buzz off yeah i fired my pediatrician wow but that's hard because especially if you live i don't know how rural the area you live in is, but like you can run out of pediatricians. You can end up driving big distances. I do. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Major Seller says by her definition, aliens, if ever encountered, would not be sentient and wouldn't deserve rights.

You ready for this? Mm hmm. Aliens are just demons. But what? So like if what if aliens show up in like a big spaceship, would you just be like their demons go away? That's what I think it is. That's what I think all these spotting of these holy water. Here we go.

Yeah, exactly. Let me bless you. No, I think it's just demons. I think it's demons. I don't think that I think the idea of extraterrestrials coming from Mars is like a figment of someone's imagination. That's what I'm saying. Like who invented that? Like, why do we think of a flying saucer and little green men because that was science fiction someone invented

that like why is that more real to people than something that's invisible but that throughout human history we've acknowledged is real that there's a spiritual battle around us i think it's demons that are no one's saying that ufos right now are coming from mars specifically i mean some people might say mars specifically but mars Mars isn't the main contender for where the aliens may come from, if they are. Other planets, other universes. Zeta Reticuli, I think is what they told Bob Lazar. I mean, but it came from like the Martians, right? Yeah, like that's the whole, it's the whole.

That was like a, like saying they came from Mars is just because Mars is visible to the naked eye. Right, that's kind of my point. And people are like, I wonder if there's anything else on another planet. But when we talk about the greater concept of extrater extraterrestrial life extraterrestrial just means outside of earth so would you say that a demon is an extraterrestrial yes yes a demon a demon if born of another plane would be by definition extraterrestrial terrestrial of course referring to earth and extra meaning outside of or beyond okay well i wonder if you're defining this more precisely than the general public. But what I'm saying is the general public

isn't coming out saying the aliens all came from Mars. What do you think of demons? No, but they're saying that they came from, they're like life forms from other planets or other galaxies. Or other dimensions or from the future. I haven't heard very many people saying other dimensions, saying that they're like,

it's part of the spiritual battle. Alex Jones, what was it, four years, five years ago they're saying they're interdimensional beings but that ties in with the demon concept like if something if it's a pattern of energy that's manipulating mental states like that could be pervasive throughout the system let's talk about demons and let's we'll talk more about this in the members only because i got a lot of things to ask but i want to make some more super chats i think it'll be a really good conversation chad shinn says hey guys great show tonight i'm starting a youtube rumble channel streaming 5m farm sim 22 and other games plus was wondering if you needed a handyman around your compound if so where could i apply we just hired a handyman oh nice literally just hired

a handyman i don't know if we're announcing yet i can't wait that's fine i think i know who it is but yeah i'm gonna like everyone here already knows who it is yeah and everybody who watches the show knows who it is i got a picture with they don't know that we hired them congrats my dude but i i don't i don't i'm not gonna say anything until i have like the i don't know who's doing what yeah yeah it's it's really a fascinating moment a profound a profound moment in my life is when the first time a thing happened at timcast that i had nothing to do with it was a crazy thing for me. Because like when the, when the company first starts,

like I'm running everything and everything. And then one day I walk in to like the office and I see this like binder of like Timcast policy procedure and stuff. And I was like, not only did I have nothing to do with it, I didn't even know anyone was going to be doing it. And it's just, they're like,

whoa, like things are being made and now people are getting hired. I don't even, is that nice? Like that we have grown to a just there like, whoa, like things are being made and now people are getting hired. I don't even know. Is that nice? Like that we have grown to a point where like you don't have to be involved in everything or does it feel weird? I don't know. I don't know.

I just, it's an experience to be like, oh, wow, look at that. Like it's doing its own thing now. Level of trust with your employees. I know. I feel like when that happens for me, it's like a bittersweet thing. Right. Part of me is like proud because i'm like great you know delegate people do things it becomes its thing and part of me is like well what if it has

my name on it and i don't like it yeah i think that must be really hard all right we will grab some more super chats steven wolf says tim cast and joe rogan should host the debates 2024. 100%. I would never host any kind of debate they do. But in the, in the sense of Tim Cass and Joe Rogan should have presidential candidates on their shows sometimes together. It's a very, very good idea. I think Joe is,

um, the reason why Joe Rogan's show was so important is that he knows so much about so much. And, uh, he can, he can provide a general audience seeking entertainment, especially when it comes to like MMA fans who just like watching a show with general knowledge of things the mainstream press does not give people. And then what we have here is probably similar politics, but hyper esoteric and hard for the general public. So if you really wanted to have like a good debate that would reach the most people, it would be Joe Rogan with like two different candidates on and them just talking. I think if we did it like the stuff we're talking about with Joe Biden, Burisma is going to go over the heads of the average person. Like we should do it, but it's for a politically minded audience. If you're trying to win votes and trying to expose, you know,

the average person to new ideas, Joe Rogan clearly is the guy. And I think it was Patrick, but David was telling him to have Trump on. Oh, good. Joe, you gotta do it. You gotta have Trump on the show because Trump's been wanting to go on.

Trump, Trump, I think Trump would do it in a heartbeat. Apparently he's wanted to do it. And Joe was talking about how he would ask him about the deep state, about the inner workings of politics, what it's like when you get in there and those are the questions that matter yeah joe was saying before his concern was that he would help trump or whatever yeah and i'm like here's my view i don't care if it helps or hurts we don't

invite people on this show because it might help them you know people are like thank you for having me on the show it really helped i'm like i don't know whatever like you're a person doing a thing we want to hear from you you know know what I mean? Donald Trump being asked questions by Joe will be deeply enlightening. Very, very good. It would be good for our country if people understood how the deep state worked. Let's see. Dolan Tired says

get Dave Rubin for Pro DeSantis. Oh yeah, I saw that. Oh, that's a good idea, actually. But the problem with Dave hosts his own show. We can't be like hey Dave stop doing your show and come do ours instead it's like that's not fair

it's not a fair question I saw a chat that's saying Steve Deese I don't know if he supports DeSantis openly but I love him yeah

Steve Deese is cool I think Ruben is on his August break so he might come on oh that'd be cool hey you're on vacation would you come on he might

I mean like it's interesting are we just asking I got a feeling he's gonna say something like he. Would you come on? He might. I mean, it's interesting. Are we still asking? I got a feeling he's going to say something like he takes these breaks for a reason. You know what I mean? Which is totally fair. That is fair. They had kids, I think. Right.

They recently have kids. You know, and I think his whole thing about taking a month off was like health, behind the scenes stuff, life stuff. Debating Laura. Yeah. Yeah. Not traveling to DC to debate someone in the most intense debate you can imagine. Yo, I don't know.

He'll come back on the grid after this and he'll be like, didn't even get the invite. I think what'll happen is most of the DeSantis people we reach out to will refuse to do it because it's Laura Loomer. As soon as you announced who it was, I was like, oh, there were a bunch of people who were like, no thank you.

I'm out. Later. And they're gonna go running. There's gotta be people that would love to do it because it's Laura Loomer, too. Hopefully, yeah. Yeah. Maybe. But the thing is, Laura's going to have an encyclopedic knowledge of things that, I mean, she's like looking into the high school records of the donors for this. She's going to be so intense.

It's going to be so fun. All right, everybody. If you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. Head over to TimCast.com, click join us, become a member so that you can watch the uncensored members only show that we posted on the front page of the website probably about four or five minutes. And we're going to talk

about angels, demons, aliens, and moral philosophy and what this country needs in terms of religion and spirituality. It's going to be a lot of fun. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL, basically everywhere. You can follow me personally at Timcast everywhere. Follow me on X and Instagram. Liz, you want to shout anything out? Oh, I can't call it X. Follow me on Twitter at Liz underscore. Twitter. Buy my new book. It's out in just a couple of weeks. Hide your children book dot com. I think you guys are going to love it. Some of you are going to hate it. And

I want to hear everybody's thoughts on it. So hide your children book dotcom. I think you guys are going to love it. Some of you are going to hate it and I want to hear everybody's thoughts on it. So hide your children book.com. Are you sending it to people for like reviews and stuff? Yeah. You want a copy? Yes, I do. I'd be happy to send you one. We haven't, we haven't gotten it yet or I would have brought one. I love it when people give me books. I'm in. Um, but yeah, I'm so glad you're here. It's so fun to see you. Uh, I'm Hannah Claire Brimlaw. I'm a writer for timcast.com. You should follow at Timcast news on Twitter and Instagram. Maybe you'll see my review of Liz's book. And if you want to follow me personally, you can follow me on

Twitter at H.C. Brimlow and on Instagram at HannaClaire.b. Thank you so much. X marks the spot. I've been waiting all night. Work it out. Follow me on X, at Ian Crossland and anywhere else, at and crossland i'm happy

to see you liz happy that you guys are listening and being a part of this wild freaking ride man what a time to be alive i'm glad we got the internet because it's cool to document it as we go all right see you later indeed uh yeah twitter me it's still twitter on my on my phone so tweet me um it's better to say argue there than X. It sounds weird to say let's argue on X. I don't know. Anyways, follow me on Twitter, on Instagram. I'm Serge.com. See you guys later. We will see you all over at TimCast.com

in a few minutes. Thanks for hanging out. you