Timcast IRL - Trump Admin To REVOKE 200k Visas, Ilhan Omar May Face DEPORTATION w/ Nick Freitas

Episode Date: August 25, 2026

On this episode Tim & the crew are joined by Nick Freitas to discuss US planning to revoke 200K Visas ICE refusing to release Ilhan Omar FOIA over potential interference with immigration enforcement Tim Pool roasting John Lennon's Imagine Hasan Piker Mocking Charlie Kirk at a live show Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) |  @TimcastTateBrown  (YT) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Nick Freitas  @Nickjfreitas  (everywhere)  

The United States is set for the largest mass visa revocation in history, targeting upwards of 200,000 foreigners, business visas, tourist visas, basically Rubio and Trump are just like, get out. They're not going to let anybody just show up and request asylum. The interesting thing is there's this real interesting graph which shows this like crazy parabolic curve of asylum. asylum, assiles, with the question being, has the world really gotten that much worse in the past five years that we are getting legitimate asylum seekers? And the answer is no, of course not. Plus, many of these people coming from Central America or even South America or even Africa could stay in any other country, but they're coming to America. So it's going to be big, big news, my friends, and then we got in that vein. And a really interesting story. So just the news

sent a freedom of information request to ICE pertaining to. to Ilhan Omar allegedly marrying her brother to get him illegal citizenship. And they responded, they cannot release that information due to ongoing enforcement actions. Now, the rumor there is that Ilhan Omar is currently facing enforcement for marrying her brother, I guess. But we don't know that for sure. This could be something else. It could be other immigration fraud. We really, really don't know. So we'll talk about that. And then, my friends, the scarier news, the U.S. has about 40 days left in its oil reserves. and it's depleting rapidly.

Trump just dumped a large amount from the strategic petroleum reserve, and if this continues, we're in trouble, which means the conclusion of this war has to come soon. And I don't mean just because, like for political reasons, I'm saying literally, they've got to wrap things up. Now, Trump's administration, Bessent just announced economic D-Day for Iran, and they're going to isolate and cut everything off. They're actually saying you won't be able to land planes, commercial jets from tourists in certain countries. They're taking it very seriously. And then we got to talk about what happened at the WNBA with Dina's Cantor.

And they're screaming at them and swearing and, oh man, woke is back. They won't go away. We're going to talk about that with the WNBA stuff. Before we do, my friends, we got a great sponsor for you. It is keat.io. Hey, check this out. Here's an uncomfortable question for you guys. Why do you give your messaging app all of your private information?

Does it really need it? Honestly, if you're just messaging somebody else, it doesn't. but username is fine, right? Most of us have already accepted that tech companies collect enormous amounts of information, what we're clicking, where we're going, what we buy, who we interact with. That information is valuable

because your attention is valuable. And the worst thing about it is, now surveillance pricing is everywhere. So if they know what you're talking about, when you look things up, they'll be more expensive. So you've got to keep that stuff private. Keat takes a radically different approach.

It's a free messaging, file sharing, and video calling at built peer-to-peer. There's no centralized company database holding your conversations, no metadata tracking, no phone number or email required. Your messages are end-to-end encrypted and move between the people in the conversation. Your private life shouldn't be another crop in someone else's data form. Visit keet.io-timcast-I-R-L. That's k-eet.com.com.com. Download it for free. Invite somebody trust, start a conversation.

No phone number, no email required, no trackers, no metadata collection. It's end-to-end encrypted. no centralized company database, peer-to-peer communication, and it's free on iOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, and Linux. I'm going to say it one more time. It is free. Check it out, my friends. It's great.

Don't forget to join us at timcast.com for the uncensored Discord call-in portion of the show. Now, if you're a member of Rumble Premium, you can watch the uncensored portion at 10 p.m. But if you're a Discord member, you can actually call in. So sign up now. We want you guys to call in. Don't forget to also smash that like button. share the show with everyone you know joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else

is Nick Fridus. Hey, thank you very much for having me, Tim. Ready to be back? Absolutely, who are you? What do you? What do you do? Well, I used to be in the Virginia General Assembly. I am not now. I've actually had to flee with my guns to Tennessee but I'm a host of making the argument and also doing some work over at Blaze TV now. Right on, the boys are hanging out. Yeah, what's going on? Patriots,

tape brown here holding it down. You're right there too. She's trying to hold it down. The Desion from the Carmel Pop when I just had. Phil. on. Look delicious. What's up, everybody? I'm Phil. How you doing? What's up, Bill? I'm Carter, I'm Carter, everyone, and yeah, let's get into it. Here we go from AP News. U.S. set for largest mass visa revocation in history, talking up to 200,000 foreigners, officials say. The Trump admin is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas up to 200,000 foreigners have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the U.S. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would like,

face legal challenge. Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B-1 and B-2 visas issued between 2016 and 226, whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by the AP and two U.S. officials. The action will take in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security. And I'm down. Listen, they applied for business visas and now are claiming they need asylum. That is clearly fraud. So I don't know if you saw what just happened out of Sweden, where they found that something like

70% of the people that had applied for refugee status in Sweden had actually gone back and visited the country that they had sought refugee status from. I'm willing to bet. I'm willing to bet the people that they actually came over on business visas if you actually check their travel records, they've gone back home and visited the country that now going to seek asylum from. Yeah. I mean, I I think that the asylum program and the H1B programs are two of the most abused, probably second only to Social Security, because basically anybody that, you know, can come up with sore knees, you know, attempts to get on Social Security.

So I think that anything the government can do to have deport people that are here in fraudulent cases, that's a good thing. I mean, look, I'm a deport everybody guy, though. I'm going to let you on a secret. I own real estate. Okay, nobody knew this, but I actually own real estate. And the prices are not good right now. buyers are pulling off the market. And so the Democrat strategy with the housing market crisis, I mean, Trump doesn't even want, he's a real estate guy. He doesn't want prices going down, but you can't do anything about it because we don't have enough people.

We don't have enough young people. And so the Democrats tried flooding the country with non-citizens to create fake demand and crunch the supply. Now, what I've heard is people said, the reason of housing is expensive because we have a shortage. This is only technically correct. There's a shortage because the houses are too expensive for the average person, but they exist. So with sending these people out, here's what's going to happen.

Property values are going to start going way, way, way down. There's no young people buying property, and you're getting rid of these foreigners who are demand. They're older. We have to do it. If, you know, I'm even thinking about Nashville because there was big news out of Nashville that the prices are collapsing particularly, even though it's a boom town. Yeah.

Right? There's Oracle's moving, Starbucks is moving. You'd think the price would go up, but they're not. They're going down, and this is good news because it means, That four-bedroom house with a white picket fence and a yard and a half acre for a Gen Z guy and gal to move into and have a family is going to be within their grasp once we start eliminating the artificial demand pumped in here by Democrats so that boomers can have expensive houses. Yeah, well, it's funny because I mean, J.D. Vance was on the stump today in Maine and he like literally said this. He said Trump's deportations are lowering rent prices. And then, you know, of course, all these people start calming through all the different graphs or whatever. But it's like, dude, we're positing a very simple mechanism here, which is, let's do a graph.

Let's just think of a graph. Illegal immigrants goes down. That means houses that illegal immigrants previously lived in goes up, which means housing supply is freed up. Housing stock is freed up. And it kind of goes back to the initial point that many have made, and it's a very salient point, which is that mass deportations literally fix everything. I mean, we're talking about housing. Again, these are houses that are being occupied by people that shouldn't be. in the country. And oftentimes, these are houses, you know, if some people are like, well,

these houses are in undesirable neighborhoods, part of the reason they're so undesirable are because of illegal immigrants, right? So it's like very obvious going on here. It turns out that Haitians eating your cats and dogs actually devalues the property. Yeah, not good for property. Yeah, not good for property values, you know, like gnawing on a cat's leg and throwing them on the grill and whatnot. It's not a good look. You know, the kids get a little nervous over that. So again, this is absolutely correct decision here on revoking these visas because, you know, the visa overstays is really where we're getting burned. You know, when people think about illegal immigration, they're thinking, oh, it's people, you know, just marching across the southern border, like the migrant caravans

who saw under Biden. Well, the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants came in the country legally. They just overstayed their visa. Again, the tourist visa is very common. And then once they try to like turn that visa into an asylum claim or a different visa, they get it jammed up in the courts. These immigration lawyers, unfortunately, are pretty good at their jobs. And it causes a lot of problems. So Trump is going right to the source here of these visa overstays and just saying, no, we're going in and investigating why you're here in the first place, because this is a point that I've made on the show previously, is that for one reason or another, like, the visa requirements are imposed with, like, max scrutiny on Europeans, on Australians, on Canadians. But then when it comes to the third world, it's like they're in an entirely different playing field. Like, they get to skimp on whatever restrictions needed, and they somehow end up in the country.

So, again, I don't think, you know, people are like, all this and then the H-1B that Trump's cracking down on. This is going to cost us so many, you know, bright, bright minds and whatnot. I'm like, those people will find a way in the country. If they're super intelligent and that's the cream that we need to skim, so to speak, trust me, we're not going to have a problem getting them in the country. What we're doing here is not just trimming the fat, but lopping off the fat. Because quite frankly, there's a lot of fat in this country, and it's killing us. So it kind of goes back to that initial point.

Mass deportations literally fix everything. Well, as soon as, when we had the heart cellaract, there's this, the myth is, we're a nation of immigrants. Okay. Yes and no. First of all, we were a nation initially of settlers. Conquerors. Yeah.

I have no problem with it. Settlers, conquerors, sure. But it was primarily English Protestants, right? And then if you look at immigration that took place for about the first 100 years of our country's history, it was predominantly from Europe. So it was from countries that actually had some sort of shared traditions, history, et cetera. And then in 1920, even that immigration was too much for Americans. They felt like there had been an influx. And it was like, look, we need to slow this down so we can actually facilitate assimilation.

We don't want, we don't want ghettos. We want people to come here to become Americans. Yep. And that all of a sudden became racist in the 60s with the Civil Rights Act. And then you have Hart Seller. Heart Seller is the first time you have ever experienced mass importation from the third world into the United States. And it was very much intentional because it also, it didn't just do mass third world

immigration, didn't just open it up and end the preferential treatment for cultures that are similar to our own. It actually allowed for chain migration. Yeah. So now all of a sudden, you don't just get to immigrate to the country because we think that A, you will be a good fit, and B, you actually have the means to contribute. Now, oh, you came over here and you have legal status. You're not even a citizen.

You have legal status. Okay, great. Your mom, your dad, your sister, your brother, your aunt, your uncle, your kids. They now get preferential treatment when it's coming over. And the concept of saying someone is a good fit for the United States, now that's just racist. Yeah. So you can't even put, you can't even, you're no longer allowed to say, look, there are

some cultures that are. similar to ours. And those are the cultures that we should open our borders to first. It's a situation where now if you say, oh, well, they're very different, they come from a very different culture and they have a very different background. Oh, well, now you're racist because, you know, you're a racist. And that means that I don't care. Well, no, yes, yes, 100%. And what's crazy is these same people that are like literally advocating for all of that and so much more. They want to go way beyond the heart seller. They want to have like mandatory diversification if an area is too white. They literally like appeal to the founding fathers all the time. Like I don't know if you

remember this clip a few months ago from John Ossif. I think it was like last month and he was like the founders would be delighted to see our pluralistic democracy. And I'm like, dude, the founding fathers would take a look at our current situation with everything Nick Shirley's exposed, et cetera. And they'd look all that and they'd go, oh my gosh, you guys made a Catholic president? Like they wouldn't even be able to comprehend what's going on. They'd be like, what do you mean an Irish person out of the country? What are you talking about? The first war that the U.S. fought that wasn't against the British was the Barbary War, against the pirates. And that was after Thomas Jefferson famously bought a Quran because he's supposedly

this like, really cosmopolitan kind of guy. And he flipped through it and he's like, we got to wow. This is crazy. He's like, what was the Marines? I got some new lines for your song. Yeah. The line was that when he went to the, the barbary states and said, why are you doing this? We have not aggressed upon you.

And they said, you're infidels. You can do whatever we want. And he was like, then I, I. I am going to raise a Navy and I am going to destroy you. And he did. It was awesome. And that's kind of what Trump's been doing. Bro, can you can't just?

Why are you invading Venezuela? He's like, they're infanto. I just want to, I just want to just, you know, sort of talk on this flex of Jefferson. He's like, I'm going to go back to America. We're going to build a bunch of boats with cannons and we're going to come and blow you up because you, because I can. That's a flex. That's crazy. We got this new idea for, for soldiers.

They're kind of like army men, but they're also like ducks. Great idea, Tom. They're also like dogs. You know, when I see stuff like this. I've never heard of re-described like that in my life. So I was talking to my buddies from where we grew up. And I was mentioned in this last week. There's a video, like there was like a news report for my neighborhood.

And there was like a shooting or something that happened. And this video from the news, it's a normal news video showing the neighborhood. There's cop cars everywhere. And the people who live in the houses are standing outside of their houses looking around. And they're like Indian and Pakistani and Chinese. And you know, I got no. beef, you know what I mean? You live your life. It's just pretty crazy. When I said to my friends, like, you realize that that neighborhood that used to be a bunch of old people, old white people,

and Polish immigrants. It's now, like, it's Latino, Pakistani, and Asian, not really Polish anymore. The Polish people all left. And it's pretty crazy to think how rapidly it changed. But the issue that I bring up in this is, one, how the culture is going to rapidly change. And it is because the restaurants we like are gone. They're going out of business. The type of food is changing. But the old people who lived there died and their kids did not take those houses or they did not have kids. I think really what probably happened is like the kids in my name, they moved. I moved. And so who's going to inherit that and by those by those properties? So I'll just say this. I mean, understand what it means when with no foreigners, those houses would be largely sitting

empty. I don't necessarily think that's completely true though. The house that I grew up and I think my parents bought it for something like $60 or $70,000 back in the days is like $89. or something, probably less than that. I don't know. I don't what price we're like. And today, it's like $400,000. If there were no migrants to take these homes, will they be selling for $100K? 130K maybe? And some young person might be like, hey, I'll actually, I'll actually move to the South Side of Chicago. Without that initial migration, we have to talk about the Hart Cellar, you wouldn't have seen the massive, like, suburban sprawl that we have now. So we're kind of in this weird situation where now we'd be, like, reducing the amount of people to, there'd be less dollars chasing

housing stock, right? But like, if we nip this in the butt early on, we would have never needed these massive sprawling suburbs because people would have been comfortable raising a family in the inner city. Or the fact that when I say inner city, that's like code word for bad, that wasn't a thing until 40 years ago. Like as an American, you need to understand what was taken from you. It's quite literally, we had some of the most beautiful cities on planet Earth. And in our like grandparents' lifetimes, they got completely eviscerated. We're a place like Chicago, you know, you look and it's like, I was making this point on Twitter. You know, the high belts basically tell you like every crime wave or immigration wave that we saw where it's like

they built another highway wave or a highway loop and then another migrant wave came in so then they had to fall back to the next county over and then built another highway loop. To be fair, New York was kind of shot in the 70s. Yeah, I mean, you had, you know, you had some bad cities. And so like, you know, New York, but, you know, prior to the 1960s, again, living in inner city Chicago, you could raise a family there, no problem. Detroit was the second wealthiest city in America. Yeah.

Yeah. And, but then you also look at the, the urban renewal plans that the, the, the, the, Democrats were coming up with back then and the way they intersected cities with, with, with the interstate. And they created a lot of problems with their own urban planning and their, their federal infusion of cash in some of these areas. But yeah, you just see, we also have to, look, inflationary monetary policy has also caused the, the price of housing along every other freaking asset to go up significantly. So I don't think it's, I don't think it's, I don't think it's all an immigration issue. But I do think the immigration issue is one of the most significant things that we can actually affect immediately. Yep. Well, yeah, immigration just takes an existing

problem. Like, for example, California with prop, was it eight in the 70s or Prop 13, which basically froze property taxes? And the people are like, oh, I never had this on my house again, which is up for debate or whatever. And so far as that did create a pinch in the housing market, immigration basically just turbocharges. Whatever pre-existing market condition is leading to a housing pinch, immigration just takes that and sticks their thumb on the wound. Yeah, I mean, just like you said earlier, like, you know, getting rid of the people that are here illegally solves an incredible amount of problems. It will free up people at the ERs. It will lower the cost of housing.

It will provide jobs for people that are supposed to be here for Americans. Just the amount of people that the Biden led in, the Biden administration led in, not even going back prior to that. When Donald Trump came down the elevator in 2015 and announced, it was like, I hadn't, I didn't really have the concept that immigration, we had a lot of a big problem with illegal immigration. It didn't register with me. And then here we are now 10, 11 years later. And it's like, oh, well, now it's clear because of the Biden administration. It was bad before the Biden administration. Well, people also understand that Biden did a lot of, Biden did a lot of tricks within executive orders, within refugee laws and things like that, where he turned.

what had historically always been illegal immigration into legal immigration. And that's, I mean, like Chip Roy and other people have actually got bills that are trying to change this and codify it, so it's not just an executive order battle. But that's the part where you will see these arrogant liberals going, you don't even understand that this was legal immigration. Yeah, because it completely changed the definition of what a refugee was. Well, it's funny too because, like, you know, people used to say, well, I don't care, you know, where you're coming from. As long as you do it legally, they stopped saying that during the White administration because Biden was like, okay, magic wand, they're here legally. And then they were like, oh, it was actually the people or the problem, not their immigration status. Like that's the most ridiculous claim.

It's like, okay, because you got some magical piece of paperwork from a courthouse, now all of a sudden you're like, I don't know, flipping through a pocketbook constitution. And also, I think, you know, the volume matters too. If you were, if we didn't have, you know, 20, 30, 40 million people here that are illegal, then it wouldn't be such an issue. but like if you had like 100,000, 200,000 people that were here illegally nationwide, be like, yeah, we can handle it. But 20, 30 million, you can't. The volume is such a key point there. Jeremy Carl makes this point about, he's talking about when he's interacted with Indian Americans, right? Like the children of Indian immigrants or potentially even first generation Indian immigrants themselves.

And he says like their assimilation level, right, is completely dictated on where they grew up. So he says he'll meet these Indian Americans and they're like American as the next guy. and typically they grew up in Idaho or they grew up in like, I don't know, maybe like South Carolina or something. He says the ones that are like Zoron types, those are the ones that grew up in Los Angeles or New York or Boston,

not because those are liberal cities, but because they were in proximity to other Indians, they were allowed to form like enclaves, right? So like the volume is key because low volume means they're spread out, they're surrounded by Americans steeped in that Americanness and they kind of shake off whatever their home tended to do. Have you all seen that video of the Norwegian guy

who was raised in India? Yeah, that was awesome. Yeah. He's talking like this. He says, they did I was a child. They left me here. And now, you know, and it's, I think he's Danish or something like that. Well, and in the moment, the moment people make the racist claim to, and I'm like, look, I'll tell you what, I will, I will set up the Nick Freitas immigration plan.

Here's how it works. If you're Hassan Piker, we're going to kick you out of the country, and I will gladly trade you with someone that actually likes America. Like, all of the people in Cuba trying to flee communism will switch. The communists in our country for the people trying to escape communism. Yes. He speaks Spanish, but they hate countries. We get polls and Hungarians, and we'll give you all the Hassan Pikers. Yeah.

I mean, I think that's more important than, honestly, I mean, and this maybe this is because I'm Gen X, but I think that's far more important than race. Like, if you love the country, yes. And you believe in the United States, I would prefer you to some guy, some white guy that's like, oh, well, you know, I'm a comment. I got a question. Here's a question for you then, because I talked about this with Jenke Yugar a few years. years ago. He believes that the citizen, the naturally born citizen requirement for president is unconstitutional because if there is a process towards naturalization, then you are, you are supposed to be a full-fledged citizen. My argument is that it is not possible for a person born outside of the United States to

ever be a full-fledged citizen. And there's only one thing you to understand. Well, there's two things. the natural born requirement for presidency and the right of denaturalization that exists under the INA and with the constitution. Meaning, if you're born here, ain't nobody ever kicking you out or stealing, taking away your citizenship. But if you're born anywhere else and come here and live here for 20 years and they find you commit fraud or there's just aifiable reason, they can revoke that. 20 years on and kick you out. But there's an interesting point to be made when we're talking about this issue. Who would you rather have Hassan Piker born in America? Or Dinesh D'Sosa.

Oh, Dinesh D'Souza. He's not born here. He can't run for office. He can't run for office. He can't be president. That's what I mean. Yeah. He can't.

We should fix that. What's that? We should fix that. And I'm not talking about making it so that way into Dinesh, DeNesh, the Soussa's can run for president. I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to be, you shouldn't be allowed to hold any office in the United States. We go. In the federal government at least, if you're not.

Oh, yeah. But the president is Hassan was born here. Yeah. DeNash was not. Hassan hates this country. Yeah. and celebrates Chairman Mao. And Donetia says it loves this country and celebrates America.

Well, so we have a small, I don't know if you guys know this, we have a small cemetery in England that is technically American sovereign territory. Now they granted this territory does for us to maintain. Likewise, we have a similar arrangement with them. There's a cemetery, I think, in South Carolina. So I guess what I'm trying to get at here is we should consider offering the hospital room that Hassan Piker was born in to the Turks as a gift of somebody. This is clearly someone that is of important distinction. Retroactively. And retroactively, this has always been sovereign Turkish.

I'll do a land acknowledgement and everything. We deport them and then immediately... No, no, no, no, no. You are... I'm sorry, Tate. That is just too much. We should give to Somalia. That's an idea.

Somalia's already taken... No, because that sounds good at Minnesota and he'd get free money. Yeah, that's true. Speaking of Minnesota and free money, let's jump to the story from Primetimeer. Trump shares report on ICE with holding records. linked to alleged immigration fraud involving Ilan Omar. Let me just cut through the noise.

Just the news sent a Freedom of Information Act request to ICE related to Congresswoman Ilan Omar's alleged polygamy. Not just that, but that she married her brother. That's the argument. ICE said, quote, ICE has determined the information you requested as being withheld in full pursuant to Title V, USC 552B7A, disclosure of any responsive records at this time could reasonably be expected.

to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ICE told just the news. The exemption itself does not establish Omar committed any wrongdoing or their charges filed against her. Now, the presumption many people have that she is being investigated for immigration fraud by marrying her brother, but I want to stress this. It's possible the enforcement action is related to someone entirely different for which she is tangentially involved, meaning they requested information on some immigration stuff, they've got illegal immigrants who committed fraud or immigrants who committed fraud, and

she pops up in the documents. That's it. Or, I mean, you know, if you want to be hopeful, they're going to denaturalize a deport. Hopefully is the right word. Hopefully is the right word. Nobody deserves to be denaturalized and deported. In order for her to be denaturalized, they have to prove that she attained U.S. citizenship through fraudulent means or that her family did. And I don't think those are the accusations against her. The accusations are that she, after the fact, married her brother to get him citizenship. Now, I will stress, the novel arguments is that if I get a job at a bank legitimately and honestly, but then pass off my ID to my friend because the plan the whole time was to rob the bank, you're going to jail as an accomplice.

In which case, the argument is if she obtained immigration for the purpose of committing fraud, she can be denaturalized as well. So what was interesting is that I, not that I can prove, I believe that her dad was fraudulent when he saw an immigration. because again, the guy was a part of the Somali regime that was, I mean, what does it say, Barr or something like that. I mean, he had legitimately conducted genocide. Nobody debates this.

Her dad had been like a lieutenant colonel in that guy's military. It served in that guy's military for, I think, upwards of 20 years. I don't think there's any way that guy didn't have blood on his hands, which would have completely prevented him from ever becoming a U.S. citizen. He was able to get her over, and then she didn't become a U.S. citizen until I think, like 17, right before she became an adult where she would have had to go through a doctor. process. I thought the way that the immigration law stated was it's not something, you can be denaturalized for more than just defrauding the government with respect to your own.

Of your parents did to naturalization. Yeah. Yeah. It's a, well, I think there's treason and obviously some other things like that where you can be denaturalized. But yeah, if she, if she used her, obviously, citizenship in order to commit immigration fraud, I believe that should be sufficient to be able to take her through denaturalization proceedings. They don't have to do it, but it would be a great idea. It would be a great idea. Because she obviously hates this country. Like I'm just, oh, she's, look, in Minnesota, a lot of these Somalis are just siphoning money

away through fake grants, sending it to Somalia. Yeah, I mean, it would be great to see her get deported because she's a terrible congressperson. She's likely a fraud and all that. But we got to acknowledge the fact. that the person that replaces her is just going to be her again. This is a point. Yeah.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. This actually says there's other limited grounds if you are a member of a communist organization. And that's the Communist Control Act. Gotta go. We got to enforce, we got to enforce the Communist Control Act. They've got it so much of it, though. They haven't gutted all of it.

They haven't gutted all of it. And if you come to the United States, you should not be allowed to become a citizen or get a visa or even a green card if you're hostile to the United States and communists are revolutionary. Get them out. They should make it to get them out. Anyone who comes to this country who's not a citizen has to be filmed on video holding up their right hand and saying, you know, I love this country. It's fantastic. I seek to do it no harm.

And they can put their hand on whatever holy book they want and they have to swear it. I want to piggyback off what Phil was saying there because it's an important point is like, okay, you're rearranging deck. chairs in the Titanic with Elon Omar. Okay, yes, she is despicable, et cetera. But is she uniquely, like, is she uniquely, she's in Congress, so kind of. Is she? But no, but no, but is she an exception to what we would expect to see from her district? Because to Phil's point, there are so many Somalis there. You toss Elon Omar out of there, which we should. I'm not saying, no, let's absolutely, let's step on the gas here. But whoever you replace her with is going to be the exact same. Why? Because they're Somalis. This is the whole country. They're all like that. This is not about

getting a better Congressperson out of that district. This is about setting a precedent that if you do certain things, we will actually enforce our own laws, and that includes a member of... I know. I totally agree. I guess we got to have this constitutional conversation again, because we were talking about before the show on the strength of the Constitution. And the core of the argument is basically not to derail, but the willingness to enforce your own laws. It seems that the... Let me put it like this. Our country is being sold out. to foreigners every single day. Democrat strategy is nobody, you know, I'll put it like this. You know, you can look at modern Democrats as there's not enough kids, so we solve this problem

by just bringing in foreigners, but the Democrats who advocated for abortion and to not have kids. So this is a problem that appears to be to many people intentionally created. They are selling you out. The American descent, the descendants of the Americans, the traditional Americans, a heritage Americans, I'm going to call it. They're not willing to do anything to enforce these laws or stand up. These Gen Z kids who are watching Honduran farmers get free hotels in New York are not doing anything. Well, I think they are within the bounds of what's possible. What is reality?

I mean, if look at which group voted for Trump in the highest proportion, English Americans were number one. English Americans voted for Trump at the highest proportion. If you were going to distill heritage American in a one ethnicity, it would be English Americans. We haven't had much English immigration in the last hundred years. So again, within what is available to them, what is possible in reality, right? Because we don't want them to throw their life away. You know, they, like, have a super base moment and they go to jail for the rest of their lives. Instead, being pragmatic, getting involved in politics, et cetera, or just simply casting a vote,

the heritage Americans are pretty much doing everything that they can. This is why they're dubbed, you know, the last bulwark, et cetera. And to next point, like, I totally agree. I mean, like, insofar as you have to send a message to people that this kind of thing won't be tolerated. What I was getting at is that, like, I think this could potentially be chud bait, where they toss Elon Omar out, and they're like, see, how based is that? Meanwhile, like the main problem here, and I'm not saying, you're not saying this, the main problem with Elon Omar isn't Elon Omar. She is just the sort of the manifestation of the problem, which is the fact that why are Somali is going to, not just America, but the most hostile environment for them. Like, it's like the opposite of Somalia. Is there an American Tory party? Maybe you'd consider the American Tory Party. Yeah, you know, God, King and Country. The Tory Party is on their way out in the UK.

Yeah. Oh, man, that's crazy. We lost the Tories in like the 1820s, I think, 1830s. Thatcher was good. I like Thatcher. We definitely lost it with Major. Boris, the aesthetics were cool, but he sucked. He sucked.

That was the primary. He was kind of like Trump. Isn't that funny? He was like Trump in so far as he was like, he just gaslighted the media all day. But yeah, he was like actually the single worst politician. maybe in Western history on immigration. Oh, yeah. Or not.

Oh, no, like, as bad, like, people don't understand that in the UK, they have had more migration than the last 20 years than the previous thousand. Yeah. That's the number that, like, blows you're listening. Constantine Kiston was talking about this. He goes, they keep saying, like, you're being extreme. It's like, you did an extreme thing. Yeah.

Right? And it's all started under Blair in 97. But if you look at the whole impetus for letting the conservatives back into power with Boris Johnson, it was two things. Get immigration under control. solve Brexit. Like get Brexit done. Well, what? And then, and then he, and then he literally took the immigration thing and like, in spinal tap fashion, turned it up to 11. Yeah, it was like Brexit. Right. Right. Right. We have

just, we have too many Polish immigrants. He's like, let's just do like a million Bengalis. Great call, guys. We'll do more Bengals. It is, it is an attempt at Western, there is an, there are powerful elites in Western countries that want global homogenization. Yeah. Yeah. So the idea is to bring it. a bunch of different people from all the world in the same place and force them to live in this cosmopolitan futuristic utopia, which is not possible to exist, because you take a look at any of the enclaves that have formed since they started doing this, and it's been a disaster. Not to get too esoteric, you know, forgive me, but it quite literally is the Tower of VABble 2.0.

We're trying to recreate what God ordained in our image to then, like, ascend to like some sort of divine being, like in the most esoteric fashion. That is broadly true, is that they think, that post-racialism broadly is like the pinnacle of human civilization. If we can just achieve that, if we can abolish all of that in any way, shape, or form, then we'll finally reach like... But no one actually wants that. Well, no, because then the problem is those same people, because there was, the elites that wanted, like, the Nelson Mandela thing, the main problem they forgot is that Nelson Mandela, who is like the poster boy of post-racialism, himself hated white people. It was like, when you bring in these people, when you start

seating ground to these people, they just say, oh, we have the handgun now? Okay, where's the nearest white guy? Yeah, that's the problem. I think that's the Carl Popper vision of the liberal experiment. It's like, oh, this post-racial hyper-tolerant society where everything is just, it's freaking the Imagine song, right? It's all garbage.

No. It's all garbage. It's not the Imagine song. It's Herbert Mark Hughes, and it's on purpose. You know Mark Keith. So here's the difference. That's not a song, though. Yeah.

Okay. But here's the difference. Here's the difference, right? Marcuse is not interested in this like Ghali Gwilichers tolerant universe. He doesn't care. He's a Marxist. Yes. And what he recognizes is the same thing.

The Grams she recognized is the same thing that Simone de Beauvoir recognized. And that is critical theory, oppressor versus oppressed, use whatever identity structure helps get you into power, period the end. I really want to break this song down. I just really want to break it. So let's start with the beginning. Libtar National Anthem. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, check it out.

And don't be wrong. Like, I love the Beatles, man, but listen to this. Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us, only sky. Imagine all the people living for today. That's literally happening, and it's become a nightmare. People are like, we don't care about fixing infrastructure.

That's, that's tomorrow's me's problem. Yeah. Remember when they serenaded with us as we're like losing our elderly, like, grandparents? Oh, yeah. By the way, imagine, they're probably in hell, actually. It's like, wow, thank. additionally John Lennon when he wrote this song

yeah this was probably all like feasible when everyone was like 130 IQ Anglos because you go back to like 1980 that's what Britain was so yeah John Lennon easy to write that then what about like now

you write that song now and it's like what are you talking Let's look at verse two Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do nothing to kill or die for and no religion too imagine all the people

living life and peace This is like with all with all due respect to John Lennon for, you know, the great music. It's like he never read a book in his life or watched the news one time. Okay. There are places on the earth with disputed borders. Okay.

Let's talk about what it means when there's no countries, right? And we can understand this by looking at places with disputed borders. It's not, let me just say, when no one knows where the rules begin and where the enforcement ends, they're just killing each other all the time. So if that's what you're interested in. And let's just say about the no religion too. I think in the past 30 years with the decline of the Christian moral tradition in the United States, we have come to see a lot of disgusting degenerate things that are bad for humanity's survival and existence.

The abuse of children, the grooming, the weird books we've seen, these things destroy the minds of children and make them, let's just let's say afflicted adults. So I think the idea is not real. And also, Lord have mercy. It's, and I'm not going to accuse on London of not having theological understanding, but no religion. The problem with this, and the problem I have with a lot of liberals, they talk about religion, is they don't understand that moral philosophies underpin many religions, and they have what I would call, like, a holographic religion. There is no core, like to the atheists. And look, if you're an atheist, I think you're wrong, but that's okay.

You're allowed. What I'm saying is you still have a moral framework. and there isn't a faith core base to it, but you still have a very similar, you have a moral framework, which is going to be similar or different or whatever. You're not getting rid of ideological frameworks and moral frameworks. So it's just no religion. Okay, then communists run around mass incurring people and fascists due to, and there is no moral framework underpinning what a person can or cannot do or will or will not do. Yeah, with John Lennon, we're, Strom Thurman, very widely maligned in American society, probably for some good reasons. One thing, he's,

was absolutely right on was he was trying to get John London deported for like four years. Can we just read verse three? Yeah. I have a very important question. Imagine no possessions. Just out of curious side. Did the Beatles own the copyright on this? Oh, they do. And they possess it. Let's talk about all the things they owned and did not give away. And as they are still very wealthy. I wonder if you can, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. Imagine all people sharing all the world. Okay, I just want to say this. If you change the lyrics, maybe, maybe, you know what I'll do? I'm going to change your right now. I'm going to fix it. I'm going to say this. You need possessions because like your ability to grow food for your family is your possessions. You have hunger because you're alive.

Like it's kind of a while I'm assuming saying hunger for other things, but that is still rooted in the human experience of trying to make your life better. Okay. A brotherhood of man, imagine people sharing all the world. It's just not possible. Someone has to do labor for the food that you ate John Lennon. Well, I remember when John actually took all of these beliefs and put him in practice in a commune. Oh, wait, no, he never did that because they never do that. And to the extent that you actually have people that are intellectually honest and try,

it generally fails after two to three years. Like Bernie Sanders getting kicked out of the commune because it turns out he's a lazy douche. Like, this stuff flies in the face of human nature. And that's why it always fails, which is why they try so hard to reinvent human nature. Yes. It's why they are always totalitarians because the only way you can control things to the degree that they want is if you have that kind of control over society. It's it's why they assert that people are blank slates. Yes. Because then you can be remade in whatever image they believe. They ignore the fact that people have inclinations, people have certain different temperaments,

different people are different. And that's a good thing because that means there are a small few people, myself not included, don't think that I'm trying to, you know, to my own home, but a small few people that really, really excel and they drag the rest of us morons up with them. If you, if you have a system which encourages it. Yes. Yes. Because again, under communist system, you will have a small degree of people that really flourish in that system. Yes. It'll be the best ones that know how to use political power to punish and reward. Yeah. But if you create, if you create this sort of economic system or social system where you are rewarded for, let's say, I don't know, doing a really effective and efficient job of using scarce resources in a order

to provide the goods and services which make everyone's lives better. Great, in that system, even if you're a greedy SOB, but the only way that you can actually satisfy your greed is by providing goods and services that other people have to voluntarily exchange with you on, that's a positive incentive structure. It is actually pretty good. I asked to grab. rock to fix it. It said, here's the song, imagine a strong nation. It's easy if you try. Borders that protect us are flag against the sky. Imagine all the people living free and true. Verse two is, imagine sovereign countries. It isn't hard to do. A homeland worth defending in faith to see us through. Imagine all Americans standing proud and free. You may say I'm a German

around that. Not the only one. Same course. And this land. Oh, this is amazing. The last line of the chorus is and the land will stand as one. First three is imagine hard work rewarded. I wonder if you can

know, forced redistribution just liberty for man. Imagine all the people keeping what they earn. Wait, was that grok? Yeah,

yeah. That last one was to smack in the face. John Lennon, if he never took LSD. That's John Lennon if he ever was, if he stayed alive, if he wasn't murdered

and he was able to watch a Prager U video, that would be John Lennon having never met Pioco, oh no. If you had asked Chad GP

that it would have been like imagine doing exactly what chat gp t no no no i'm willing to bet it'll say i can't do that because of copyright and i bet let's let's actually do this i'm gonna ask chat gptt it might do it yeah chat was like i agree great great point tim this is awesome i should be your religion so true a great point who was that again john smart guy is he did he wrote us they wrote a song i'm not sure if it was lennon or the beetles but as a small uh silver lining to overall John Lennem. Not that I'm a big Beatles fan, but he wrote a small, he wrote a song where he was actually calling out Mao Zedong

because the, you know, the Great League Forward and stuff happened before their time. And that stuff wasn't widely known, but it had become, it was starting to make its way through. And he actually said, you know, he was like, if you're, if you're, I forget what the lyric was, but it was something like, but if you're, if you want to be like Mao, then, you know, leave me out of it or something like that. Part of the reason he hated Mao so much is because he was counter-settling everything Nixon did. And at the time, Nixon was, like, pro, like, opening China's markets.

So that's one of the main reasons. Nothing to do with the deaths. I mean, maybe. I would pause at John Lennon's greatest moment. There's not many of these is when he wrote a woman called a song called Woman is the N-word of the world. JGPT actually did a better job in my memory. Really? Imagine faith still guides us.

It's easy if you try. Our father stand behind us, old glory in the sky. Imagine all the people living by their creed. Verse two is, imagine loving country. It isn't hard to do. Something to stand and fight for and faith to guide us too.

Imagine all the people living proud and free. You may say I'm old-fashioned, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll stand with us and our nation will stay strong. Imagine homes and families. I wonder if you can with father, sons, and daughters

all doing what they can. Imagine all the people keeping freedom strong. That was not bad, but I still think the last line in Grock kind of. Grock kind of cooked there. Claude literally was just like, here you go, and it just made it the opposite. Oh, really? So it says, remember there's a heaven.

It's plain if you would look. A held beneath us. This song sucks. A judgment past the sky. Remember all the fathers kneeling in the frost? They just literally like, we're just going to, that sucked. I'm asking it to rewrite it if John Lennon was a chud. A little too on those.

You may say I'm a chud, but I'm not the only one. Now make it rewrite it if it was a griper. Oh God. Let's see if it works. Because then I did but what if he was an in-cell, Chud?

This is where he started to get some magic. Imagine no hypergamy. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to simp for and no feminism too. Imagine all the people lifting in peace.

You may say I'm a Chud. I'm not the only one and some people will join us and all the Chads will be gone. Now that's a song. Now that's the song, the fat chud version. I like that. I would have respected it more if it actually took the real definition of Chud

and just talked about eating people and living in the sewers. Cannibalistic humanoid underground. Imagine no orbiting. I wonder if you can. No need for blue pill cope, just a brotherhood of man. This is fantastic. This is great. You see John Lennon if he was based.

John Lennon, if he wasn't K. Yeah, this is a good. Yeah, that's a remix. Oh, man. I mean, it's proving that AI actually can be used. I told Grog to say, write it as though a red-pilled Chad wrote it. Chat, no, I don't want to hear that crap. Dude, specifically calling out hypergamy is just, that's what we need.

That's the, that's the, oh, immigration, oh, oh, hypergamy is the big issue. Oh, there's so many. I disagree. I disagree. Mass medication and contraception. Disagree, hypergamy. Like, imagine what would be like, though, if there was no birth control. It'd be babies everywhere.

They'd be running around. They'd be running towards peanuts and you'd be chasing after them trying to get them not to eat it because they could choke on it, you know? It'd be over. It'd be over. John Lennon. John Lennon, if you can hear me, please, John Lennon, please. Save me, John Lennon. He's looking up at you.

I got to be honest, like, it made it serious. This is not funny. My version's not funny. It's just like imagine a strong country, no bowing before the crowds. I mean, that's still good. Yeah, I know, but it's like if I said Red Pill Jad, it should have been funnier, like, hypergamy or something. Yeah. Imagine all the people going their own way.

You may say I'm a chud, but I'm not the only one. All right, I said, now as if an in-cell wrote it says, I can make the narrator an exaggerated terminally online in-cell character, bitter self-pitying resentful of dating apps and chads. So, wait, wait, wait, this is funny. It said I can make them resentful of chads, but not women as a group. What? So it literally rags on chats.

Oh, of course. I got to say, I have never, I have never been more proud of the, uh, the Gen Z and the millennials that are breaking off their girlfriends and engagements now based off of how they responded to I would. I absolutely would. Oh, dude. If you're, if you're a girlfriend or your fiancee is like, yeah, I'm, I'm sympathetic to the woman that strangled all three of her kids.

Breaking up with her is definitely an appropriate way. That is, that is 100%. Imagine being handsome. It isn't hard for Chad. Nothing but dates on Friday while I'm alone and mad. That's just disgusting. There was a, something came up. It was like this Reddit chat that I saw.

I saw it on YouTube. And it was a woman who was like the, everything you would expect of like an HR, liberal woke HR rep. And she was talking about, she was noticing something that had happened differently with the men in her life that she had an experience over the last five years. and it was all of them were now just ignoring her. Every time she would try to engage with a, you know, every time she would try to educate them on the proper way to, you know.

She goes, it used to be that we'd get in fights. Like I'd get in fight with the uncle at Thanksgiving or whatnot. Now they literally just look at me like, okay, cool. And then they just go on. It was all of a sudden it's this weaponized indifference. And how do I deal with this weaponized indifference? They won't talk to me. And I'm like, yeah, that's, I got bad news.

That's because our tribe technically doesn't need your tribe. in order to secure like our rights. I think one of the biggest things that a lot of, and first of all I'll say this, there's a lot of conservative women that are every bit as pissed with Lindsay Clancy. In my feed, the conservative women is like, this is bizarre and crazy.

This is bizarre and crazy. But actually the real conservative women aren't on the internet. Well, I don't think... Real conservative women, like who? I don't think that, I honestly don't think that women understand what a catalyst moment this is.

There's been a lot of conditions set for young men to just be fed up. this is the one where I don't think they realize you could look back in 20 years and be like oh this is where we lost the right to vote because the bottom line is as women become more tribal men are becoming more tribal and bad news

our tribe doesn't need you to secure our rights you need us to help you secure yours and people are like oh Nick Frater's is advocating no I'm not advocating it I'm telling you you get tribal to this degree Yeah. Where not only can you kill our kids in the womb through all nine months of pregnancy, but now you can strangle them on the outside and you're the one that gets sympathy and the husband is to blame? Mm-hmm.

That's where you move men into the screw you phase of the exercise. Yeah, literally, Nick Fratus is like an evil chud because he says you can't slime out your family. Right. Ridiculous. I'm one of those old-school Christian traditionalists. Have you guys ever watched the abolitionist rising stuff? Have you ever seen this guys? Yeah.

I recommend it. It's really, really good. It's amazing. And my actual favorite ones are when he has real conversations. Yeah. When the people are just screaming at him, I'm like, I know. Like, I've been there too. And it's like you can't stop watching because he's so calm, like these guys.

And the funniest thing about him, the reason why I love him so much. Well, the good conversations are good conversations, but the funny ones are when, like, women will yell. Do you have a uterus? And then when the woman is with them, they just drop it and they yell anyway. Yeah. Like it never really matter if the question was about a uterus. No. Just want to yell.

Yes. Yeah. Yell and throw ice. We've been saying this for a while. I think in the woods. I think what everyone's missing is that all we need to do as a society is create decoy things to be mad about that don't affect the state of like, you know, political affairs. That was the point of like keeping up with the housewives or whatever was like preoccupy the

foids while the men like build rockets and then now they're like, we want to like get involved in politics. Who is the comedian? Oh, man, I can't remember. I just blinked on his name, but he got up there. He's like, hey, I'm just saying with the family, you guys, your timing was excellent. It's like for centuries, men were out there when it was like 80% of the occupations for backbreaking labor. Like, oh, go kill that dinosaur. You're so strong and brave.

I'm going to go pick berries. As soon as we got air conditioning, it's like, I want equal rights. That's a good point. Well, I mean, they still don't want equal rights because there are no women that are line men. They're not working on oil rigs. You know, there's like one out of every thousand people working on up. This is an important point I like to bring up is that women always complain about the glass ceiling, but they never talk about the glass floor.

No. And that is that there are guys who are unskilled and have to, I'll put it very simply. If you're a young man in this country and you're looking for work, you're going to be told to shovel crap. They're going to say, and use your hands. And if you're a young woman, they're going to say, how would you like to make $100 every few hours handing sodas to people at a restaurant? Yeah.

Easy, low-skilled jobs that pay really well. But then guys, I'll tell you, you know, I think one of the problems is how feminism becomes emergent. So you're a young man, life is pretty bad, right? You have no skills, you have low societal value, and you have to learn and earn your skills. And if you don't, and you become frail and stupid, you're just worthless to people. So guys grow up in a muck where it's hard to get work, the work you get sucks, you get paid very little. As time goes on and you get more skills, many men, Not all, but many men start to, they climb out of the sewers and they make their way up.

Into their mid-20s, they start getting jobs that pay better, and they're like, you know, it's going to be all right. Life's improving as I get better at what I do. And so they work harder and harder, and then their 30s, they're like, you know what? It ain't so bad. Women, on the other hand, they grew up with maximum social value. This is not my personal opinion. This is actually research from like Harvard and Yale and stuff.

And so when they enter the workforce, they get medium-level jobs. They tend to pay more for less work. I'm not saying women don't work hard. I'm saying that, you know, I know young dudes who had to literally shovel manure and they'd get 20 bucks a day. And then, you know, their siblings, the dude's sister worked at a local Italian restaurant and she made 200 bucks working four hours. Because serving paid better and they don't want to hire men for the most part for entry level server jobs typically. So then these women, they're making 200 bucks working a few hours or they're getting hired at small shops while the guys are doing the labor stuff. But as time goes on, their social values are such a decline.

And this is around, I think that the age is around 27 is when the apex, I'm sorry, the inversion happens. Men at around 27, 28 have equal social value to women, but women have started to decline when men are ascendant. So now these women are starting to say things like, hey, bad things are starting to happen to me and I don't like it. And men are starting to say, hey, life's actually not that bad. What happens then in the early 30s when women are now experiencing.

more hardship because society, and I'm not saying it's right that society treats women this way, but society is with a value in less in their 30s and men more for their skills. The men who are highly tolerant of hardship and don't really care, you know, if you're a guy, you've been in a fight before, you're just like, I'm just, I'm not going to break a sweat over this. You've been there, done that. And so when a woman comes up and she's complaining about feminist issues, the guys just say, yeah, yeah, whatever.

I mean, this is, this is ridiculous. Like, who cares? Like, I have a bigger things to worry about. And so the men start granting more and more to these women who are complaining because the men are just like, these are trivial issues. But eventually a grain of sand becomes a heap. And then you have large groups of angry, affluent white female liberals voting for really awful things. They believe they're oppressed when they're actually privileged and they're angry about it. But guys were just like, you know, I honestly don't care.

I've seen worse. And they're not cognizant of what's actually happening as they continually. open the door for people who don't really have problems to implement policies based on problems that never existed. I think the other problem, and this is, there was a pastor actually that I was just talking to he's in Birmingham, and he said it best. He goes, you know, Nick, part of the problem is men were lied about and women were lied to.

Oh, yeah. Yes. So it's the whole idea, men were told they suck, they're horrible, they're crap, the whole deal, and women were told they're perfect and they're wonderful and they're great. And their only flaws, they don't believe in themselves enough, right? Like, that was it. And the problem is, is you could not have found a more pernicious way to lie to both men and women. Because if your goal is to, like, destroy the family or your goal is just whatever your goal is,

that was the best way to do it because it creates the most resentment and animosity between both sides. But I do have to wonder if it's really a bad thing in the long run, because while there are bad things happening from it, the strong will survive. The hard times make strong men. And what we end up seeing is, in fact, population is declining, but only those who are really trying to succeed. And I know a lot of people are going to say, no, no, Tim, there's a lot of accidental babies. Trust me, with the way the liberals abort, accidental babies are becoming something of the past. And the people who are successfully reproducing. So those who believe in family, want family.

Think about what that results in in a couple generations. The dominant culture in this country will be traditionalist Christian. If you look at when they polled young men and young women between 18 and 29 who voted for Trump and who voted for Harris, the number one goal of young men who voted for Donald Trump was to have a family. Out of 13 measures of success, that was their number one. It was six for women that voted for Trump. It was 10 for men that voted for Harris. It was 12 out of 13.

And the only reason it wasn't 13th is because the 13th was to be rich and famous. It was like everyone kind of low-key understood, well, I can't answer that. that would make you know and so when you look at that and then you look at the the birth rate among liberal women is point three eight that's that's unsustainable and so if the left can't import a population or and this is the big problem that I get on to conservatives about like if you hand your kids over to the left for their education then you cannot be surprised when your values they can transfer to I I mean this as I remember when I was a kid going to school I despised it I had very few good teachers, a couple that I can shout out that were very good. And most of them were just

apathetic, nasty, and it was an awful experience. And, you know, Michael Malas said, public schooling is one of the only places outside of prison where, or juvie, where children experience violence. And, but it's, I mean, it's like a known thing like a school yard fight. And I'm thinking about how humans used to raise their kids on the farm together. The kids would be educated by mom for a little bit. Sometimes they're little local, little local schoolhouses. And the parents would do teaching, but you grew up on the farm, you learn from mom and dad. If you were the daughter, you learn from mom, you're the son, you learned from dad. And you grew up. So it's fascinating to me when I hear this stuff about how like, oh, you know, kids rebel. Like I have

people say to me like, your kid's going to rebel against you and they're going to listen to hip hop and weird stuff. I'm like, no, they're not. Like, it's not going to happen. And, you know, I got into an argument with the guy. I won't drag him by name, but he was talking about how his kids all did this. And I said, yes, because you gave your kids away to the state. You gave your children at five years old to institutionalized learning facilities run by communists. And then you were surprised a few years later was like, my kids are rebelling against me. How come that didn't happen in, you know, the 1700s? Certainly there was instances where kids would be rebellious against their parents,

but blood was always thicker than water. And people stood by their families and their communities to a greater extent. So I, I, we homeschooled all three of our kids. They're now 23, 20 and 18. And whenever people ask me about homeschooling, because you always get the quote, what about socialization? What about this? What about that?

I, there's one thing I like to lead in with. I'm like, teenagers were the easiest. And I'm like, what? I'm like, yeah, teenage years were the easiest. Like, why? Because they should be. When your kid's an infant, they can't do anything for themselves. That's hard. When they're a toddler, they're constantly trying to kill themselves.

That's hard. And then they get into be teenagers and what happens. Now I can have rational conversations with them. And oh, by the way, they see mom and dad as an educator. Why? Because I've never stopped being an educator from the time they were little to the the time they're now. Now, does that mean I was the only educator in their life? No, there was other educators. There was other people that contributed to their learning and knowledge and wisdom.

But I never sent them to a place where all of a sudden, in their minds, they're thinking, this government expert is the one that teaches me and mom and dad just provide food, clothing, and shelter. So therefore, when the teacher tells me something that contradicts with mom and dad, I go with the teacher because they're the expert, right? I just want to point something out. You remember the show Rugrats? Yes. Just in the context of saying, toddlers are trying to kill themselves. Tommy had a screwdriver under his pillow hidden so that he could pop the latch on the, on the, like the play place.

And I'm just, I'm just thinking to myself, like, first of all, the things that poor child would carry around that screwdriver. But let's just imagine he doesn't kill himself with a screwdriver. He pops the latch open. The first thing he's going to do is going to waddle over to a peanut left on the ground, a half peanut, and he's going to put in his mouth, inhale it, and then just collapse. And the parents are going to be like, how did he get out? Why did he have a screwdriver?

I gotta be honest, if the Rugrats show is in real life, those parents would have those kids taken away from them. They're like breaking out of the house and like walking around the neighborhood. Just Gen X kids, what he does? Yeah, that's true. I mean, my kid is getting into the tie, just about Tyler Faises, he's almost a year.

And every day I'm trying to like take something, some foreign object out of his mouth. They're always trying to blow stuff up with the power outlets. Yeah, crazy. He's like, and he'll stick, try and stick his finger in the, there's a cat five in the house. I'm not sure why they put it in there, but anyways, he's trying to stick his finger in the cat five,

and I'm like, no. And then he looks at me and goes, I'm like, bro. My son, my son, I came back for my second tour, and my son, we hear this crash upstairs. I go running upstairs. And my son had literally been climbing up a dresser. And it was like the one thing we hadn't anchored to the wall, right?

And not only does it fall back on him, but there's like this rocking chair, so the back of his head hits wood there. his head splits over spinal fluid coming out I'm rushing over the hospital this is bad for like three days we're not sure if he's going to make it and then by like day four or five he's good he's good

and he's through the thick of it and we're all just so we're in the hospital for a couple weeks or whatnot or whatever it was and then we come home and by this time we've got everything anchored right we come home he starts to climb something I'm like what are you doing and this kid looks at me and goes what I'm like

How old was he when that happened? Oh, he was like three. It was like three. Because if he did that again, you just got to bill him for that. Yeah. You know what, dude? You know what, like talking about, like, the birthright of women and stuff, part of me is just there is a visceral anger that I have towards the political interests

that have convinced women not to have children. Yeah. Because, I mean, like, any... The thing, like, what these years are... young men miss out on because they were convinced not to have kids is like ripping one of the greatest experiences of life away from them and tricking them into thinking it was the right thing to do as if i'm going to be honest as if being a 35 year old woman partying at the club and getting drunk is in any way near the joy of having a child no well there there was um some some

some gal posted this out i can't remember name but she goes you know they told us that we could wait they told us that kids could wait and then sold it back to us at 25 000 dollars a Oh man, it's like, dang. And it's true. But again, none of this has to be. So like my youngest daughter, my youngest daughter, she was growing up, this is another thing I love about homeschools. When she got into middle school and high school,

we're not talking about like the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. We're like, hey, you probably need to be thinking about what do you want to do with your life and what sort of things you want to advocate. And she goes, she's going through and she's like, you know, I think I really want to be a veterinarian. We're like, okay, this is a difficult field. field. There's very few universities. You got to work really hard. You need straight A's. There is no, I got to be here. You need straight A's. You need to do internships. And so we're going through this whole process of doing it. And she gets into her better sophomore year of high school. And she comes in Wendy and she goes, Dad, I've done the math on the veterinary thing. She goes, I think I'm going to go to vet tech school, which is like a two year associate's degree. I said, okay, well, I mean, why? I mean, don't back out because it's hard. Why do you not want to do this? She goes, well, she goes, it's going to cost me about $250,000 probably. It's going to be at least, at least minimum. six years of school, that means I get out. I'm around 24, 24, 25.

She goes, then I really got to be in practice because I got to be making money because I got to pay off $250,000 in student loans and all this other stuff. And she goes, when am I really raising my kids? She goes, so if I do vet tech, I can now get into the field. I can do the things that I love. I can be a wife and mother. I can actually have kids in my early mid-20s, which is when I want to have them. I can homeschool.

I can do all these other things. And then, oh, by the way, I can still work in this field and I can still be entrepreneurial and if I want to become a veterinarian later, I can, I can't have, it's going to be a lot more difficult to have kids later than it is to become a veterinarian later. Yeah. And I'm like, that all makes sense to me. And the thing is, is that if she were in a public school, I promise you, teachers, counselors, everyone would be lining her up to be like, no, no, no, no, no, don't prioritize being a wife and mother. You need to prioritize this. And people will tell me that that's hyperbolic.

Simone, back to Simone de Beauvoir, was in a debate. Prominent feminist in the 70s was in a debate. And she actually said, women should not be allowed to be wives and mothers because if we allowed that to be an option, too many of them would choose it and would disrupt the revolution. Yep. And then society ceases to function and humanity ceases to exist. Yes.

You know, and that's a funny thing too. They do argue, have your kids later, freeze your eggs. All of that's nonsense. You know, that story, I'm sure you saw AOC freezing her eggs, right? We did the math on the show, and we did whatever the in vitro success rates, right? So she's, how old is she? She's 37. 37?

Yeah, late 30. She's 37, I think, right? I think she's 37, yeah. Let's double check, AOCA. I think she's 37, right? She's 36. Okay. Okay.

So what's the point of freezing her eggs? Is she going to have a child in two years? Okay, well, then she doesn't need to. Is she going to have a child when she's 42? Okay, well, the success rate there is about 7% or less. It's not going to work. So really, there is no such thing as you can freeze your rags and have it later because the success rate in vitro is single digits at 42 plus. Single digits.

If women have children at the traditional adult age, like early mid-20s, then by the time your kids, like your kids, you would know better than I. So let's, for people out there who don't have kids, at what age do the children still, they still need guidance, but they become largely self-sufficient? Oh, God. When they get into like 11, 12, depending on maturity level, girls mature a little bit faster. Boys are still trying to, like, kill themselves. Right? But no, I don't know if that ever stops. 11, 12, like our kids were cooking dinner and doing laundry and schoolwork and... So now, you know, let's say... Especially when you reward maturity.

Oh, yeah. Let's say woman's 24 years old, you know, maybe a little late traditionally, but around 24 seems to be okay. And so by the time she's 35, or 34, she's, back on track with the career for the most part. Kids are largely self-sufficient. You can sometimes get babysitters, but you've got good kids you raised them. Now you've got 40 plus years for anything you want to do and you had kids.

And if you wait, the risk to the kids is greater and then there's a risk you can't even have kids. Yeah. When, and you're probably going to have fewer. And that's the other thing too. They say the hardest number of kids to have is three, which is how many I have. I'm the oldest of nine.

Woo! The, which I know is a real slacker. Real disappointment. my Catholic father. But yeah, it's one of those things. The more kids you have, the more they start to help one another and, you know, contribute and do all these things. And so you really become what a family unit is supposed to be.

And family, there's a guy named Jeremy Pryor. He has this thing he does called family teams. And one of the big things he talks about is the Western concept of the family doesn't make a great deal of sense because it really is kind of a temporary structure. You find a girl, you get married, you have kids, you raise a really teen, you kick him out, And when you have the kids, your entire life is the kids. It's 14 soccer practices and ballet recitals and everything else. The marriage doesn't mean anything anymore.

It's all about getting the kids in a good school. Why? So they can become gay race communist and you can grab your friends. So that's what it is. And then by that time, you've fallen out of love with your wife and you guys don't relate anymore because your whole life revolved around the kids and then you golf and whatever. She drinks wine with her friends and complains about you.

And he was saying, or imagine a world where, you know, on Sunday dinner, great-grandpas and great-grandmas at the end of the table and little Billy and little Susie are at this side of the table and you are watching four generations sit there and have a conversation knowing what the roles they play through each generation looks like and as he's talking about it I'm like man I want that he goes yeah every man does because men like to focus on building things of permanence do you remember when Chelsea Handler made that video that was super viral

and she was like I wake up in the morning I do drugs I myself and then I'm super happy I go back to bed wake up But a bunch of conservatives came out and they said, they insulted her. Ben Shapiro said, that woman is miserable. She is absolutely miserable. And like she responded, I didn't say that. I made a video where I said, I think Chelsea Handler is probably happier than a pig in-ish. I mean, she wakes up.

She's rich. She does whatever she wants. She just, I'll tell you this, though. You know, she can go out and she can buy whatever she wants now. She can get a nice limo. She can fly anywhere in the world. She's going to be 77 years old. She's going to be in the hospital.

In this white room, the doctor's going to walk in and say, Ms. Sandler, I'm sorry, but it's terminal. Is there someone you'd like me to call? And she's going to go, no, and he's going to say, well, press the button if you need us. And then she's going to sit there as she slowly dies staring at the wall. Or if she had a family, she could be in the hospital when the doctor comes in with a chart and her children and grandchildren are all there, crying, scared. And she smiles and says, it's okay, everybody.

I know that you'll carry on without me, and I lived my life the best I could, and all I needed was you, and then they're going to hug her and say goodbye, Grandma. And then as she passes on with a smile on her face, it's still very sad. Maybe she's sick. Maybe it's unpleasant. But she knows that as she leaves, everything she built is standing there before her to carry on her legacy. So, you know, I saw that story, and I was like, she's happy now. Drugs make you happy. But I could not imagine a worse hell to. impose on someone, then sitting in a hospital. There's a, I can remember what the story was from. It might have been like Donnie Darko, where he talks about how his dog, I think it was Danny Darko, one day went missing and they couldn't find it.

He went, yeah, I think pretty sure it's nine darko. And then they found the dog had went under the porch to die alone. And it's like, this is what people do. And I've always just thought that is like, that is the most extreme torture I could think of. Yeah. sitting there fading out, no one cares about you. You've left nothing behind. Just congratulations.

You worked real hard, I suppose, and you made some people laugh. But by the time she's nearing the Great Beyond, no one's going to remember who she is. Well, did you ever see that interview Jordan Peterson was doing with a, the gal, she said she was 38? And she goes, well, what do you say to me? Like, I'm single, and I almost feel a little bit blessed. because I'm 38 and I don't have to deal with all the things that I see my friends struggling with, with kids and all these other things. And Jordan Peterson was just in typical Jordan Peterson form very nice.

He goes, well, he goes, you know, you've had a very filling career. He goes, I've also had a feeling an interesting career. And he goes, and that, I'm sure that it's something that brings you a lot of joy and meaning. He goes, but I have found that the older I get, the more family relationships mean to me. And he talks about, and he basically talked about something very similar to you. And I think about this now as a man who is probably relatively soon going to be a grandfather. And I now get to go, because when you have kids, you're, I mean, you were just running around trying to make everything work and the trains all run on time and your kids are fine and the whole deal. And so there's stuff that you miss.

You get to see a lot of stuff. There's stuff that you miss. And somebody once told me like, oh, Nick, being a grandparent's great because you get to watch your kids grow up a second time. but this time you've actually got the time to really explain. Yeah, now you're chilling. And I was thinking about the first, when I came home from Iraq in 2006, and I took my kids to Disneyland for the first time.

And I'm watching my oldest daughter, my son was really, really young, so he doesn't even remember. But my oldest daughter, she had watched the Disney movies and the whole deal. And when she, we watched, you know, Mickey defeat the dragon and all the fire comes in. And for all, for my little girl, I'm watching, everything is real. That's a real dragon. That is really Mickey.

And Mickey is really saving her from that dragon. And the next day, she is just, she sees Mickey. And it's like, you saved me. Like she, you were just watching this most wholesome experience as she's getting to see all of this. And I'm getting to see that. I'm the observer to it. And it's like, man, that's an incredible experience. I mean, here I am like 20 years later saying, man, there was this one time at Disneyland.

You know, I have a handful of friends. They're all middle-aged and they're single with no kids. And a couple of my buddies are like, oh, I'm just feeling down, you know, like, I don't know. I'm bored. I don't know what I'm doing. And like I've been depressed. And I said, yeah, it's because you're middle-aged and you've got no family and no kids. And I put it like this.

You know, when I was a young man, I don't know. I wanted to see everything. And so I got jobs where I traveled around the world and I went to various countries and I went on crazy adventures and I witnessed history in some circumstances. All of that was so amazing. And then into my early 30s, you know, we're starting all this business and everything's exciting and noon. We're goofing off. And this is really the peak of like, I have done it all. You know, I built a skate park.

And then it's boring, you know. I don't know how many more. It's nice to go to countries that I want to go to. It would be nice to go to Barcelona. again and have some nice squid croquettes and you know whatever it may be but i've done those things and now uh you know i'm i'm an i'm an older dad i mean i just had a kid recently so i recommend people have their kids younger younger than i did but when when people ask me questions about do you want to go to this country it's more so what do i want to do for my daughter yeah and

uh i'm having more fun with that it's it's it's you know i kind of feel like the the it's it's When you're younger, everything's more vibrantly colored and everything tastes sweeter. And as you get older, it's like, I got to be honest, it's my 12,000 pizza. I mean, I got to ask, it's probably more than that. I'd imagine we've eaten substantially more pizza than that. At a certain point, you're like, yeah, pizza's good. Yeah. But when you, you know, give ice cream to your kid for the very first time, it's like having ice cream for the first time all over again.

Yeah. When, you know, I don't want to get too personal with my family stuff or the fun stuff we do because I'll keep that stuff private. But, you know, the videos where they give the kid the lemon and, you know. thing ever, man. Yeah, it's the most mundane thing in the world to me to bite on a lemon. I don't care. But when you're doing it with your kid for the first time, it's like doing it all over again. But so I say this to the people who haven't started their families, I get worried because I think, you know, these middle-aged guys that, and they don't want to have kids. Don't get me wrong. It's not like they're not trying. Yeah, yeah. It's really difficult in the modern society and

culture. But I'm like, I think the reason why you guys are feeling listless, bored, depressed is because the human body is built for at this point, you are expecting to be a grandparent and you haven't even had your first kid yet. So you're largely bored with all the stuff you've done. You've been to the bar now for the 8,000th time. You've pulled a slot lever for the 50th thousandth time. You've had your 50th chicken wing. Normally for human beings, you would have raised kids and now you'd be excited to see the next generation, your grandkids and your mid-40s. It's wild to think. You'd be in your mid-40s. You'd be a grandparent. I was married at 19.

I will probably, I'll be a grandparent in my 40s. I'm very confident of that. And someone asked you like, you know, what's your next life goal? I said, I want to climb trees with my great-grandchildren. Oh, man. That's my goal. I want to climb trees with my great-grandchildren. Well, if you think about, it was not out of the question for a 20-year-old woman to have a child 100, 200 years ago.

And so, so mom is now 40. daughter is 20 had her first kid so grandma's 40 then 20 years go by now great grandma's 60 you know mom is 40 daughter is 20 had her first kid great grandma's 80

they're all hanging out in the same house having dinner together and she grew up with great grandma yeah and now we just delay it longer and longer for a variety reasons I do I do think the economic crisis you know 2008 played a massive role in this for me I mean I was sleeping on floors what was I going to do you know yeah but

but I think the biggest I think the biggest crisis is the men have been lied about, women have been lied to, because you look at poor countries, they have a ton of kids. Yeah. Right? So I think the economics factors into it. I think the expectations associated with the sort of life you have to provide. But there's something to be, I'll put it this way.

In America, we talk a lot about our freedoms. And freedoms are great. I want freedoms. I want to live in a free country. But the things that give me the most meaning in my life are my responsibilities. That's something that is super important. That's one of the things that I really, really don't like about the Libertarian Party is they talk about liberty.

they never talk about the corresponding responsibility because every liberty that you have, all freedoms that you enjoy come with a responsibility. And people don't talk about responsibility enough. We live in a society that wants to avoid responsibility as much as possible. I think that's true, but the thing that I specifically mean here, because 100% agree with that. I've, my first career, my first career at a high school, afforded me the opportunity to know what it's like to think you're about to die. And in that moment, I was not thinking about my freedoms. I'm thinking about my wife.

I'm thinking about my kids. I'm thinking about all the things that essentially take away my freedom, but in the best way possible. Because I have responsibilities to them, but they give me a sense. That in my faith gives me a sense of identity, purpose, and meaning that cannot be replaced with anything else. Let's jump to news. We've got this from ABC 7. Oh, man. leftist streamer Hassan Piker mocks Charlie Kirk during a live show.

This video is absolutely insane to watch. There is evil. That's all I can say. Let's play the video here. Hassan, excuse me. What theater is that? So you can see, he also posted Carried the Flame tonight. And he's wearing a communist uniform suit.

These people are overt evil. overt evil. Lauren Chen says, Hassan met Charlie many times. I was on a panel with them at Politicon. They were fire and stage, but jovial and amicable of each other once it was done. Charlie would have mourned Hassan had he been shot. Hassan, on the other hand, chooses to mock. I don't think mockers, I said the right word.

I would say he's celebrating Charlie's death. Yeah. He's on stage singing a song to deride the life of Charlie Kirk while everyone cheers for it. I think that is celebrating in the death of Charlie Kirk. No, it did. I remember I told somebody once Charlie getting murdered didn't change everything for me watching the left react for it

that's what changed everything for me and that's where I first realized like okay you guys are not my fellow countrymen you are my enemies you are my enemies yep and that's that's what shifted the speaker of the house in Virginia and I had a bit of an online fight about it and it was like well that can't be true

what do you mean show me how it's not true show me how it's not true absolutely can be true. Yes. And it is. And it is. The people that are that are talking about, you know, violent revolution, which Hassan Piker doesn't well, he actually might have specifically said it at some point on his streams.

He streams a lot. But they're not actually talking about, you know, the Fabian socialist where they gain power by being voted in. they want to get their they want to get enough power to protect themselves in order to carry out violence yeah because that's how you would actually get the rest of society to not push back yeah if you can be violent which was happening during the summer of the black lives matter riots they were allowed to be violent and the rest of society couldn't do anything back you looked at it whether or not you know whether whoever it was you look at the proud boy right regardless of what you feel about what regardless of what your opinion is on

the proud boys they were the pushback and the cops always went after them and so then the normal people were like you know people that weren't engaging in in either you know violence or or trying to push back on it they're like well it's clear what'll happen to me if I try to fight back I can't defend myself the guy that someone shot into his house and he shot at someone or something like that in somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. He got a, oh no, I think he brandished a weapon. They were walking by and he brandished a weapon.

And the police came and arrested him for brandishing a weapon at a protest. It's like, you know clearly what will happen to you if you try to respond to violence carried out on you with, you know, equal force. Yeah. The police are going to come and they're going to arrest you. You see this most clearly.

And you want to talk about a country, I think, is still several years ahead of us, but not that far. It's the UK. This is what happens when you have, again, you have a political elite that hates their own culture and country. You have a political elite that is, you have a police force

that is more terrified of being called racist than anything else. And how many times do we got to see the, it's no longer a meme anymore, but how long do we got to see it where, again, you know, you'll have an immigrant trying to chop off somebody's head in the middle of the street and the police

more concerned with the people that tweet about it. Yep. Afterwards. And there's no question that if the same sort of people reached a critical mass in the United States, they would do it because they already do do it do it in the places for which they think they have enough control like Minneapolis. They don't do it in rural Tennessee. They're probably not going to do it in West Virginia.

They're probably not going to do it in Florida. They're probably not going to do it in New Hampshire. You know, but these places are become fewer and fewer where you can actually defend yourself and protect your rights. Well, the other big thing, too, is we have guns. Like in Cortalane, Idaho, I was talking to somebody. I was sharing an experience during the BLM riots. I said, well, you know, in Culpeper, Virginia, I was there.

I didn't participate in the protest. I was there, and I had two things. I had a med bag, and I had my gun. Yeah. Why? Because the moment anybody started breaking down or burning buildings in our town, we weren't going to allow that to happen, and I was not alone. And they're like, you know, funny, you should say that in Cordillane, Idaho.

People line the streets with ARs. They're like, oh, those things, right? They're like, no, no, no, you can protest. You can yell, you can scream. You can be mad all day long and do whatever you want. The moment you start throwing bricks or burning down our city, right? We're not going to put up with that. And guess what?

Nobody burned down in Cortaline. Well, I mean, that's why the written house situation was really, ultimately, the referendum on how we were to sort of operate in this situation. Because Cordillane, Idaho, they had the numbers. But Redenhouse was effectively. I mean, I know there was other people in the area, but he was kind of the ultimate making an example out of him, right? That was the left attempting to make an example out of him because, again, if they were to be able to sort of make whatever he did unacceptable or beyond the pale or whatever, then to be open season on everyone. So, I mean, I kind of look back at that moment and Rittenhouse really was.

That's why everything sort of centered around. That's why the Rittenhouse case became the apex because that was ultimately the referendum on, are we allowed to defend our communities or not? That was quite literally what the debate was about. Thankfully, we won, and that bought us some time, to your point, you look over in the U.K., where the Henry Novak case is the ultimate, I mean, if you set a bunch of right-wingers around and we're like, okay, what would be the most extreme, you know, parody of the UK, it would be that in which, you know, fresh in everyone's, you know, jogger everyone's memory, quite literally was stabbed by a Sikh immigrant or child of immigrants.

And then the immigrant's brother called the police and said he used a racial slur. Henry Novak's on the ground dying and then he stabbed me He stabbed me I'll make you have mate And then they cuffed them I mean quite literally If we all sat around the table

Like you know a year ago And we're like let's parody the UK Let's think about something to prompt Grock We would have come up with that And that literally happened And then everyone in the United States gets all You know there's this tough guy routine Like that's Britain

Dude that's like five 10 years ahead If we're not careful You know and the guns aren't going to save you Because they can take them away at any point It's like it can buy us time And it can help us the local level but this is a battle for power. Like there's only so much you can do as an individual.

It's a battle over the levers here. If we started seeing policing in the United States to the degree that they do in the UK where they arrest people for social media, and nobody pulling a gun in a cop. Exactly. It's all a tough guy routine online. I'm like, we saw this during COVID

and no one did anything. We elected Trump. That bought us some time. But this is a, we're talking about the, you know, we're talking about the direction of our civilization, right? We're not talking about what's happening in my community. We're talking about Western civilization writ large is ultimately what we're battling over right now. You're absolutely correct.

There's no such thing like this idea that revolutions happen because the people have just had enough. No, there's always an elite that leads a revolution, always everywhere, every single time, if it's going to be successful. Correct. Now, I think there's two things in the United States that put us in a much better position than say the UK is at. One is we actually have federalism to some degree. True. Right. Life in Tennessee is very different than life in California. Values are very different in Tennessee than values in California. The other thing is it is the guns. There is an amazing amount of power that it gives you, not because you have to shoot someone, but just because the possibility exists. I mean, it's, and I want to point out, like, I understand what you're saying and you're not wrong. You can look back as recently as, I don't remember what year it was, but it was during the Obama administration, the Bureau from Land Management standoff. That was a really. That was a really. thing. And so, like, I understand, like, it is true that, like, people really laid down for

COVID. But during the Obama administration, a boatloaded dudes got up on a bridge and pointed guns at federal agents. But if we're in a do, but if we're in a doomsday situation, those guys will be exceptions to the norm. I mean, we saw this. No, no, I understand what you're saying, but like, I agree there will be skirmishes. I disagree. And the reason I disagree is because you, like, and I know that people might, you know, maybe this sounds a little boomerish, but like if you look at the way that the original revolution started,

it wasn't a big gigantic uprising. The rest of the colonies looked at what was going on in Massachusetts and said, this is unacceptable. They looked at Lexington and Concord, and they said, this is unacceptable. And the militias pushed back the redcoats in Lexington and Concord, and then they got their,

basically their asses handed to him in Bunker Hill. And then the rest of the colonies started saying, look, we need to take this actually seriously. And it still took a long time to get the rest of the country. And I agree. And I agree. And I think I can kind of mend these points here together is I agree that we have, you know, the manpower, right? I'm not disagreeing that the American people are capable of conducting that sort of operation to this day. What I'm contesting is that we have the political elite in place to carry that out because what happened in the revolution is we had the Washington. We had the founding fathers ready to rock and roll. When I look at the GOP now, what we got Trump and we got a few. of his buddies. That's really about it. And we got like some people, you know, it's scattered. But there was a unified elite in America that was ready to rock and roll. And I don't think we have that today. They weren't super unified. South Carolina didn't want nothing to do with it. What's his name that was, what's the, yeah, New York didn't at all. I'm just saying they had an

elite that was able to stitch everything together. And right now what we're seeing in the United States, I don't know if the rights ready for that. Everyone's like, everyone's like, well, when a civil war comes, then we'll really show them. And I'm like, dude, I don't know. man. The first time in my life, it used to be when people moved, they moved because they were retiring to warmer climate or you know, their job opportunity or whatever.

I have never seen this much geographical ideological, ideologically based geographical self-sorting in the United States as I've seen in my lifetime. Never. The other thing that I would say is this. You want to know what the political lead is. It's not in the federal level. It's not in the states. So when you have, and I'll give you a perfect

example of this. First of all, the left does it to the federal government all the time with things like marijuana legislation, right? Regardless how you feel about it, that's them standing up to the federal government. But when you had the Biden administration, when Abbott goes down to the border and says, National Guard, Rangers, whatnot, we're putting up our own stuff, we're going to do this. The federal government sued in court, got the decision they wanted out of the Supreme Court that they actually had constitutional jurisdiction over the border and immigration. And Texas response was like, move us. Yeah. And what the federal government

had to decide at that point is, how bad do we want? to potentially get into an altercation over this issue at this time with state truth. So that's the Obama administration and the Texas to where. Yeah. And for the record, like, I agree. I guess what I'm just contesting is we shouldn't, and I'm not saying you guys are saying this, but some people in the audience feel this way and conservatives broadly, we shouldn't rely on that because this is what happened in South Africa. And then they're like, all right, well, we'll all retreat into the Western Cape. The Western Cape, you know, talking about federalism. The Western Cape is well run. They have a party.

you know, there's nine provinces in South Africa, eight ran by the ANC, and Western Cape, it's ran by the DA. So they're like, okay, well, we have federal, we're okay. But once the federal government is out of, you know, it's out of control, right? Like, we can no longer impact what's happening with the South African federal government. It's kind of over it because they can just send the military in. They can just send this, that, and the other. And so what I'm saying in the United States, thankfully we're not in that situation. Thankfully, it's still 50-50. Thankfully, we still have that winning. I'm just saying we shouldn't rely on that. We should cede the ground in Washington right now.

And to your point, like- I know you guys agree with that. A lot of people in the audience are like, well, let's just go into the woods. It's like, well-st stupid. But to your point, like, Trump did win. So like the idea that people have this idea of, I'm going to grab my S-KS and run into woods, right? Like, that's not, that is a long time away

because we still have access to political power. It's not like we don't have any recourse. Same in Britain, by the way. They still have this as well. There's no reason to black pill. I guess what I'm pushing back, maybe I was kind of speaking over everyone's heads is, I guess what I'm sort of attacking are these people

that just think they can build up a giant armory and then they're going to go. No, no, no, no, no, no. Look, the people I know, look, I'm going to go off grid. I'm like, oh, it's easier to take your stuff that way. Yeah. Because you think you're by yourself doing anything, you're on crack. But no, it, I am not a black pillor at all.

And I'm not saying, my big, my big thing is like, look, guys, we still have the ability to actually push political power right now. You can't sit, like, Nothing makes me more inferior. As someone that loves Virginia and now no longer lives there, nothing makes me more infuriated to the fact that Winston Sears had 300,000 fewer votes than Glenn Yonkin because a bunch of Republicans in deep red areas of that state said, oh, I'm just mad.

They didn't do enough? And there's no difference between the parties. What do you think now? You think there's a difference now? Yeah. Now you've got an AG who says he wants the conservative families to have the Chinese die. And to Nick's point, or that we were making earlier, like, it's just a matter of, like, the fact that guns, that we are in armed citizenry, it does make it more dangerous and more difficult for the federal government to actually come and kick indoors and exert its will. What do you think?

What do you think a Joe Biden presidency or God help us, Gavin Newsom or an AOC president? What do you think they would attempt to do if you didn't? Oh, they start arresting everything. 100 million guns. And this is why I want to go back to my initial point is I'm like, I agree. But also, when you're talking about demographics, there's only so much guns do because the Californians were all armed. And then they got flooded with the third world.

And then suddenly they're out of contention forever. It doesn't matter how many Republicans there are armed. Gavin Newsom can basically do whatever he wants to those people. And if the pressure cooker goes up high enough, they'll just leave. And so again. Because they can't. But there's always, this country's huge. There's always going to be places people can leave.

and then once they're backed up against the corner, it doesn't matter, they're out of power forever. It's South Africa, where instead of us, like, going out and taking our country back, we'll probably just build walls with barbed wire on top and put solar panels on top. So I agree that guns protect us from the excesses of, like, liberal power. Like, the U.K. is in a worse situation. Even though demographically, they're better off than we are. People don't like to hear that. That's true. But the main reason the UK is worse off than us right now is because the citizens have a lot of tools that are disposed, whether it is firearms, whether it be federalism. What I'm just contending, is that we shouldn't rely on the fact that just because we're armed doesn't mean that just wreck us and turn us in a little. We'll throw to that constitutional conversation we're having before. I was making the point that we effectively don't have a constitution. I think a good example is what we just watch with Hassan Piker. There is no unified American political body. It doesn't exist.

And these are the people that will say, I believe in the Constitution. The moment they have they have power, they're going to kill you. They are cheering and clapping for the death of Charlie Kirk. They're celebrating it. You said, what do they do if they get power? Well, they're going to start arresting people. They're going to start removing influencers. The Constitution is tissue paper to these people.

They don't care. Yeah. Well, my wife actually said this one. I thought it was the best way to say it. She goes, the left quotes the Constitution the way atheists quote the Bible. Indeed. Yeah. That's a great way to put it.

It is never about reverence for the actual document. And in fact, the only time they quote it is when they're trying to stay our hand. Yes. Because what does the Constitution fundamentally do? It limits government power, which means it's a horrible. horrible thing to have when they're in power, and it's a wonderful thing to refer to when they're not in power, and that's how they treat it. Now, again, I, the pushback I would give you on the idea that we don't have a constitution, we've never had a completely unified body politic.

I mean, you look at the way that... I completely disagree. Well, you look at the way that Jefferson and Adams treated one another and the way they thought about when I did, there's always been fighting. Called each other pedophiles. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's horrible. Hermaphroditical, right? Like, there's always, there's always been, there's always been fights. Which it might have been true, by the way. That's the Red Bill. Yeah. if you took them both privately and said things like, is there a God, they'd both say yes. If you said, should, like, the things they disagree on. They wouldn't agree on who God was.

And that's true, because Jefferson was particularly interesting for that time. But for the, but ultimately the point is, if you take Hassan Piker and put him next to any, any random moderate American, you're going to be like, this guy is a psychopath. He's wearing a Mao outfit. He held up a little red book celebrating it. I mean, this is representing the massacre of tens of millions of people. That's a very different to, you know, I mean, we had duels back in the day. Like people, what went, my disagreement is that yes, people disagreed, yes, to an extreme

degree often. But the funny thing is they agreed so much more than we do today with each other. That's what's worrying to me. Well, I mean, again, we had some pretty significant disagreements in the past. I mean, I think of the 1860s, right? But I guess what I would say is that to me that does not mean that we don't have like a constitution. We do. In fact, that's the thing that I think most of us are trying to, it is a rallying point.

And it's one of the things that creates a distinction. It's one of the things that creates a distinction is the sort of people that actually venerate our founders that actually believe in a unique American culture and want to defend it versus people like Hassan Piper, people like A.O. see, people like Bernie Sanders. These guys have zero love, zero love for the United States. And tens of millions of followers and voters. A third of the Democratic Party who want the Constitution abolished and replaced to the parliamentary system. That doesn't mean that I don't have a Constitution.

It might mean that they don't care about it, but that's fine. That's a distinction between the- You can have one, but then the United States does not. Okay. Again, if your standard is, everybody in the country has to believe in the thing. The Founding Fathers agreed. The first article is the Constitution, the structure. of government.

No, no, wait a second. But that's not necessarily true. You look at the people that vehemently disagreed with the Constitution themselves. But they knew what it meant, is my point. Sure. Not that they wanted it to be.

I mean, first of all, you had one side saying no written Constitution at all. Yes. Another side saying no, because you'll get tyranny. Federalist, anti-federalists. But when it was ratified, they understood what it meant.

The Constitution represented something that they may or may not have liked, but they agreed with this is what it means. But even then there were disagreements. This is why you had Jefferson and Madison writing the, Kentucky and Virginia resolutions because they disagreed about things like Marbury versus Madison or Maryland versus McCullough and what was the extent of federal authority. The alien and sedition

act was that actually a violation. And there was actually with that some people got arrested and they got overturned a few years later. My point is when they ratified the Constitution, the negotiated resulted in them saying these are the rules that we will abide by, which of course did explicitly state there's judicial oversight, checks and balances, as well as amendments of the Constitution, because these arguments will exist. But I'm saying they all worked under the constitutional umbrella, arguing with each other. We now have a third of the Democratic Party. This is representing, what, 20 million people that are saying, given the power, they will abolish the Constitution outright. Yeah. They are, as you pointed out, they're only using it

to stay our hands quoting the Constitution the way atheists quote the Bible. Yeah. So we get put it this way. There exists, there are, there are two countries in the borders of one nation. There is the multicultural democracy and the constitutional republic. The constitutional republic of the United States has a constitution. The multicultural democracy does not. Within these borders, the people that occupy this space vying for political power, the ability to control the military mechanisms and law enforcement do not share a constitution. And well, and if you go back to the revolution, I mean, you made the the point earlier, the New York and South Carolina weren't necessarily aligned with the elite

that were sort of conducting the American Revolution. I mean, yeah, like 50% of New York were loyalists at the time of the revolution. Additionally, people don't remember this or recall this. I mean, five percent, that's a lot of people. Today, that would be a massive amount of people. Five percent of the United States at the time of the revolution left after the revolution and went to Canada or other British Dominions because they quite literally disagreed with the framers of the Constitution. They said, we disagree with this entire thing. We're leaving. We're loyal to the crown. That's pretty radical. And so again, like, to the point, I think maybe to amend both positions here is like, even at the time, they did have these disagreements over how the Constitution was framed, if that was applicable to them, they just left. I guess what's different about this current iteration of people that are maybe sticking their thumb and the eye of the Constitution here is that they fundamentally aren't Westerners. They fundamentally disagree with the entire idea. So what was happening at the time of the revolution was a family dispute, right? These are Englishmen disagreeing with other. Englishmen. We were off, I mean, you got to remember, the American experiment, sort of, so to speak,

was off the back of the English Civil War. And there was, there was sort of house disagreements at the time. What we're seeing now is not a house disagreement. What we're seeing is a someone breaking into the house trying to kill. And the subversive element. And the American Civil War was a faction of states attempting to separate themselves from the Constitution itself. That, the, so I want to clarify this for most people, because when people take Constitution, they're usually referring to the Bill of Rights. I'm talking about the literal first articles, talking about what Congress does, the executive branch does. The Confederates were like, we no longer want to be a part of that outright. We are separating ourselves from this. Right now in the United States, you have people like Zerunamandani

who explicitly defy it, say they will defy it, do whatever they want, and their ultimate goal is the abolition of it. Yes. So I got to be honest, what's the functional difference? They're not engaging in a physical kinetic conflict? The Confederates said, we want nothing to do with your constitution. I do think, no, I do think that's actually relevant. Like if Zoran Mamdani said, look, there are still limitations on what Zoran Mammani can actually do. How do we know? Because he hasn't gone and seized all the means of production yet, because he absolutely would, if he thought he had sufficient power. It's not the Constitution that's stopping him from doing it.

He would not abide by those rules. Okay, but wait a second. At some point, I feel like this is almost engaging like a totem. Obviously, the Constitution itself is words on parchment at the National Orchman. archives. The authority behind it is to the degree that people believe it and that soldiers will fight for it and defend it and go follow lawful orders. That doesn't mean that people don't attempt to subvert it at times. That doesn't mean that what's that? Indeed. Yeah. So that's what I'm saying is like I don't think the mere presence of the DSA means I don't have a constitution

anymore or the United States doesn't have a constitution. I don't think it even means the United States doesn't have a constitution. Because I can still appeal to the constitution. I can still appeal to the Constitution in order to rein in DSA excesses when they take place. Not in federal jurisdictions controlled by liberals. As we've already seen time and time again, when when Trump does something purely, let's talk about DACA. Sure. Obama, through executive order, and one could argue the president could do this, instructs immigration

enforcement not to deport DACA, creating this de facto name. Trump then says, you can, you can executive order in, I can executive order out. happens, the commie judges in Democrat jurisdictions go, no, you can't. That is in clear defiance of the Constitution. They don't care what the rules are. So we in the Constitutional Republic abide by this document that we hold sacred, that that has evolved in some ways, some ways we don't like, some ways we do. And they are saying, you are stupid for following rules that we can break whenever we want. So my point ultimately is this. Obviously, there exists something we call the Constitution that is utilized in law, but it is only adhered to by those who believe in

and the communists who operate in many of these federal jurisdictions, the entire West Coast, for instance, don't live by those rules where they are. If you go to Seattle, you are under their communist interpretation. And so let me put it this way. We had an interesting conversation about this last week. Let's say that 50, 60 years from now, five of the justices are Muslim. A man in Chicago screamed something blasphemous about the prophet Maman. He gets arrested for it by the local police force for blasphemy. They say it's hate speech.

He appeals and says, this is free speech protected by the First Amendment. It goes to a federal court, whichever way doesn't matter because it was also in another appeal. Then it finds its way ultimately to the Supreme Court, where half of the court is Muslim. And we know how they'll decide. How would you believe they would interpret it? Oh, they're going to reinterpret the First Amendment to mean whatever they want. Or they're going to interpret it from the originalist text and say, the Founding Fathers did not believe the First Amendment allowed you to blaspheme explicitly.

It was illegal to blaspheme at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment, and it wasn't until the 1950s, in fact. It wasn't until the incorporation doctrine when all of a sudden the Bill of Rights applied as limitations to the states. They used to just be limitations on federal power, not state power. So they would, and I would argue that this is entirely in line with the founding, Father's vision, say, no, blasphemy is not protected speech, therefore your conviction is upheld. Now, let's say, simultaneously, a man in Chicago screams something negative about Jesus Christ. Yeah.

He gets criminally charged for blasphemy. It finds its way to the Supreme Court. How will they rule on the issue of blasphemy pertaining to Jesus Christ? Probably not the same. They would argue that laws criminalizing blasphemy apply only to true deities and prophets, and Jesus Christ, though a prophet was not a deity, therefore it's not blasphemy to insult. Yeah. This is the point I make about what it means to have a constitution. What constitutes your body of politics? We wrote ours down and we try to live by these rules.

But when you look at what the Democrats and the liberals are doing in these federal courts and what they're doing at the local level with police, they are not abiding by these rules. When you take a look at supremacy clause, when you take a look at how the federal government was trying to enforce laws in Portland, what were they doing? The police were effectively helping the far left firebomb a federal building for three months. So I look at all this and I say, it's interesting because I was talking about marketing earlier today. And in the digital era, something has happened. And the real estate where our philosophies and our politics exist are no longer physical.

They're now a hybrid between the physical and the digital. And so it used to just be who has the physical control of a space. Literally, you could walk in a building and be like, I'm the king now. And people would be like, damn, he's the king now. Like, see, it's kind of weird if you think about it. That doesn't exist anymore because of digital communications. So now I look at, look, imagine this. Imagine a map of the United States and there's red and blue pockets.

It's not just like the voting map. When you get granular, you can see there's pockets of influence in various areas of various cities and various states. And we're not talking about a political, we're not talking about political parties anymore. We're talking about different countries. Portland is dominated by a multicultural, democratic country that does not agree with our worldview, with our moral frameworks. They believe in Washington, they passed a law that if someone kidnaps a child for a sex change and brings them to Washington, they are legally protected for having done so. I mean, we can talk about all the unconstitutional,

unlawful things that happen in all those places, and nothing is being done about it. If the federal government tries to enforce immigration law, what do they do? The police back off and say, we will not provide. Let's talk about what happened in Chicago when that lady rammed the ice vehicle. local police refused to deploy to provide assistance. As far leftists showed up, shots were fired some, I can't remember exactly how it went down. I don't want to, okay, but the important part to remember here is that's not unconstitutional. Local police are not required by the Constitution to enforce federal law or assist. Sure, but my point is just, this is a snowflake in an avalanche.

No, but I guess my point is, is that the important distinctions do need to be made with respect to jurisdiction. Now, I agree that any time that you have a local jurisdiction which obstructs federal law enforcement from doing their job, which I think clearly happened in Minneapolis and clearly happened in Portland and Seattle, you don't just do the whole like, well, you know, we're really upset about that. No, there should be federal prosecution because that's a violation of federal law. My point is not that local police should or should not do anything. My point is that in these states, they view the federal government as an invasive force. Doren Mamdani vowed in his election that he would use the weight of New York law enforcement physical violence. against the federal government to stop them from enforcing federal law. When you have the mayor in our largest city say the Constitution and the votes of the American people mean nothing, we will use physical force against them if we must.

We are not talking about the same people anymore. We are not talking about a unified country that adheres to the same rules and laws. So again, I'll stress, of course there is a constitution that exists. It's physical, it's digital, we understand what it means. But I'm saying we do not have a unified body politic. There is no constitution. The founding fathers had a document they'd argue about. Zeramanani doesn't agree with that document's existence and cites it only to exploit you.

And the moment they get a 51% they will rip it to shreds unconstitutional. So, okay, here's the part where I think we completely agree. I agree with everything you just said about what they would do, provided that they attained power and that they're still trying to do it within the constitutional system, which currently exists. Absolutely not. The federal courts have already done this. Fine. What I'm saying is that they are not doing everything that they wish they could do right now because there are still limitations with respect to what they can actually accomplish.

Not related to the Constitution, related to their critical mass, the mass of population, and their ability to use force. Sure, sure. But part of the problem is that they don't represent everybody. There are still enough people in this country that actually do believe in the Constitution that are willing to enforce it with violence, like legitimate uses of violence, in order to rein them in. Now, again, you and I do not agree on the fact that they don't, they don't revere it, they don't want it. They are merely using it as a process in order to attain power so that they can one day subvert it. I don't think that means the Constitution doesn't exist. I think what we do need to start recognizing is that we have a subversive element within this country, right, that has attained using our system political legitimacy. And the question is, is what do you do about it? And the problem is, is that most conservatives, their answer is, well, we'll just have to vote harder.

And the point that a lot of us are trying to make is, ah, we may be getting to a point where that's not a sufficient remedy. And so the question is, is if you do want to maintain. So, like, if you do want to maintain, we'll say the spirit of the United States Constitution, of the culture which informed it. If you do want to do that, the question is, is how far are you willing to depart while not violating the core principles? How far are you willing to depart? Lincoln said that, you know what, the Constitution's not a suicide pact. And so he suspended habeas corpus. He did all sorts of things that technically would be considered violations of the Constitution.

Technically. Article one, habeas corpus lies in Article 1, and he suspended it through an unconstitutional action. Then had his opponents either threatened with arrest, arrested, or outright removed from Congress. Then the loyalists voted that he was allowed to do it. Yes. But what's remarkable here, too, is even when we go through American history, and reciting these examples, as they were simply arguing over the dissolution of the United States government or the United States, as we understood it, the difference between them

and what's currently existing on the left now is they're arguing for a complete dissolution of the American people writ large, as in the people, our heritage, et cetera. So while Lincoln was saying, you know, the very fabric of the United States government, maybe even the Constitution itself is under threat, et cetera, and he pushed, pulled, prodded, what's happening now is quite literally they want to wipe the American people off the face of the planet. And that's the fundamental difference between basically everything that happened for the 1960s and now. The Confederates were trying to break away. Yeah. They wanted, they wanted rule. These people are trying to destroy us. Yes. And so again, my point is we in the constitutional republic clearly have a constitution.

But this country is now split. There are two countries in the borders of one nation. We do not share a constitution with these people. We just don't. And it's not even look, look, again, go to Seattle and the judges are not going to rule in the constitution, they're going to rule on racial communist views. And they've been doing it. Wait a second. Wait a second. Nobody in Seattle, and this is my point where the Constitution still has, nobody in Seattle has confiscated everyone's guns. Right? They haven't closed all the churches down. They haven't. Now, why? Because if they did, if they did, it would be a clear violation of constitutionally protected rights, which would then be enforced or

theoretically could be enforced. Well, we can make an argument about COVID and they did. Okay, but this is the problem with that, too. We all remember the early days of COVID, and there's a lot of things we could look at and be like, hey, that was garbage. I also remember the point where we didn't know if this thing was going to kill everybody, right? And so you had states like Florida that had been like, you know what, we're not doing this crap anymore. A states like South Dakota that said, we're not doing it in the first place. And then you had states like California that just carried on forever. So I get it.

I get your point. I'm not disagreeing. I'm not disagreeing at the finer point. I am saying that I don't think that means none of us have the only people that have a constitution are the ones that actually revere it. constitutional authority can still be applied and is still applied. Maybe not to the degree that either you or I would be satisfied with, but it is still applied. I think the more important question, here's the most important question to me. It's not this more nuanced debate on do we actually have a constitution, we actually have a body politic.

I think we absolutely 100% have a subversive element within our country, which has gained an incredible amount of power within our culturally shaping institutions or political institutions. And the real question that we have to ask is, does the cost, does the cost of the Constitution afford us the ability to be able to deal with that internal threat. Now, and that is the, that's the argument that we have to actually discuss. Because here's the question. Okay, great. If you acknowledge no, if you say no, now the question is, is okay, what measures do you

want to do? What rights do you want to suspend? What constitutional elements do? And that, that is an interesting question. And one, I'm willing to have. That's a discussion I'm willing to have. Because I don't accept this idea that the only thing that we can do is vote hard. order. By the same token, I do, I don't want to fall into, I don't want to fall into authoritarianism or totalitarianism. I don't want to fall into, you know, this kind of, we're going to have left-wing social, we're going to have left-wing economics with right-wing social policy.

I think if the government today blaspheme made illegal blaspheming against Christ, would you consider that authoritarian? On the federal level? If a federal government Supreme Court ruled blanket, like literally right now, they said, If you say ill or you deny Christ, that is a criminal act, you can be charged for it. Would that be authoritarian? No, because I think authoritarian is actually rooted more in the question of who controls the power and how the laws are actually made. Let me put it differently. I don't want to see an over-centralized power in the hands of a couple of people

that are going to rule as oligarchs. I don't want a dictatorship. So let me draw a distinction. Well, you can have authoritarian without totalitarian. Agreed. So my point is, Let's say that there is no strong hyper-centralized government, but a unified law enforcement apparatus that exists individually in various citizen states all agree.

Anybody who blasphemes against Jesus Christ should be arrested. I think you could come up with something like that in a way that would not be authoritarian. My view on this is clearly Jews and Muslims would be like, this is authoritarianism, we're not living under a boot. And there's a growing number of Muslims in this country. But I also don't think that, like, I don't think we're sending under any pressing threat right now that, you know, Christians are going to rise up, And that's their main priority is we want to make sure you can't say anything.

Okay. My point ultimately is that authoritarianism is in the eye of the beholder and in the and the diversity of a population's politics. If every single person in this country right now woke up and had an epiphany and became Orthodox Christians, there would be no authoritarianism if they banned blasphemy against Christ because they would all be like, but no one would. It just doesn't exist. I get that, but we get into some of these, we get into some of these arguments and I'm not

I'm not sure how relevant they are to the present situation. Like that's what I'm trying to connect the, okay, we acknowledge, we both acknowledge that there seems to be a, there seems to be something that the Constitution theoretically didn't account for. Like, so let's look at the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic actually had the position of the dictator. And so you see this with Cincinnati. It's why we have Cincinnati.

It's why George Washington had the order of Cincinnati. What did, what happened? Well, you had people that were rising up and wanted to overthrow. So what did they do? They bring Cincinnati back. in from the farm, they say, we're going to give you dictatorial power for six months. You need to put down the revolt. Cincinnati does it, then voluntarily hands back power and then goes back to the farm. He actually did, I think, twice. Yeah. Right now, later on in Roman history, you had Sulla,

who attempted to do the same thing. Sulla actually takes power. He marches into Rome. He's the first one to march the legions into Rome without the approval of the Senate. Right. And then what does he do? He sets up a whole new series of laws of restrictions. Why? To prevent any Sulla from ever happening again, because this whole idea was to restore the Roman Republic. And then what do you get within a generation, Caesar? And now the republic is essentially gone, and we're moving into the principality of the era. So my question is always with this.

And again, some people don't want to maintain our constitutional republic the way it was established. They don't even want to, they don't even want to, like, revert back to whatever, the 19th century. That's my question. You know that China operates police departments in the United States? The Chinese Communist Party. has their own police departments operating in the United States.

Okay. And how do they operate? Like Chinese police. So the Chinese police department can come and arrest me. No, no, Chinese citizens. Exactly. They can go after Chinese citizens. Because they exist outside of our Constitution.

As citizens in this country with private funding operating on our streets, with vehicles, lights and sirens, they run police departments and their responses, we're a private international affairs issue. And what they do is they go to people from Chinese. China who live in America or descendants, and they can use the weight of threats against family in China to control them. Yeah. And we're just like, okay, these people clearly are operating in our country. There's also Sharia patrols happening in places like Dearborn and other cities.

You actually have Jewish patrols happening in places like New York. You have Muslims coming right out and saying you'll never be able to ban Sharia because of the First Amendment. Indeed. Yeah. My point ultimately is that we are seeing the emergence of various extra governmental pockets happening all of the country. we live next to these people. They clearly don't agree with our governmental system.

They don't operate within it. Well, the other thing that needs to be understood, and this is a big part of the argument, and I will see the classical liberals fighting with the post-liberals and everything else, and I feel like so much of it is talking around one another. I was speaking at ARC, okay? And I don't think they were expecting me to say what I said.

I said, you guys are all standing here trying to defend Western civilization. I'm here to defend Christendom. And the reason why is because it is great to have, First Amendment, a Second Amendment, a Third Amendment. It's great to have a constitutional order. But these things are built upon something. They're built upon shared beliefs and values. Adams themselves said our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is totally unsuited any other. Why? Because you cannot completely contain or control a country or a body politic exclusively through law. There has to be something that actually unites those people and a shared set of actual values that will cause them to self-regulate.

And so really why the laws exist are to explain what happens when members of the body politic operate outside of the social order, which already keeps them in bounds. And I don't think laws exist either. Okay. I'll give you an example. In West Virginia, cohabitation is illegal. Nobody's enforcing it. Okay, you can saw me. But the point is this.

If I open the code book of West Virginia, it's meaningless. reading this informs me in no way of what will happen if I do something bad in West Virginia. I'm only informed by the TV, by news reports, and what my neighbors are willing to get offended at. If you go to West Virginia and you bring your girlfriend and move into an apartment, nothing will happen, despite the fact it's overtly illegal. It's literally codified illegal. It doesn't mean laws don't exist. It means as we define laws as explaining what will happen to you when you do things that it says not to do, that's a, that's a, That's not correct.

Okay, but nobody wants to... Okay, first of all, if the complaint is we have too many laws on the books that are meaningless and stupid and should be removed, fine. But there was a time I'm willing to bet where cohabitation laws would have been enforced.

So how would... So someone who's never lived in Idaho before goes there and says, I don't know their gaming laws, I don't know if you can turn right on red. I'm going to pull up the code book. I just give it a quick glance. Will he be informed

as to what laws are enforced against? No, the assumption will be that all of those laws potentially come with penalty. Well, we just don't know for sure. And so he's informed by culture and how the city or the government reacts. Obviously, sure. Culture informs things.

Like, I'm not arguing. Here's my problem. It's the extreme language being used. Laws don't exist. Yes, they do. Laws exist. They're enforced all the time. However, the laws which make the most sense are those ones.

The reason why we call it English common law. Why is it English common law? Was it because a couple of nobles got together and said, okay, I've decided these are the rule. No, what you had was a series of tradition. If you got an issue with the way I've described it, it's fine. But my point is when I say laws don't exist, I'm saying that when we say what is a law. And someone says it is a rule imposed on society through various means, some through democratic means, some through dictatorial or, you know,

authoritarian. But it effectively describes what you can, typically what you cannot do and the penalty for such. Then I would argue what, I mean, is it like 70% of the laws are not really laws then? because those things written down don't actually mean anything. So my point is not, obviously, laws get enforced. But the other issue is that sometimes there's enforcement against things that are not even laws. For example, often if, so we had a guy arrested for disorderly conduct for hate speech. And they say, but they do it all the time. In these, where it should be completely protected by the Constitution and there is no codified law,

people have been arrested for hate speech. And they don't say hate speech. They say disorderly conduct. Look at a Shiloh. Hendricks. A guy was filming her and she yelled at him a nasty word. She got criminally charged for it. That law is not on the books.

How did they enforce it? In fact, it's protected by the First Amendment. How were they able to criminally charge an arrestlement for something constitutionally protected and not in law? What was it? Minnesota? Yeah. But the only thing I would say is that, okay, but that's not a demonstration of why laws don't exist.

It's a demonstration that laws are what people choose them to be at any random point and the books don't involve. No, I don't even think it's what people choose at any random point because even then, like, again, the police are not kicking in the door right now. But that's an exercise of volition and for it. Okay, but the point that I'm making is, unless you explain specifically what you mean, are there some laws, which are bad laws that are not enforced? Are there some laws which remain on the books which people don't enforce? Are there other laws or are there other ways to interpret the law, which law enforcement takes way too much leverage with in order to get the result that they want? Let me clarify.

Sure. Written law is largely meaningless to enforce. forming an individual of what society expects of them. That's a better way to phrase it. So what I'm trying to say when I say, I don't think laws exist, is I'm simplifying the idea that when someone says a thing, like, we're going to write this thing down, typically only when they immediately do it as it followed. And then after a certain amount of time, it may or may not be. So just to clarify, how do you define a law? It is a subset of rules that are held largely in the abstract, which may or may not be enforced against in various jurisdictions, they differ,

even when written down. So my point, again, is if a person moved for the first time to a state and said, again, you know, like, I think in New York you can't turn right on red. And so people from out of state don't know that. Sure. And you get tickets all the time. So they're like, I better look these things up. You will not be informed by reading the code book. It doesn't explain to the culture what they're willing to enforce against. For instance, New York doesn't enforce assault. They don't enforce assault. So if someone hits you, the police will not show up unless you can prove physical damage. So literally, you could be at a bar and a guy punches you in the stomach. And then people call the police and the cops are like, what happened? A guy punched

a guy. I'm like, we're not enforcing against that. The distinction, okay, here's the distinction. It's not that like if you pull up the camera and the guy actually got assaulted and it could be proved, well then look. No, I'm not kidding. In New York, they say no. You're telling me anywhere in New York state they do that or you're telling me that in New York City specifically. Okay. That's my point, right? My point is is that I'm not disagreeing that there's problems with respect to the practical application of the law. I'm also not disagreeing that there are times. For instance, my father was LAPD for 20 years, right? And he would tell you that there were certain people when they broke the law, they threw the cuffs on when they took him in jail. And there were other people when they broke the

law, they treated him differently. Why? Because in the neighborhood, he was working as a police officer. He knew the people there that were actual troublemakers, that were like literally hurting. people. And then he might know a 15-year-old kid that joined a gang, not because he wanted to, but because he would get his ass beat, right? If he didn't wear the right colors when he went to school. And so do you want a law enforcement officer to be able to use discretion with respect to how rigorously the law is enforced? No. I would argue, no, I say you do. Now the question is, is within boundaries. What boundaries? Cultural boundaries. So, for instance, I don't want necessarily both people going to jail for the rest of the life and having a criminal record,

I might want law enforcement to be able to use some degree of discretion, because the bottom line is if you also get a criminal record for something stupid when you're 14, right, that could put your life in a very, very different trajectory. That works really well in a homogenous society. Yes. It does not work well today. No. When you have in Minnesota a woman being arrested for something that doesn't exist and codified law. But do you see, that's my point. That's my point. When I talked about this whole idea of christened them, or I talked about this whole idea upon, What is the larger cultural thing that your country is built upon? And again, you don't need racial homogeneity.

You do need cultural homogeneity. And the biggest problems that we... So it's not that the Constitution doesn't exist. It's not that law doesn't exist. What has happened is that for the first time in U.S. history, we have had massive, by design, multicultural infusion without proper assimilation. But we don't need to argue in semantics. I think we agree.

My point is, in Minnesota, a woman got arrested for something that wasn't a law and is constitutionally protected and she was convicted and she's going to serve a penalty for it. There's no constitutional protection that she's going to, she'll try to appeal. And then you're asking for federal intervention, which may come. But as a state, Minnesota is clearly operating outside the confines of codified law and the constitution. So we should grab, I'll grab a couple of super chats. I think we can just settle with John Lennon's imagine. Maybe we do a stanza. We got Brett Davis.

He says, welcome to the world. Kenneth James. born Saturday, the last of our seven kids. Phil, can I get a heavy metal? Yeah. Hatriot. Welcome to the world. Thinker for a life says Muslims hate dogs because they believe dogs block Allah. And they do. Please do no experiment, Tim. You another host for a month, sincerely asked Jesus Christ to be in the conversation.

No GD for that time. Watch. No GD. What does that mean? No saying. Gosh damn. Ah. Good. Mick B. Frot says, have any of y'all watched Space King? It is absolutely nothing to do with Warhammer, but if you like that, you'll love Space King. Episode 5 comes on the 29th, you should watch the teaser, not trailer. It's a space jammer. No, but I did watch The Lanterns show, and I'm lukewarm a little bit. C-plus. It's a little slow. I don't mind it, but we'll see where they go. I don't mind it. We'll see. I'm interested in watching it. I think it's so far so good. It's a little hammy. Like the bad guy, like they're encountering, basically, he's a militia guy. And then Hal Jordan is basically a liberal who has just got a chip on his shoulder about militia.

He's like, you want to fight the government? And the guy's like, what? So I actually did enjoy that when he goes to the guy and he's like, he's like, let me guess. You need my, because he's a Greenlander. You need my help? What? The government's about to storm and take your guns? And he goes, you think that's why we asked you here?

No, it's because there's aliens. And I'm like, okay, that's actually not bad, you know? All right. Phoenix says when you have small children, everything is lost, broken, or sticky. That's what I said to my wife when I've got. No sticky babies. No sticky babies. So I am very, I understand, like, the one thing I always get irked by was like my friends or other people's kids.

They're just covered in crap. It's like, you know you can wipe them off and let them keep playing. And then you might have to do it a lot. Like I respect it. But that's what I said. I was like, we're going to wipe, you know, her hands when she gets all sticky and dirty and wipe her face. and then she can play again and she gets sticky. We're going to wipe her off.

We're going to make sure she's no sticky babies. Wonderful. Indeed. We got more. Mr. Ghetto, Jersey says, keeping with Timcast tradition, please help me welcome my first child. Oh,

baby Zina. Congratulations. Born 823, nine pounds, seven ounces. Oh, boy. The Timcast's audience has the highest TFR, I think. We're like ascetics over here. It's crazy.

All right. Chinop says, shut it to Pippi, the most adorable little chihuahua ever for 12 years. I was the happiest dog owner imaginable. Goodbye and God bless my special baby. When my time comes, I'll find you on the other side. Rest in peace, Pippi. Dog holla. But you know, there's this really great meme where someone said,

if you think about the perspective of a dog, we are these beings that live for several lifetimes with incomprehensible abilities and powers. It's almost like we're elves and they, you know, are the humans living among us. So just remember that your dog gets to live. the greatest life imaginable and they look up to you as some sort of powerful long-lived being that they revere. That's why they get hyped up when you like stand

up. They're like, oh, something big. I think it's funny. It's like, wow, you feed me, you clove me, you play with me, you give me attention, you must be God. And then cats are like, wow, you feed me, you clove me, you pay attention to me, you meet all my needs. I must be God. All right, we'll grab one more, one more. Sergeant Stoick says on the topic of infighting in the U.S. in the near future, Nick, do you see our national infrastructure being slowly and intentionally degraded,

however possible, set up for a land invasion? CA or California, Oregon, Washington, I sure do. I don't think there's any way any sort of major strategic threat to the United States pulls off a land invasion in the United States. You've got to go across major oceans. It's just, I don't think China could pull off a successful amphibious invasion against Taiwan. on, right? Like much less going against the Pacific or in the Atlantic. No, the

biggest problem, again, we'll reference Lincoln, right? His whole thing was as a nation of free men, we spend a newer and forever die by suicide. I'm far more concerned of us dying by suicide than I am an external threat. Real. Right on. Well, my friends, we're going on the uncensored portion of the show, so smash

the like button. Share the show with everyone you have ever met. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Nick, you want to shout anything out? No, just, hey, once again, thank you for watching Timcast. Again, follow me. Freitas.com. Thanks again. Yeah, and I want to give a shout out to my fiance. I got engaged over the weekend. She's watching. She's Nick Fradis fan, so she's probably doubly loving the show. So, yeah, shout out. I don't want to name names here, but she sounds great. She's the best. She's the best

to know. Yeah, X and Instagram at Realtape Brown. Come give me a follow, and we'll be back tomorrow at noon for the Timcast Daily News Live show, Phil. Sick. I am Phil that remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon. It's patreon.com slash fill it remains. The band is all that remains. You can check out our music on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Dizer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime. Carter. Congrats, Tate. Very proud of you, man. Nick, thanks for coming. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, at Carter Banks Official, everywhere else, and YouTube at Trash House Records for the label.

Yeah, Tate's got the total Chud victory today, huh? Sure, dude. It's anything as possible. Like, in-cells, fake sales, everything, just hold the line, man. Hold some chungus. All right, everybody. We'll see you at rumble.com slash timcast.I.R.L right now. Thanks for hanging out.