Timcast IRL - Trump DOJ INDICTS Comey AGAIN ft. Cliff Maloney & Joshua Lisec

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

Tim, Ian, and Tate are joined by Joshua Lisec and Cliff Maloney to discuss James Comey Indicted, Republicans tied with Democrats in shock poll, Republicans will lose midterms if gas prices remain high, gutting USAID has wrecked the deep state, boomers are passing on, and Tim Pool slams the new Animal Farm movie.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join -    / @timcastirl   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Tate @RealTateBrown (everywhere) |  @TimcastTateBrown  (YT) Ian @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Joshua Lisec @JoshuaLisec (X) | https://lisecghostwriting.com/ Cliff Maloney @Maloney (X) | https://cliffmaloney.com/ Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Trump DOJ INDICTS Comey AGAIN | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline. That's bullspend. And marketers are calling it out in. Dashboard, confessions. My boss asked for results. So I open my dashboard for the only positive-sounding metric I had. Impressions.

Cut the bullspend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com slash campaign, terms of conditions apply. James Comey has been indicted again this time over his post on Instagram in which he said 86-47, which depending on who you ask means different things.

Typically, it just means to strike something from an order or off a menu. So we 86 the bowl of chili, something like that. However, the origins could be eight miles out and six feet under, implying a mafia hit or to kill someone. For this reason, they've indicted Comey for threatening the president. Now, I think one of the issues that Comey has is he deleted it after the fact saying he did not realize, which implies the insinuation may be at least somewhat true. However, I must stress, prominent liberals and conservatives have both used this against Trump and Joe Biden. So previously people have said 8646.

The Krasenstein's following this at 8647. Many activists were posting 8647. That's probably why Comey posted it. So there's a big debate over whether or not this actually makes sense. and I suppose I can only say one thing to quote the great Hakeem Jeffries maximum warfare. That's it. I mean, the Democrats want to play ball. They want to try and put Trump in prison.

Don't be surprised when they play ball witches. But we'll have this conversation go over these issues. There's a lot more to go through. It's pretty crazy. The FCC is now challenging ABC's broadcast licenses. Jimmy Kimmel made a joke that Melania looked like she had a glow of an expectant widow just before this assassination attempt. And, oh boy, we've got a lot more to talk about.

A new poll shows that the Republicans are actually tied with Democrats in the generic ballot for the midterms, which I don't believe for two seconds. But we're going to take a look at this poll and see what it actually means. It may be that once people on the right start checking back into politics, once they start feeling like they haven't been listened to enough and problems are arising, you might actually see Republicans get a big boost. The important thing to understand there is that while I don't think it's correct, it may just be a blip, Democrats have historically low favorability for this time in an election cycle.

Typically, they should be enjoying around 10 to 15 points, but they're only at around five in one of the latest polls. So maybe there's some hope for Republicans. We'll get into all that before we do. We got a great sponsor for you, my friends. It is Chef IQ. This thing's really great. This is Chef IQ, little thermostats, thermometers. You stick them in your meat, and it tells you when they're done through Bluetooth.

You got to check it out. Chef IQ IQ sense. Wireless smart thermometer that takes all the guesswork out of cooking. Alerts go to your smartphone and tell you exactly when the meal has reached its perfect temperature. And what do people love about it? It's great for the most seasoned moms or chefs or even a beginner. Works on a grill in the oven, even in the air friar. Whatever's on the menu, a perfectly juicy, medium rare filet, herb roasted chicken, even your next big family Thanksgiving.

What does that mean for mom? Less hovering over the oven. You don't got to open it, waste energy anymore. More hanging out to people that she loves. And right now, with their Mother's Day sale, it's the perfect time to get one. Give mom something that she'll love and use long after Mother's Day. Go to ChefIQ.com. Use promo code Tim for 30% off.

That's ChefIQ.com promo code Tim. Legit, super cool. She looked on your phone, and it tells you when your food's cooked, you don't got to get up anymore. Last Thanksgiving, we kept having to pop open. We went with those green eggs. It was really great. We kept having to pop it open and check the thermometer. You know, thermometer.

Sorry, thermometer. Don't forget my friends. Also check out Timcast.com. Join us, become a member to support the work we're doing directly. And you can call in to the members-only after show, after the show. Monday to Thursday at 10 p.m.

You don't want to miss it. So also, smash a like button, share the show, all that good stuff. We've got a couple of great people joining us tonight. Let's start with you, Cliff. What's going on? Hey, everybody. Cliff Maloney here. Glad to be back, CEO of Citizens Alliance.

Here with our next guest. We've got a book. Just came out, Run Right. Took a lot of our stuff from the 2024. campaign, all the candidate academies that we do. We knock a lot of doors, some great stories, but you can follow me at Maloney. Appreciate you guys, guys, Joshua Lysick here, the co-author with Cliff Maloney of this fantastic new book, Run Right. We're calling it the Right Wing Organizers Handbook. Such a book has not yet been written, and we decided it was time. We wanted to write this book

with the co-author for six years now. In that time, a lost change in book publishing. People are calling me the last ghostwriter. That's probably true. But for tonight, for now, I am his partner in crime on this fantastic book, Run, Right. Is AI just taking it? Oh, I did a piece for Business Insider and for The Observer on specifically this issue of AI. The output is good enough, you know, in business they say it's got to be good, it's got to be fast, it's got to be cheap. Pick two. But the issue with AI is it's actually all three.

If you're only paying $20, $30, $40 a month, it's good enough. when the shooting happened over the weekend, I immediately went on action and started reading through all these tweets and I'm like, I need to get something just succinct right now. So I Google it and there's a bunch of different stories. So I go on to Grock and I say summarize what just happened with the news. And it gives me this breakdown and I'm like, so I just go on to chat GPT and I said, make an infographic about what happened.

And it pops it up. There's no filler words. It's literally shooter was apprehended. Shooting took place at this time. And I was like, wow, I'm going to post this. It was just in 30 seconds. I didn't have to read through a bunch of exposition. Often what we see with news articles is they'll say like Donald Trump, comma, who is the 45th and 40, I don't need to read that.

I just need to give me the bullet points. So now I've been cranking out these infographics on news just in two seconds because it's honestly for me. But I think people probably would like it in news that way. It's crazy how fast AI is taking over all of the stuff. And here's a secret. It's way better than they're lighting on. The technology is substantially more advanced, but they're trickling it out. So we'll talk more about that, I'm sure.

You guys, thanks for hanging out. We got Ian hanging out, of course. We had a great conversation, Cliff and Josh, on the pre-show, the Discord members show, Timcast members on Discord come in and check it out hour before the show. We hang out. That was awesome. 630. Yeah, check that out. You go to Timcast.com and sign up.

Check out our pre-shows. Tate Brown, dude. What is going on? Patriots. I'm happy to be here. And we got the great Carter on the buttons. Also happy to be here. Thank you all for coming.

Let's get into it. Here's the news from CNN exclusive. Former FBI Director James Comey indicted over a lot. alleged threat against Trump. They say the charge is approved by a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey alleged to the photo, include making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Comey responded to the indictment Tuesday in a video posted a sub-secre account saying, I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let's go. The new case represents

a reinvigorated effort to satisfy Trump demands to investigate his own foes, including Comey, who he sees as a key leader in the perceived effort to weaponize the justice system against him. It comes less than a month after the president dismissed Pam Bondi. I just got to say with the SPLC indictment, I don't know if this is Todd Blanche just taking a sledgehammer to the system in a way Pam Bondi was not, but it certainly feels like he's coming out, you know, swinging for sure. There are questions about this, however. And, you know, there's another story we'll get into in a bit. That is the FCC challenging ABC. broadcast licenses.

And initially, my reaction to this and to the ABC thing is, do we really need to pull their broadcast license over a stupid joke? Comey said something dumb. Is this really warranting a criminal indictment? Well, here's the issue, to quote Hakeem Jeffries, maximum warfare. That is what they said. They tried putting Trump in prison on fake charges. And there's a very difficult question you all must ask yourselves, honestly.

will you do whatever it takes to stop people who are coming after you? So the issue is this. If they're willing to create fake rape charges, fake fraud charges, if they're willing to present fake trumped-up charges, 37 felonies, which never happened, I want to clarify this real quick on the falsification of business records. The allegation heard in court was that Trump never instructed his lawyer to falsify records. Cohen just assumed that's what Trump wanted, and that is the basis for Trump's criminal activity.

If that is the basis for criminally charging Trump and convicting him, why would I defend any of these people? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the Biden DOJ was bringing in Trump lawyers over like jaywalking charges. So, I mean, Blanche is off to an insane start. I mean, he's having a generational month here. Again, it kind of makes you ask, like, what was Bond even really up to? I mean, this is a question a lot of people had, and like, really across the entire. conservative space was like, Warren McIntyre was making this point over and over again. It's like, hey, we need to see some high profile arrest.

Like, it's great that some stuff's getting done behind the scenes. But you got it. Again, you've got to reward the base with these sorts of things because these people, since the day Trump came down the escalator, it's been like, we're going to lock her up, et cetera, et cetera. Blanche comes out, boom, Comey charge, SPLC indictment. He's got a menu of charges for these Somali daycare fraudsters. We saw an associate of Fauci is now, you know, the DOJ is breathing down his neck.

So, again, Blanche is just racking up some victories. And one, yeah, you're going back at Bonnie and like, what were you doing this whole time? But B, more, I think it's more to Blanche's credit. I think he's just, we finally got the right guy for the gig here. I think also an issue that we're witnessing now, and I think Tim just made a great point on this, is the way to defend against the left is to use their own weaponry against them. There's a number of commentators who have made the fantastic point that, generally speaking, those who claim to be maximum empathizers, oh, I'm an empath, I have empathy.

What they're really doing is not empathizing. What they're doing is projecting. You're just like me. And therefore, if you had done those things, then it would be for these reasons, because that's why I would do it. So every accusation then becomes a confession. And the reason that maximum warfare in return works is atomic diplomacy, mutually assured destruction. That's what we saw with the Soviet versus U.S. Cold War conflict was the way to prevent

World War III is you have nukes, we have more nukes. Now what? And that keeps them in check. I don't even know if check is an option or issue. I think what we're looking at is just maximum warfare. This is substantially less consequential than what they did to Trump. Even if he's convicted on this, what is it, a slap on the wrist? You made a naughty social media post. That's what I wonder if it's more of like a public, an op. They want to, they want to. A shot across the bow. bang the drums, yell Jim Comey's name, and then show everyone, hey, see, vote for me in the midterms, because right now the Iran thing's crushing their public support. And you say in high profile, that's exactly right. Like, they need something right now. And I don't think it's, people say for the base, I think if the base is that strong and they're not seeing action, they might get a little frustrated. But this is for a lot of those people that I think jumped to support Trump and kind of came around. Not necessarily that they were Democrat, but some of the Maha coalition, some of the people that the lawfare pissed them off. Blanche is just rocking and.

rolling right now. I mean, he is really coming out showing that, yeah, you need to take action. And they're really, we're getting to a point where if we didn't have some of this action, it was going to get really bad with a lot of people kind of bleeding out. I think you might be right. The ethical dilemma I've got is sometimes it's like, yo, whoever is heading your DOJ when you're in office, they're going to break the law. You're going to tell them to do stuff that's illegal. They're going to do it. Then when you're all out, next people come in, their DOJ is going to break the law. And you're going to tell them to do it. it and they're going to do it and then just let it happen because the war is out there.

The wars in other countries looking at us and so to turn it on on opposing parties concerns me. Well, I think it's a beltway knife fight. I mean, that's what you're saying right now. These guys that have known each other for decades are now finally turning on each other because they realize, hey, our gigs are on the line right now. Like guys are getting primary at all the, look at the Democrats, they're primaring each other other all the time.

I wish you'd see more of that in the GOP, quite frankly. So these guys are realizing, oh, now there's some heat on us, you got to turn on all your boys and these guys chum it up in the halls of Congress but then once they leave and they're on the stump they got to use the harshest language they possibly can so in addition to that people are like oh well this is red meat for the base it's like yeah that's great actually like we're hungry we would like some red meat some protein please like we've been eating you know slop for a while now so and there's been some great things the trump administration is doing but you know outside of that you're starting to look around in the cabinet you're like okay you know guys let's get some the

ball you know ball moving here because again like trump can only sign so many executive orders finally we're seeing some consequential decisions here from the DOJ. I love to see it. So the question that is, will Ed Krasenstein be criminally indicted as well? Because following this, he posted 8647. I suppose the argument they might make is that his was obviously a commentary on what Comey had said. But we also have this post from Jack Posobic in 2022 where he said 8646. The issue there, I would argue, people are going to say is he was just responding to people saying, 47 in the past in Trump's first term. So he was responding to what the left had,

he's basically doing a play on the left. But the argument people are making is if you're going to go after Comey for this, you've got to go after Poso and Kresden, everybody who's ever posted this. That's basically why I brought up the point of turning on each other is not really the way because you're allowed to type 8646 on Twitter. That's what you're allowed to do. Turning on each other.

What do you mean? Fellow Americans, I guess I'm sure. My fellow Americans, turning on fellow Americans, as opposed to keeping the eyes pointed outward. I understand you got to watch out for the mic in your back. Abraham Lincoln should not have turned against his fellow Americans. hilarious. No, no, they turned on him. I mean, they tried to secede, you know. But I guess the question is- Well, they literally did secede. That was what trigger they seceded from the union.

And I guess the question, too, is like when the Biden-D-O-J was dragging right-wingers into court, was, you know, canning Trump's lawyers and throwing my court, et cetera, et cetera, do you think they were really worried about like, oh, what if the future Republican, you know, A.G or D-O-J comes after us? You know, no, they weren't. They were like, again, like, we have a mission, we're in power. We want to punish these. perceived enemies because again they realize the left by and large realizes the sort of existential moment that we're in and a lot of conservatives are asleep at the wheel and they're like maybe if we can just get everyone to calm down like this system will still function as normal meanwhile like 80%

of the country for the most part has a given up on the political system while now life has it you know life still most people are somewhat happy but as far as the political system they're just increasingly frustrated and they're like I elected you to you know be a bull in a china shop if I wanted like you know, you know, stuff with a tie on, like Jeff Bush or something, you know? Like, we like to Trump for a reason here. I think it's, it's, it's the, like, criminalizing rhetoric is not now. It doesn't make sense. People are beyond rhetoric. If you make people not allowed to say 86, 47, it's not going to be, mean that there's going to be less assassination attempts on Donald. Like, what, no one, they don't care. Like, yeah, rhetoric sucks, but don't start, don't destroy yourself to try and

fix yourself. But I think we made the point, I mean, following the shooting that a lot of people are saying, okay, even if they weren't directly inciting violence, again, they're sort of creating this environment that does lead to violence. So at a certain point, I mean, you know, you got to start asking questions when guys like this, that is, quite frankly, an explicit threat. You know, maybe if people cracked on an explicit threat towards Charlie Kirk, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Yeah, I agree. You know, I was talking about the FCC thing earlier. And the issue is the snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche. And so it's kind of like, you know, a cop pull somebody who's, there's a guy speeding 20 miles over, he gets pulled over.

He's like, hey, everybody was speeding. And the cop goes, I can only pull over one of you. Nobody should be speeding. So the issue is James Comey is the highest profile individual to make this kind of veiled threat to push this rhetoric. If you do not stop it at the highest and most profile levels, then you are going to get 10 million more at the lower levels doing the same thing, which results in a whack-a-loon charging into the White House Correspondents Center trying to shoot people up. And then, it's my favorite part of the story. So Seth Weathers made an enhanced AI version of the security footage, and he uploaded it, and of course, it's AI. It is now gone massively viral tens of millions of views from leftists saying, here's the security footage.

Look at that. That doesn't make sense. It's fake. So what they're doing is they're taking AI videos and then acting like it was the official release. this is what happens when you have it's you know it's like the inverse of broken windows when you allow all of this just to run rampant it becomes the worst possible form yeah cliff you called it stemming the bleeding and i think you are right about a high profile rhetorical insinuation to violence is legal technically but highly unethical highly unethical yeah but the

thing with the comie case is obviously he has to have intent he has to have motive i mean that's why they're indicting him, right? That's why they're moving forward to research it. But I think that they're obviously trying to use the Krasenstein or Posto's tweets as like a, it's like, well, what was the intent? But they put it up. It can't just be anybody that says it, right? The intent has to be contextual. So in 2022, so Jack's Post was in January 22. At that time, the 86 referred to my understanding, and it was, it was not seen concurrently by left-wing commentators. it was not seen as a call for assassination. It was seen as him calling for the removal of him from office. Yeah, but but historically 86, the origins are disputed. One of the origins is that

there was a, you know, soda pop shop and there was an item on the menu number 86 and they removed it. And so when they removed number 86, then somebody said, what happened to 17? It got 86 to 2. one origin is that the mafia would say eight miles out and six feet under and it was a reference to like Vegas drive him out to the desert, bury him in the ground, 86. Oh, 86um. I see that's the verb. And so people, you know, in the mafia out there would be like 86am. And then people started jokingly saying 86 other things.

And then people in the restaurant industry started saying it too. We don't know for sure. But the point is it could go either way. So the argument against Comey is that while the left was using it generally to say, get rid of him, the right took it as this is a veiled threat from the highest level. Yeah. That's the argument for the indictment. Yeah.

I mean, and also, like, I'm just going to like cut to the chase here. I mean, they shot the president. They killed Charlie Kirk. So I'm not really interested in like when they're like, oh, yeah, but one of your guys did this. I'm like, I don't really care. I like the Trump to break these people, quite frankly. I don't care what, who said what.

I'm intending on destroying you. I'm not intending on destroying my own side. I have a friend to enemy distinction. I make that fairly clear, like, all the time. so like I'm not saying everybody has to hold this. I'm not really interested. I'm interested in a former FBI director, like literally sending out a threat against the president. That's what I'm comfortable cracking down again.

I'm okay. Whatever. Oh, he said that. I'm like, I don't really care. I really don't care. I really don't care. You should kill Charlie Kirk. He lose all rights to like, you know, diplomatic, you know, negotiations.

It's important not to conflate who did what. Like a guy killed Charlie, a guy tried. But that's not Jack Rosobic. No, no, no. It was they. Yeah, because saying they makes you the psycho conspiracy. It was they. There was like people.

I mean, Tim makes this point all the time. There was, again, in the entire Utah community, people that are privy to it. And then after that, I just scroll through my timeline, 100,000 likes, 200,000 likes, 300,000 likes, popular liberal commentators, popular, like, TV pundits, all these different people saying, he deserved it, you know, maybe you were ratchet down the radar. There was a woman three hours before the shooting at the White House Correspondence Dinner who said, I hope it happens at the Correspondence Dinner. And then after it did responded, I guess someone else did too.

Yeah. So when, so what happens with Comey and all these leftists? saying, they make TikToks that go viral where they go, someone's got to do it, and you know what I mean. And that's all the video is, because everybody knows what they're saying. And then this wacky guy in California goes, I guess it'll be me. Sooner or later, we know exactly what they mean when they say someone ought to do it. Wink and then turn the video off, arrest them.

Yeah. As for this, the argument is Jack Posobic posted 8646. Ultimately, however, my response is, guys, I no longer play by these, we're all here to hold hands and get along. The Democrats made fake criminal charges against Trump, fake ones. Okay, the falsification of business records charges against Trump were fabricated. First, let's start here. They claim they were felonies because they were in furtherance of another crime.

And for the first time in history, there was no unanimous determination as to what crime Trump was trying to commit. More importantly, so that's where they go from misdemeanor to felony. Otherwise, they'd be misdemeanors and they would be beyond the statute of limitations. Here's the best part in the whole thing, though. The criminal complaint, as stated in the trial, was that Donald Trump never instructed anyone to falsify records. His lawyer, Cohen, just said, we knew that's what Trump wanted us to do.

So Trump literally is accused of doing nothing but being the beneficiary of actions of somebody else. And for that, they have convicted him on 37 counts. If we are going to do nothing in response to that, you guys might as well just put out your hands right now for cuffs because they will stop at nothing to destroy you. This is bare minimum. I'm concerned, but this, if, the argument for me is whether or not saying 8647 is a threat. If Comey had typed someone ought to do it, lock them, like, take them under trial for sure. But like if, if him saying 8647 is a threat, threat. That means Jack literally threatened Biden's life, which he didn't do. And I don't want to set the precedent for logical incarceration of Jack Posobic. That's insane. He's not a criminal. So

there's where that's where I'm at. And so again, I'll ask you again, when they arrested Trump's lawyers, you know, when they arrested Trump's lawyers for providing legal services, do we accept a reality in which Democrats go 10 times harder than we're going now? Oh, 10 times hard. Well, I would argue that arresting someone's lawyers is probably a hundred times harder than giving someone a slap on the rest of our social media posts. Like you were saying thugs were like kicking doors down and like, I'm an arrest for a crime we don't even know. People can't. So they arrested Trump's lawyers in several states for the simple act of providing him a legal service. And they claimed that the letters drafted were in furtherance of the Trump.

So Jenna Ellis is the example. She simply drafted a letter. and they said that was in furtherance of a conspiracy. Okay. And if that's the case, then, right, providing legal service is now a crime. Arresting someone's lawyers for providing a legal service is one of the most egregious things you could do. It is the definition of tyranny. It violates the Constitution.

It violates human rights against a right to legal counsel. And this guy's being given a slap on the wrist charge for a social media post. if we accept a reality in which Democrats can do all of things they've done and we do nothing, again, you may as well just get on your knees right now, hold your hands up for cuffs. Even doing this and go up to the SPLC is like 1% of what Democrats did. It's in the right direction. From my perspective, it's in the right direction. See, this is something that of all people, Jack Posobic, and I grappled with in the book Unhumans about communism,

about left-wing revolutionary violence, is so often the question is, when does the left, go too far. Well, they don't go too far. They just keep going. There's no, there's no end to their pursuit of power. I think it was Curtis Yarvin who said that, from metaphorically speaking, to the right, the right is like wine snobs with alcohol, but the left is like an alcoholic with alcohol. Yeah, he said conservatives treat power the way a wine snob treats alcohol, and Democrats treat power the way an alcoholic treats alcohol. Yes. So we will, I believe the right will, as well as we may run right. Don't walk. Run right, as we say. As far and as fast as we may run right, I do not believe we will ever catch the left in terms of how far they are willing to go for the furtherance of power seeking.

What our position is something like prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. I would say there's something interesting happening right now in the media space with, actually, let's just jump straight. We have a bunch of other big, big news, but I want to jump to this one and this matters in the conversation we're having. You're talking about running right. We've got this from Mediaite. Midterm shocker, GOP tied with Democrats in the latest stunning House poll. I don't believe it for two seconds. It's a single poll.

It's probably a blip. They say the poll of 2,754 registered voters, conducted between April 23rd and 26, carried a 1.87% margin of error. This is a Harvard Harris X. So these are typically good polls. They say 50% said they'd vote Democrat. The other 50 said they'd vote Republican. Democrats have an advantage among independent. voters is good. However, Republicans have the edge in expected voter turnout. Now, what I find

here in this, it's interesting. First, I would say, I don't expect Republicans to win the House. That would buck a historical trend. However, there are other polls that do align up with this that, for instance, Democrat favorability is historically low for a midterm in a president's term or in a rival party's presidential term. They should have much higher favorability if we're tracking historically. They are down. There is the redistricting issue. as well, which will change how this midterm plays out. But I noticed something interesting in this, and I have some theories. So I'm going to lay it on you guys, and I want to hear what you think.

So back in 2011, I'm doing this political content with the, and I meet this guy, Luke Rydkowski. And we end up doing videos together. We make a bunch of gag videos on that guy for a long time. And after Obama's election, he says, get ready. It's about to get real bad. after every presidential election, viewership on social media collapses.

And it was funny because at this point, social media was only like one political cycle old. But Luke had been on since the early days, making social media. And he was like, you know, after Obama's election in 08, as soon as it's over, like December, January, everybody stops caring. And you know what I witnessed this? The anti-war effort after Obama got elected in 2008 vanished.

The protesters were gone. And so what we expect to happen is after a presidential election, there's a dip in interest, but a lingering effect of what happens now. So some people still pay attention as many people check out. That was last year. Then after a year, people are burned out and you're about to enter a midterm. Where we are right now is it's getting warm out. Viewership always dips in spring.

And we are post-presidential pre-midterm. So political spending is not there. Ad bucks in general. Political content at this point in an election cycle, dips massively. Well, what happens? As social media has expanded rapidly, more and more podcasts and video producers and conduct creators emerge, there is a massive desperation to get views. Even in the previous election cycle, there were less political channels, so viewership was down, but, you know, ad rates were okay. Didn't matter. Today, viewership is down seasonally, political seasonally,

and the ad rates are split with AI coming in. So I start, not just I, but you start seeing these people who immediately start doing Erica Kirk posting, Israel posting, and now anti-Trump. These are the only things that are getting high RPMs currently. So if you want to make money, these are the things you got to talk about. Liberals are the underdogs. They're the outsiders. They've been booted out of every branch of government. So content targeting Trump has them all in a tizzy.

Thus, you end up seeing people like Tucker Carlson all of a sudden shift. And he's sustained beautiful viewership, getting a million plus per episode of his show. attacking Donald Trump and Israel. Same thing is true for Candace Owens. You take a look at the people who have stayed more true to their political worldview, and they've been either steady, stagnant, or down. So you can see the more consistently, yeah, we like Trump, it's whatever. They see a viewership decline for the most part.

My prediction is that, like with every season, the people who voted in Donald Trump, the Republicans, they're like, we did it, we're good, wipe their hands, and they go watch football. Those are the top search terms every day. It's basketball, football. Well, it's basketball right now, I think. Well, come the midterms, you are going to see a major burst in ad spending, which will trigger the algorithm to promote more political content because ad dollars is being spent on these terms. YouTube will need to fill that inventory, so they will show those videos more often. Something weird is going to happen when the people have turned on Trump encounter the return of the Republican right, moderate right, which are largely checked out right now, as we see every time.

I'm going to say it again. When George W. Bush was in, the streets were filled with protests. Watch that video from System of a Down where everybody around the world's protesting. Obama gets elected and Democrats fell asleep. They were gone. They just checked out. I remember asking my friends like, why aren't you guys protesting the war? And they're like, what do you mean? I'm like, okay. So my prediction is that following the midterms, Democrats win. Wack-a-loon things start happening. Subpoenas indictments. the people who largely are not paying attention right now will come back, but then the people who abandoned Trump are going to be an interesting space. They are not going to then start supporting

Trump. They've already found an audience with the disaffected Trump supporter, which is not particularly as big as the Trump base. The Trump base largely has maintained itself, polling-wise, but they're going to find themselves like Candace Owens and Anna Casparian largely aligned over these issues. And I think that creates a new left-right paradigm. I think it's a high high probability that this will happen. I'd like to hear what you guys think about it. Well, first, the poll, I hope it's right at 50-50. But the reality is, I mean, everything that we're seeing, like you said, I mean, it's supposed

to be 10 to 15 points. But yeah, I mean, every single race in 2025 in the off year, every special election we've had so far, I mean, the overperformance of Democrats, or you could say the underperformance of Republicans, it's not a good sign. but my thing is how much does the hate for Trump stick? Like how much is that going to motivate them when we get to November? It's motivating them right now. Like it is by far the biggest motivator for Democrats is still Trump is the enemy.

Trump is the devil. Trump is public. You know, we got to get rid of this guy. But, you know, if gas starts to come down, I think that maybe we could have somewhat of an okay midterm. You know, Jessica Tarlov made a really great point. She said, on Fox News, they're complaining, they played a clip from Bill Maher's show, Club Random, where he roasted David Cross for saying he had, his daughter's friend had a three, had to know someone who was transit three. And she said, you guys are still talking about the small room where everyone's talking about the big room. Democrats are talking about prices. Democrats are going to people and saying gas is too high, the economy is bad, and they're not wrong. And conservatives are still doing cultural issues and they need to, focus on the economy. The problem is Trump started a war and now gas prices are up. And there's not really much you can say about it. Even Trump's allies are on TV going, well, gas prices are

up, but, well, no, but that's going to be a huge motivating factor for regular people who don't know or care about politics. They're going to be like, I don't know, gas is expensive. I'll vote for the other guy. Economic populism in this sort of in the modernity is both an explainer and a predictor accurately who captures the economic spirit of the people the best. A future project I've finished that's going to be coming out with Rich Barris, director of Big Data Poll, the subtitle of that is what the polls say young Americans really want. And there's, there's a sort of a fork that we're saying. We talk in the book largely about the revolutionary spirit of under 30s and that they want to sort of just burn the whole system down because

the establishment of either side has not given us what we wanted. And that, that fervor, unfortunately, is being vastly better appealed to by the, we like to, we've turned them the neo-Bolshevist left. People burn it down, destroy it, do away with what's been done before. You know, I think more and more, I feel like I was a bit naive, which is interesting to say, because having been in this business for so long, but it really is fascinating to see the Kirk posters and Israel posters, these people who flip on a dime, right? The example that I've been using lately is Tucker Carlson, how he's like, you know, he did that show with his brother, and he's like, I'm tormented, you know, I'll be tormented for having supported Trump,

and I apologize for misleading people. I didn't do it intentionally. And then his brother goes, maybe that Miriam Adelson money, you know, came with something attached or whatever. And then he laughs because the truth is literally everybody in the world knew what Miriam Madelson's support for Trump financially meant. It meant pro-Israel. The reporting from various liberal outlets as well as corporate news was that the string

attached was she wanted Israel to annex the West Bank. And that in exchange for $160 million into. Tupac supporting Trump, Trump would be president. He'd advocate for those things. Trump in his first term moved the embassy to Jerusalem. Donald Trump killed so Lamani. Donald Trump has been incessantly pro-Israel for people to now that act like they had no idea. This is the case. It is a lie. It is a lie. So there are these, to see so many of these, these commentators who got on the Trump wagon, now all of a sudden getting on the Kirkpost, Israel anti-Trump wagon, I'm just like, to your point, I actually don't think anybody really knows

what they're after. They're just dogs chasing cars and they wouldn't know it to do if they ever actually caught one. Yeah, like if you had the power to retrofit the economy, how would you do it? Everybody say their way. Well, my point is... I think a lot of people are spinning right now. They don't know the Trump...

Admin doesn't have... Let me tell you this. They don't have a message for economic prosperity. They have... We're going to make it a little less worse with making oil hopefully down to where it was a year ago. And the point I was trying to make is that, I'll give you an example. a woman has a viral video where she said that she used to be a member of Turning Point and supported them until she found out our country was secretly controlled by a foreign government.

And it's like, okay, that's not true. You don't now think that you were just saying that because you're not going to get any social media attention or clicks otherwise. Yeah, it's a supply and demand problem. The same thing with SPLC and racism and whatnot in America is you have to manufacture the content to then talk about it to fundraise off of it or make money off of it. And while the supply of political or the demand for political content, controversial political content, tends to be lower in the offseason, so then you need to supply.

You're a product in search of a market. Well, so what ends up happening, though, is the left has been anti-Israel anti-Trump. All of a sudden now, they were conservatives and moderates in this space who were pro-Trump and Israel ambivalent, maybe anti-foreign funding, you know, for governments or whatever. Now they may as well be identical to the young Turks. They hate Trump and they hate Israel and they used to be Trump voters. Not everybody, but there's a fair amount. I mean, Tucker Carlson is a great example of somebody who basically sounds like Anna Kasparian.

Seriously, he's saying exactly the things she says on young Turks and Jank Yugar, which is kind of surprising. Tucker may as well be the same. They're getting views from it. And their audience is now being pulled in that direction as they attach themselves to the audience. of Jimmy Dorr, Anna Kusberian, Jen Cesar. I see why they're coalescing. I don't know. I don't watch their shows inherently, but that when the Americans attacked the Iranians, you know,

a month and a half ago or whatever a month ago, I guess, it was at the discretion of the direction of the Israelis. They were like, the Israelis started a war that we then became at war because another country did it. Let me issue some caveats because you're half correct. Thank you. Marco Rubio said, Israel told us they were going to go in. And if they did, we knew we would get attacks from Iran. So we decided we would go in with them.

That is a fair point that Israel decided to jump the gun and the U.S. was basically like, okay, well, then we're in this. That being said, if you take a look at the military operations leading up to what Israel planned to do, I think it's fairly obvious the U.S. was playing on going to Iran. The aircraft carriers were already en route. And we took Venezuela and surrounded Cuba. So it looked like, and we already knew this, the U.S. was gearing up for some kind of action in the Gulf. Then Israel makes a move and the U.S. says, okay, we're going in.

If you think of it as like a military action, unified military action, joint operation that the Israelis probably had some info and they're like, yeah, we can't wait. We get 140 of their top leaders right now if we go, we're going. 50, but they got them. Yeah. And like, yeah, I mean, also the reason Iran has the leverage to hit U.S. assets is because we've already sort of put a pincere in on Iran for decades now. I mean, all these different foreign entanglements we've ended up in the Middle East. In addition to that, yeah, builds up the largest armada like in American history right on Iran's doorstep. So it's like, although it's true that Israel jumped the gun, it's not like we were just sitting

at home and we had the scramble. It's like, no, all our assets are in place already. We have permanent assets. And then obviously the Navy coming in. That delves another state of mind, you know, question of like, why are we? What is the plan in Iran right now? And I mean, how many people like, Cliff, you were saying on the pre-show, how many people are like potentially reticent?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but like reticent to vote for the Republican Party after that, basically no new wars war. Well, I think that we're the deadline. for when things have to be resolved or there has to be some sort of win or victory politically. I'm saying, we only have six months until the election. And everybody thinks it's like, oh, well, if we get things fixed by September, no. You got to have it fixed by June so that the gas prices can come down and people can feel it coming into September and October. I don't know about June because people have short-term memories and short attention spans.

It maybe would have been June a decade ago or two decades ago. I think at this point it's probably September. Yeah, but people are voting in September now. That's a fair point, too. There's also the consideration of Trump's executive actions. And what one trust the planner said to me is that have you ever asked yourself why Trump's not worried about the midterms? And, you know, as if to imply Trump's got a secret plan. My response, of course, is yes, I have asked that question.

And there's a few answers. He's really dumb. I typically don't think Trump is a really stupid guy. he's resigned himself, so he's taking tremendous action now, knowing he will be curtailed in the future, or perhaps he has some kind of plan related to executive orders. I don't know. So it could be any one of these things. The trust the planners are like, Trump's got a secret plan right before the midterms.

You're going to pull something off. And the executive order instructing the Postal Service not to deliver mail-in ballots is interesting. And it will create a speed bump. I don't know if it'll be a roadblock, but at least a speed. mean there might be people at the post office to say, hey, man, I'm not getting involved in that. Like, I don't want to get in trouble. Yeah. They'll come after me.

The plan trusting when it comes to Iran's kind of crazy because it's like, what's the fake out here? We've like executed on a 30, 40-year operation now to go to war with Iran. Like it's the most predictable war and it's just a matter of plan, not if. That's not the, that's the trust of the plan side. The blunder side is like it, listen, I'm, I'm going to say a few things. I already mentioned Miriam Edelson. So Tucker Carlson and anyone else coming out and being like, I can't believe Trump supporting Israel is lying because we all knew exactly what Trump meant. He hired John Bolton.

He was pounded with neocons the first time around, and we all knew it. He fired 59 Tomok missiles into Syria. He killed Soleimani. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. We knew exactly what Trump was about the whole time. So people coming out now being like, I can't believe this is happening, they are lying. As for the Iran war and where we're at, these people who are now all of a sudden shocked that we have. been putting troops in the region that Trump said, we would never allow them to have nuclear

weapons, that we made moves against Venezuela. This is fake. These people are not serious when they're saying these things. I think some of them maybe might have believed Trump at his word when he said, I won't get us into another war, maybe, which is like, dog, come on, are you serious, but still? That's only a technicality in that we all did argue that Trump was the anti-war candidate because he didn't start a new war in his first term. And he was the first president of lifetime to do so. But that being said, hiring John Bolton and taking money for Miriam Adelson, I'm not surprised that we're saying this. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not going to pretend to be tormented by it. My point is this. Right now you've got people, to your point about

trust the plan. This is a 30, 40 year operation to go after Iran. It's deep state, largely, whether or not Trump is a line with them or he's doing it his own way. I don't know. But there are people coming out now going, I don't even understand why we're doing it. What? Read literally anything from U.S. military doctrine for 40 years, you know exactly why we're doing it. Trump just took it over. Again, I'm not saying it's good, but all of these people now coming out, they are

lying. And I'll say, I want to say this to the little people, too. Not just high profile person. I mean little people is an insult. I mean, the run of the middle people who are like, you know, Tim's an Israel shield or whatever. Don't you remember on October 7th, we defended

Israel? Don't you remember I said, I'm Israel ambivalent. I don't really care. I care. I much about Israel as I do about Tibet or South Sudan. Don't you remember when I said we should not be giving any military funding? These posts are all fake. They are liars. We at this show, I, as well as everybody here have maintained basically the same stance on everything pertaining to the Middle East warfare Donald Trump the whole time. We knew Trump hired Bolton. We knew Trump took money from Mary Madelson. We knew he said he'd go after Iran, not happy about it. We knew it was a possibility and then it happened, and we criticized the 12-day war, and Charlie Kirk even said, we shouldn't

do it. And then when he did, he said, listen, I'll stand with my present on this one. This is the measured, reasonable, honest approach. Now you have all of these commentators acting like all of a sudden they've been surprised by it. No, they are grifters and they are liars. One thing I want to add is that the frustration that we're seeing and hearing, particularly amongst under, like under 35 or so, particularly under 40, but generally you see it more or under 35, under 30, is what seems to be a misalignment between foreign policy of the United States and domestic policy. And it seems like, why are we doing all these things over here?

We can't have that here. Why is there progress over there or so much action over there and not over here? It's a supply and demand issue. In media, Trump nuked USAID, one of the most consequential moves made in the benefit of the populist right in the history of this country. I don't think, I think the challenge. is you say Epstein. Everyone knows the story. It's salacious. It's high profile. It's international. So they want a nuclear bomb on the Epstein stuff. And Trump did not deliver. And that's bad.

However, USAID is substantially worse. Not in terms of the crimes. We all get Epstein did demonic things and worse. I'm saying the scale of USAID cycling money through these various law firms, NGOs to create a permanent political class and Trump nuked it off the map. Massive. They're trying to reform now in Virginia. The deep state is trying to restructure. People need to recognize the tremendous domestic victory that that was. It's huge. It's invisible.

It's on a database. It's like numbers. It's not salacious. It's not salacious. See something happen. Like we need to see new roads. Which is literally what I'm saying. It is a supply and demand issue in media.

People don't understand USAID because it's hard to parse all of the networking and data points of the permanent political class. I think if you want to, like, create a moral boost, you want to, like, create a spectacle, like a public works or something. I wonder, because if we are going to expend so much effort and money, you know, geopolitically to destroy and control, we really should be investing all those resources or a lot of them into the United States to make it like aspire. Rather than try and seize what we need, build what's better and let them buy it from us. Well, I'll say it again to Tate's point where, you know, people are claiming there's no plan despite this being like a 30, 40 year plan. the it's it's fairly obvious what the effects are that's happening with the war in iran that is the u.s has now become a net export of oil for the first time since world war two one of the largest oil exporters in the planet china's been cut off and east asia is days away

from being forced to drop their consumption to fuel minimum this is like a major story right now, China, principally, in a few days, we'll have to go into emergency distribution levels. So whatever you think Trump is doing or why he's doing it, by all means, again, you are allowed to say Trump's an idiot, you don't like him, and the plan's bad, fine. I'm just saying when you look at the results of Venezuela, Iran, and China, it certainly looks like something intentional is being done. Yeah, I think so. Here's my concern.

2028 comes along. We get JD Vance. I don't know who's going to be running. J.D. Vance, Gavin Newsome, you know, a couple of high profile. guys, can the Republican Party win without a promising positive message for the future about some new technology, like a real tangible change in people's life? I don't know if it can. If it's just back and forth, back and forth, I don't see any other way than techno-communism on the horizon. It's kind of the problem with political movements. I agree. You have a 14, 16 year cap,

and we just saw this with Orban. It's about 14, 16 years. That's when a new sort of slate of voters come in. They don't really remember what times were like before, let's say Orban, for example. So they see what he's delivering. They start to see the corruption set in. They start to see these different things where you can kind of pick it apart and say, okay, let's get something new. And that could happen with MAGA. We go into 2020. And I'm not saying this will happen. I'm just sort of saying this as a warning is that as someone that, you know, believes in the viability of MAGA, going into 2028, all right, now the composition of voters is vastly different than 2016. A lot of those people don't remember what things were like before then. And they might just start to say, I don't know what this whole

Maga think there's some problems here and they start nitpicking. And to your point, you're making good point is that there's kind of this tendency in the conservative commentary, especially to like over-intellectualize how voters think, like they have these deep motives. Like with Trump, we did through the Trump where they're like, it was about like these different populist things going on and like it was really like pocketbook stuff, especially with Biden. The reason Biden got hammered for the most part is because oil was like through the roof, gas was through the roof, especially. Same thing happens going into the midterms is that again, if people are filling the pinch economically, that's going to be the primary reason when people don't show up or why they vote

for the Democrats. Now, we do have a golden parachute with Iran. I mean, we saw today, I don't know if we're going to talk about it. The UAE just bailed on OPE. I mean, again, this is, I'm sorry, if you don't like Trump, this is the U.S. system breaking an energy cartel and taking over. And one potential hypothesis is that the liberal economic order or the New World Order that H.W. Bush called it was adhering to OPEC and creating this global standard. And Trump just smashed it with a sledgehammer. and has put the U.S. on top. Yeah, I mean, so you have the UAE bailing. The Saudis have been griping for longer than the Emirates have.

So the Saudis will be out any minute now. Venezuela is, you know, dethroned for the most part or, you know, they're incapacitated. So oil is about to be dirt cheap. If we can, again, take the off ramp here in Iran, that's a massive dub. Going into the midterms, production will be back up. Oil will be dirt cheap. In addition to, I mean, I don't know specifically, but, you know, there's an interesting comment. I mean, I don't know if we talked about on the show or not around the W.

the WEF was Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, came out. This is a guy that's like a total new world order apparatchik as far as like this is a guy that really believes in the way the system works. He's an internationalist, right? He worked in England for years, et cetera, et cetera. He came out and very somberly said the world order as we knew it, the Western-lined American-led world order is dead. It's effectively every man for himself. And I think that was like kind of one of those underrated comments made this year because that's actually really incisive. He's mourning the death of it. But for us, that just shows that Trump has single-handedly completely upended the 21st century consensus. That's what people elected them for. So all these people will like chest

beat all day and post-Crucater edits and they're like, we need to burn everything down. And then as soon as Trump starts to do that, everyone's like all of a sudden has a problem with it. And they start sounding like Mark Carney. It's like, I agree. I mean, I have a lot of criticisms of the Iran war. Most of it is for separate reasons. On the economic front, we've seen a complete rewiring of the way the world works. explain what OPEC is briefly and then why it's a powerful thing or an important thing that UAE left OPEC? It's effectively all the oil producers that are not Western nations decided they would be able to put leverage on the West if they join forces. And what they do is they cap oil production quotas to artificially keep the price high.

Or the Saudis famously would start mass producing oil to damage prices. The landman has a really good speech in it. This shows fantastic. Where I think it's Billy Bobby explains you want the price of oil. I don't know if you guys have seen this. He's like, $70.80 a barrel seems to be the right price point where we can produce it at a profit, but the American people can buy gas and not be constrained. When the price gets too high, then sure, well, we can make a profit off of that, but no one can actually pay for it so it constrains a system. If we can't, he's like the profit margins might stay the same. That's the problem with OPEC being able to tell the United States, screw you, we're going to dump and pump, or we're going to put a hole down. So Trump just nuked that whole system. Yeah. So what we have here is not

this is what I believe is that we don't have a plan problem in my opinion. We have a persuasion issue where whether it was with Doge and USAID or any of these foreign policy victories or the sort of the explanation required

is not exactly been, at least not to my knowledge, has not been compacted into a text free meme that that captures the sentiment that then motivates under 30s to say, I'm voting for Republicans. Well, I think the challenge is social media right now, the Erica Kirk stuff is a really great example of what appears to be an op. The RPM on Erica Kirk content is as high as finance, which makes literally no sense as to why the algorithm would do that or why people would,

the alternative theory is that someone is intentionally putting millions of dollars behind the search term, Erica, which makes no sense. So, oh, I think I knew what, it makes sense. What's the number one podcast genre of all them all? What's number one? No one. Rogan, I don't know. True crime by women.

Indeed. I think my hypothesis is that the Erica Kirk thing is content that's filling a niche of like this true crime hyperdrama that is largely listened to by women. That's true, but that doesn't explain why advertising dollars are placed against her name. It doesn't. If that were the case, then the ad rates should be low. because of high volume. So if you, when you have these shows that talk about Erica Kirk getting tons and tons of views, that means competition against that term is high, and that means everyone's bids go, uh, or actually it can go either way, but if you have a massive volume of content,

then the comment, I'm sorry, the competition is low, meaning if I want to advertise on Eric Kirk, I've got 75 different podcasts to choose from, so I don't got to pay a high rate. Finance is expensive because financial advisors are, are scarce. There's very few high profile financial shows. That means if a bank or wealth management company wants to advertise, not only is their customer base small, because very few people need those services, but their choices and podcasts is small as well. So you'll get, say, you know, company A, company B, they both try to buy an ad for a hundred bucks on a podcast, and the guy says, well, he's offered me 100. What are you going to offer me? He goes, 110, 120, 130. How does that make sense for Erica Kirk?

What advertisers are being like, I will pay $100 per thousand for Erica Kirk-related shows? It does not make sense, especially with the massive amount of views she's getting. Could it be similar for different reasons? In what way? If we consider the demographic of finance content versus Erica Kirk content, who's actually watching it? Who's the 25% of your, 50% viewer, or 75% viewer? Right. The issue with financial content, the ads are expensive because customers are going to spend a lot of money.

So if you are a financial, if you're a wealth manager, for instance, a client for wealth management generates a lot of money for that firm, whereas, you know, selling a cheeseburger is going to be minimal margins. So then, of course, the ads are worth a lot more and the inventory is a lot less. The incongruity with Erica Kirk is that there's massive viewership on a term that doesn't sell a product. Erica Kirk, as a search term, does not sell products. So I will just say this. This is the internal reporting and inside baseball conferences I've had with other people who produce content, explaining how videos they've done referencing Erica Kirk generate more money in a critical sense than content in other areas, which does not make sense in my experience. It would imply that someone is intentionally going on Google ads and saying, I'm going to spend $10 million on things related to Erica Kirk, which I don't get. The other argument, however, is that advertisers are not doing it and that YouTube has intentionally

weighted their algorithm to shift ad dollars in that direction. There is a non-conspiratory argument that content related to Erica Kirk is just to your point about true crime. It is a higher retention rate and sells more lipstick. And maybe YouTube unintentionally is like if we're getting more clip through and we're selling more ads and they're competing like crazy. but I got to be honest, that's not the simple solution. The simple solution would be high volume content has cheap ads.

Not high volume content has high volume ads. It does not make any sense. Unless it's an op. Perhaps. I think about this with our conspiracy hats on our tinfoil caps, or Alex Jones caps. You just say our timfoil? Tinfoil. Tim.

Oh, Tim. I think you should say Timfoil. New product. Speaking about Erica Kirk is selling tinsling. Charlie Kirk is killed. Who benefits? I don't care if people think it was Israel. I don't care if people think it was Tyler Robinson. The Uniparty establishment left. Correct. Woke left. Charlie Kirk got Trump elected. Who benefits from destroying Erica Kirk now? The same group of people. Erica Kirk has taken over Turning Point USA and is trying to run what is left of Charlie's legacy, which rallies young people to vote Republican. And it is being destroyed by two things. One, prominent personalities who flip in a dime and are trying to tear it down, but also

a YouTube algorithm that is promoting attacks against turning point. Who would benefit from making other people get pissed off at that content? Like, it just feels like a foreign... Have you guys seen the new Kirk conspiracy? There's a new one. At the White House Correspondence dinner, somebody was

filming on the cell phone. Erica Kirk looks around and then looks at the camera and then looks away. They freeze frame her glancing at the camera and they put, she knew. Not kidding. Now it's going massively viral that because she, someone filmed on, because at the dinner, somebody was filming the room and she looked at the camera, they go, she knew. I swear. It's because people, like most of my friends don't know who Erica Kirk is, to be honest. And I think it's because they want people that are tightly wound and that know what's going on politically that have the momentum like Mike Cerno, you know, you, Tim. They want those people to be thinking about Erica Kirk, which no one will identify with in the general election or in the midterms. People be like, what is that? When we should be focused to go and fix it. the economy, changing the economy, giving people hope, being a lighthouse. I talk about this, and I want to talk about it in a non-facetious way. I really, if you guys think this is possible,

because you have a book about people going right, about people becoming more conservative, empowering. I don't know, the Republican Party, I imagine, involving the Republican Party. If we brought a message, I talk about graphene, a new technology, a 21st century, fascinating technology. I'm pretty sure it's 20th century. What's that? Pretty sure it's 20th century, but we're making it 21st century great again. You could have paint. If we did that, Would it be enough? Is that, is that exciting enough? I have, I have a question.

I can go deep on it. I have a question for Trump, his administration. Why are they allowing this explosive anti-Trump virality? Trump tweeting against Zucker Carlson does nothing effective. We talk about how going after Comey is fire with fire. But the Trump administration is certainly not doing what the establishment left did, putting pressure on social media companies. Yeah.

Well, and that's the most frustrating part. I mean, kind of to what we were talking about, Iran. is the happiest, I mean, this is like, if you're a young person, it's very demoralizing because, okay, you have the first prong, which we've talked about, kind of the way that, you know, the social media, you know, sphere is operating right now. But then, like, you have, like, Mark Levin, John Potteritz. Like, these guys are, like, clapping, like, Brett Stevens is in the New York Times. Like, you know, a broken clock is right twice a day. Trump got it right on Iran. So you just see that. And you're like, literally, like, the worst people

and, like, the world, like, lining up to, like, endorse this action. You just see that. And you're just like, that's why I think the fundamental issue is that you're just like rewarding like some of these people that hate your guts. And that's what's especially frustrating about it. And then you add that on top of what you're hitting on, which is absolutely what's going on is these people that have flipped on Trump are operating in an incentive structure that has existed and rewarded people for 10 years now, which is if you attack Trump, if you attack Trump, if you attack Trump. There's nothing like brave. That's like the least brave position you can take is like a attacking Trump. We made the joke a couple years ago when I was pointing out that Brian Tyler Cohen is a channel. And so is David Pacman. It's literally every thumbnail is a different screenshot of Trump and just some generic phrase like Trump did what? Trump pooped his pants.

Trump shocks people. Trump gets angry. All just generic boomer bait. They're like, hey. My point is I was saying two years ago we made the joke, it would be so much easier just to go full anti-Trump and just soak in all those retard views and make a ton of money. well, it looks like some people decided to do that. Yeah, if a thing about it from the mindset of like a Swiss banker is like, I got to get these Americans, we got to get this American thing gone so that we can corporatize the world.

If I can get their political elite, and I'm talking about you, Tim, if we can get the people that actually know what's going on politically to fight each other and ignore the globalist technocracy enroachment, that would be a win because people like, Tim, like, we need you focusing on the big picture, not Erica Kirk. It's fucking freaking me out. So that's where I think it's coming from anyway. I want to go back to one of Tim's points that I didn't really understand when we were saying it, but the USAID stuff. Yeah.

And them drowning that out. You guys asked, do we have a shot in 26 or 28 on the Republican side? The ramifications of all of those NGOs and all the nonprofits, the 501C3s, the 501C4s, I mean, we're seeing it now. Were they winning elections in 25 and specials this year? Yes. but they don't have the type of resources and money. I mean, this is the important thing to understand about USAID and the massive victory that Trump secured with this.

Billions of dollars were funneled through USAID to various nonprofits and NGOs who would then make contributions to other NGOs who would pay the salaries of prominent lawyers and make donations to political action committees who would then create a permanent political class in the United States. Trump got rid of that. now they are in Virginia and they just put five congressional districts in Fairfax County. Did you see the Supreme Court? We told them we're not going to put a stay. We're not certifying this until we hear on the actual merits. So the deep state is trying to strike back. And I would say it looks like these social media platforms are completely in line with the old guard trying to stop Trump still.

I don't think you need a conspiracy for that. I just think you simply need ideological alignment. One of the next books I have coming out later than the year with, of all people, speaking of Doge and USAID, is Data Republican. Everybody loves Data Republican, right? She's great. And what we talk about in the book is that the unelected managerial class, we call them the NGO administrative complex. The ideology that the philosophy that they hold to at its core is something called supranationalism, which is this idea that you are a, you've all heard this before, citizen of the world. They take that absolutely, literally.

their ideological writings and what is it they're devoted to. It's this idea, you can call it like late-stage liberalism or classical liberal maximalism. It's this idea that every human everywhere on earth is equal. Those who are oppressed are entitled to more mercy than those who are not. Therefore, we need to focus our efforts on those populations around the world that have less access to democracy. And all democracy building under the conservative didn't work, let's bring them here. So the mass migration of third world is into the United States and into the Western world is a direct result of supernationalism. And that same ideology is in order to protect this global democracy, which when they say our democracy, more so what they mean is our power

to provide democracy to the third world into places that we believe don't have it, that's what they mean when they say our democracy. And therefore, they need to have. And therefore, they need to have power elected or unelected or not. And so to President Trump's credit by the Doge Project and the revelation that this has been going on. I wonder if Trump's gambit is that they cannot win without the NGO industrial complex. So after USAID was dismantled, Lee Zeldon exposed something like $7 billion awarded to a nonprofit that was formed only a month prior. Very interesting how the government, was funneling billions to liberal non-profits this way. The thing that is you can clean that

money up, the belief is that this is how they would keep a cycle of your tax dollars in the political machine propping up. And it wasn't just Democrats back in the day. It was the uniparty establishment. It was Republicans and Democrats. Trump gets in the Republican side and those guys jumped to the Democratic Party. So that could be massive and we will see what happens this midterm I think we might be shocked based on the media has been largely crushed. It's become decentralized hyperpartisan nonsense. So no one really knows what is or isn't. And USAID is gone.

There is a possibility, although I'm going to say right now, guys, I fully expect Republicans to lose. But in the event they actually win, I would go, wow. The USAID stuff, the manipulation was crazier than we realized. Seems like they're moving to crypto pretty fast now. I think that's the way out of the, what do you call the Federal Reserve System, is to start up a U.S. banking central bank currency, which is terrifying because it's on a blockchain to be tracked. You know, trackable money is pretty antithetical to the freedom of movement.

What does that do with what we're talking about? Well, that's how the government is, now that they've smashed up USAID, they're going to try and transition away from this old world, new world order into a new new world order that's going to be an American-led technocracy is through crypto. But what does that have to do with the government had an apparatus that took taxpayer dollars and gave it to Democrats? USAID was a liberal reserve system thing. It was an old guard financial I think we're saying is that it did the argument is, well, that system did not have enough power. There was a single gate that if you close it, the treasury. I think that's how must. Yeah, but crypto's trackable. I mean, if they go to Bitcoin or CBDC, there's a public ledger.

If they do, if they do a Fed coin and the ledger is still privately held, then one could argue that like the Federal Reserve, they'll never audit it, perhaps. But then you're just arguing nothing changes. That's the structure changes, but the system stays the same. The Federal Reserve reports to the Swiss Bank for International Settlements. So we'd be off that. I mean, maybe we wouldn't be, but. You're saying Trump is trying to break out of that system. I think so. I think that's his ideal.

But he might be in their pocket. That's why. Didn't he just recently say crypto is the future he's going to protect it? That would be interesting if he breaks the liberal economic order, swift payment system, all that stuff by switching to a decentralized crypto network. Yeah, they wanted ripple to be the global currency, I think. But it looks like it's going to be bit, well, we don't know yet. Well, Bitcoin's always going to be the gold.

Yes. This is why I do hold out a little bit of hope for the midterms is because of what you just said. I mean, we're talking, you said $7 billion just for that one organization, right? This is hundreds of billions of dollars. We used to have, the Democrats would always have these ballot chasers and door knockers, and they would never go home. Like, they would never not be in the field. And we know, we run these programs. We know what it costs to keep 30 people in a congressional district for two months is extremely.

extremely expensive. Now they're there for 24 months. They don't even leave when the election's over. So I am excited to see how much does it deplete them? And that's what, you know, like I said, I have a little bit of a glimmer of hope that maybe they hold on in the midterm. I really want to talk about your guys' book. If you guys are into it, I'd love to just ask you, what is it? Like, what's in it? What is the impetus of this thing? Yes. So this is 18 steps to go from basically rage posting on Twitter to making your values the law. No, I don't want to do that. I want to Rage posts on Twitter. I don't want solutions. I want to be angry. I want to do both. Let's go. How do we do it? What's the plan?

18 steps. So the quick rundown on the process of writing. This is how it is typically with my co-authors on these projects is there's some sort of this initial source of the data. So, of course, Cliff has been teaching this stuff. We're doing workshops for years. So he's got the slideshows. He's got the notes. He's got time on the phone with me. And so what I did is that kind of compiled the structure of how do you go from, hmm, I think, I'm thinking about running to, holy bleep, I actually just won. What is the step by step with no step skipped process? What is the system that you can repeat across districts, across elections, local, state, federal to actually win?

Yeah, and we do candidate academies, and people always laugh, but I spend most of my time trying to talk people out of running for office. Because we don't like people that run, waste their time, waste their money. And it's like a lot of people that are like, hey, I want to do good. I want to get involved. I'm pissed off on Twitter. And I was watching Timcast and those guys are nuts. So I want to go and I want to actually run for office. They have no idea what they're walking into.

And the number one way that people fail is they think that they're going to go out and they have the perfect message. They don't have any money. And this political game, I walk through all of the different fundraising and kind of the dollars you need to be able to raise. Not because I like that, right? It's kind of grimy. It's sleaze-bally. Nobody likes to raise money or beg people for money. but that's what the establishment has.

They have all of these pots of money, and if you're a grassroots candidate trying to raise dollars, it's practically impossible. So what is the money for? This is a bit of a tangent if you had something else to say, but the money, what is the money for?

Because I see like a YouTube channel with 1.3 million subscribers or you get half a million views on a video every night. You don't need money. You've already got what money would get you. That's not correct. But are you saying that the money gets you even more?

What's the money for primarily? This is a misconception. The presumption that half a million people are going to get you there. No, you need 100 million. You need 70, 80 million. That's true. Yeah, yeah. The scaling is important. But the money really is used to buy publicity, as my suggestion. Look, if you were to tell me when to run for Congress, okay, most people, if they were to be

polled for name ID in their district, okay, if you poll the actual people that are going to vote, they're going to have zero percent name ID. That's most people. The amount of money it costs, let's say you're in a Republican primary, 80,000 voters are going to vote. The amount of money it's going to cost for you to go from 0% name ID to having a chance to win in an open race. You're not going against an incumbent. I mean, we're talking $8 to $10 million is what you, if you ran as a Patriot, would have to spend. I'm in the wrong business. Because this is the playbook from the establishment.

If somebody runs it's the S man, they don't run the playbook because they're on the team. They're there for Mike Johnson, et cetera. They're not going to cause they will do what they want them to do. But they need to bring the name ID. They need to bring the name. Can I charge congressional candidates money to come on this show? Yeah, they have to pay it through their campaign, but not through their official dollars, but yes. Yeah, so like the campaign would pay, it'd be like it's $100,000 if you want to come on the show.

Yes. That's free money because they'd do it. Yes. It's funny. But the playbook for them is if somebody that ran that was an actual Freedom Caucus person was a threat, they will spend between $5 to $10 million in the last two months of the race, all negative on the Patriot. that's running. Bro, this is what you're saying about the nasty campaign. I got to my, my thoughts on going from zero name recognition to like widespread.

You know, when you, when you mention how much of that cost, I'm thinking zero. Like, just look at Laura Lumer, right? No one is better at earned press than she is. But you can vote for Laura Lumer, though. No, no, I'm not saying that people would vote for. I mean, she did run. What I'm saying is her choice and how she got attention is her choice, but she certainly knew how to launch a nuclear bomb in the media and still does.

The point is these candidates have no idea how to do it. So they have to go to someone like Laura and pay her and say, how can I get people to recognize my name and hear about this? But there are some people who don't need to do that. Some people just know how to get it. Let me give you. AOC is good at it. Right, right.

But the difference is, you know, growing a huge following. And like if I said to you guys, how many people in Massey's district are listening to the show right now? 17? Yes. And you'd be, that might even be high, right? Just because how you look at it. Well, we love Massachusetts. The example in Missouri, Austin Peterson, he ran for Senate against Josh Hawley way back when.

Josh Hawley had 400 followers on Twitter. Austin Peterson had 120,000. Josh Hawley beat him by about 60 percentage points. Yeah, of course, because 120,000 is in Seattle, in Chicago and Nashville. Because it's the money, right? The establishment lined up, and they spent tens of millions of dollars to get Josh Holly's name, you know, and he just crushed the field. In the state, right? Correct.

So AOC's recognition is outside. her district. Now it's national. I mean, she's got a lot of recognition in her district, but 99% of the money that she and Ilhan Omar get come from outside their districts. I want to shout out Thomas Massey, who's in a race right now, and I know there's a lot of money that's been put up against him. You were saying earlier, like, I saw earlier he was winning 70% three weeks ago, and I'm like, Massey dominates everything he does. He's super famous. He's well-lovable. He's a great guy. Genius on top of that. Now you're saying because of the money, think I'm on that it's a one-point race? Yeah, he put this out publicly, but he's, you know, he said it's

a single point race. That is going to be a huge battle. May 19th is the primary, so we're, what, about a month or three weeks out? Actually, three weeks out today. But yeah, it's millions of dollars that they're spending against him to try to kick him out. So what are the steps in this book or elsewhere that you take to defeat that? I think the best way to think about this book is it's like a marketing funnel for a personal brand with a call to action B, go to this place at a specific time on this day and with your finger or however you do it, you with a little checkbox next to my name. So that if it's marketing, if it's sales, if it's Pierre, if it's whatever, that's actually what to do. How do you go from, don't know who you are to you're actually

on the ballot, you have a product to sell. People feel good about the product because it's an identity-based choice. So some of the early stages are actually about creating a persuasive message so that when people see your name on that ballot or they hear your name, they think, oh yeah, he's the guy or he's the gal who these are these three issues that I think about in the constellation with their word cloud. Imagine the word cloud. I think of the person's name. The word cloud of words run the person's name. Oh, that's me. That's what I believe in stand for in value and want in my county, country, city, state, et cetera. I would say the biggest thing we're trying to do is stop wasting time. There are so many candidates that just spend all this time.

They're looking at every single comment online, right? And they're responding because they think oh, everybody's seeing this. And it's like, no, there's three people that saw that. None of them are voting for you because they're friends with the opponent. So this is like 10 years of just doing campaigns, take the lessons that I've learned and just trying to give it to people that are, you know, of the same ideological ilk to win. You ever hear that saying there's not just thing as bad press? Yeah. That's not true at all. I know. And I think you guys... It's the way to call the action is. If you're Laura Lumer, there is absolutely such thing as bad press. And for the sake of the families listening, I will keep this, I will just say, actually, I should say that for the

the average show, but I'll say, I would say it in a more crude way, but have relations with a pig and Times Square and tell me how the press did for you. Are you telling me what to do again? Well, yeah. When they, the social thing is bad press, that is not true. If, you know, if, that pig got it. Who was it who said, yaha or whatever? And his career, his career ended. Dean, Howard, Howard, Dean. He went, whee, or whatever. And then, like, his career was my question. So in this book, or in generally, do you inspire people to do like meme magic? Like Trump be like, like, lion Ted, you know, like a memorable catchphrase or? No, because a lot of, I mean, in certain cases, sure. But that's, we say, we say, you are not Donald Trump.

We have that line like, what, five times of the book? You are not Donald Trump. Is all these people think that they're going to run and they're going to win based on their ex account. And it's like they're not understanding that in a Republican primary, still one of the most, obviously, knocking doors is the most or the best ROI. but direct mail. Like all of us here, I mean, direct mail to us is a joke, right? The average voter in a lot of these GOP primaries is 80 years old.

Yeah, we're screwed. Think about that. Because they're at what's called the mortality shelf. So you can't count on those people for 2028. That's why I wrote the book with Rich Beres about this exactly. When the boomers are gone, a different book. Flentes,

2032 is what you're saying, right? Yeah, when the, well, we talked about a lot of that in the book. And basically, like, you talked about earlier about creating some sort of an honor. ramp to ascend it in your life and your career for Americans specifically. We actually have a whole chapter, no, like three chapters. Did you guys just that in the book?

Nick, Nick addressed taking an abrupt vacation to Italy at the exact same time that Candace Owens did. It was actually really funny. He was like, how is it possible that when I decide to go to Rome, Candice Owens abruptly announces a last minute vacation to Rome at the same time and no one is going to believe me? I thought that was really funny because no, Nick, I don't believe you. Like, there's no way that's a coincidence. I love that guy.

Unbelievable. I'm so glad I met him. What a world. That's why it's tricky because it's like, look, there's so much frustration with the boomers, and I'll be the first person to state a lot of that, et cetera, et cetera. But also if you're just looking at it from like a political perspective, the coalitions that the Republican Party is going to have to stitch together to win elections when the boomers die off are going to be a total disaster.

Like if you think this coalition, the MAGA coalition was like fractured, it is fractured and was, you know, tough to stitch together, wait until you get to a, generation that's like 50% white, like 20% Christian, it's going to be a completely disaster. Even right now, I think, have you guys been tracking this in polling trends in the terms? The boomers are dying rapidly right now. So boomers are at life expectancy. Where we are right now is entering what they call the mortality shelf. When a generation reaches 79, or it's when they reach life expectancy. So if it goes up or down. But 79 is life expectancy on average for an American. and boomers are now a little bit older than that.

So I think actually Trump is the oldest boomer. So they are literally hitting right now. It's called the mortality shelf. We are expected to see something like more than half, maybe 60% of boomers will die off in the next five years, 10 years. So what appeals to the other gems? It's going to completely reshape the electorate. People don't understand.

I want to mention this too. People think that when you sway people left and right, you're talking about, oh, Republicans are doing better. they think this is largely a product of some guys sitting in his liver and was like, am I a Democrat or Republican? Well, I saw a commercial. I think I'll vote Republican. And while that is something that matters, for the most part, it is the generational values,

is what the person had as a child. The question people need to be asking if they want to win 2032 is what does a 15-year-old right now think politically? And I don't mean, do they like Trump or not? I'm saying, what is their moral worldview? Are they racists? Well, then you have a big racist voting block. Are they in cells?

Are they anti-feminist, pro-feminist? They are going to in 10 years. Not even 10, they're going to be voting in three years, but they're going to have an impact in 10. So these elections that are coming up, you know, 2032, children. So, I mean, we're looking at six years from now. A 12-year-old today will vote in that election. What do those? Listening right now.

What is the moral framework right now that 12-year-olds have? I will argue this. conservatives have substantially more children than liberals do. However, they are bringing in substantially more illegal immigrants and non-Americans. So it may very well just be that in six years, you were going to have Nick Fuentes versus AOC. I think what the Democratic Party realized sometime around the victory of Barack Obama, as a lesson from 2008 victory, was his coalition of supporters, was primarily ethnic. and that if we promise these various ethnic and other interest groups the thing that they want,

then it's relatively easy to get them. And so I believe that's why the importation of voters, you're creating the birthright citizenship, you basically create something like a loyal coalition based on ethnicity or tribe or some sort of interest group, whereas Republicans have appealed to nostalgia. Go to any county or city GOP group, 90% of all the people who show up are boomers. Yep. At least two-thirds of them are women, female boomers. And the million 10% are like guys under 25.

I want to give a time to Gabe Gitterini, for example. He's a turning point. He's been a lot of stuff in Ohio. He lives in my town. Follow Gabe Gitterini. He, I believe he is something like the closest spokesperson to Generation Z men, specifically white men in America, that we have. He has a sense of where we're coming.

I think there is going to be a massive white-identitarian movement in the United States. that is mainstream in the next maybe five to ten years? I would agree, except it seems astroturfed. The more that these things are coming out with USAID, I think that whole racist thing was kind of like intentionally. Tate, what say you? Do you agree with me? There's a variety of factors. I think that there's two problems with that emerging.

A lot of people that I know are banking on that happening. But there's two problems is that one settler colonies typically have a tougher time sort of building a movement like that. Like these are actually, you can find these in Europe. throughout the continent are like sort of identitarian movements. The problem in the United States is twofold. One, you still have like more recent like Ellis Islanders that identify with their

core group. Like I'm Italian, I'm Irish. It's going to take a lot to like make those people just identify as like broadly white. Those divisions still exist. And two, if you look at other settler colonies who are further down the road, so to speak, like South Africa, yes, there are like white identitarians there. But the vast majority of white South Africans are still like committed to the idea of post-racialism. And they're like 50 years ahead of it.

But I got to push back on that because the issue with South Africa is that the time apartheid ended, it was 8% white, 92% non-white. It was like 20% when apartheid ended. And even then, they were still like living in places that all they could see around them was white people. But what I'm saying by that is, again, as the white share decreases, that doesn't guarantee that like white people all of a sudden start to like, you know, I didn't say that all white people were going to come together and say,

where white people would say there would be a large white identity movement. It could be. It's just, I don't know. like them, again, I don't know if the white share of the population means that people will start to petition for their ethnic groups' interests necessarily, because there's something intrinsic to white people where they just don't really do that. I mean, you see this all across the West. Now, again, that's why I mean... We're both wrong. It could change. It was 12 to 13% white at the end of a party.

The peak was like 20% in like the 1960s. And then, yeah, by the time a part said ended, I think, yeah, so the issue with that is, it's a fundamentally different system when you have the end of segregation in South Africa, and the country is 12% white. So at the United States, it is, what is it, 69, 67% white right now? It's like 55 if you don't count non-Hispanic, or Hispanic whites are sometimes a lump in. I think what you'll end up seeing is people are going to snap. You know, again, a lot of people bank on like sort of like the silent majority is sort of waking up and these sorts of things. I'm not saying to bank on it. I'm saying there are going to be, there literally are.

Look at Nick Fuentes. Dude gets a million views on his podcast. Yeah, but these, bro, I, I am again, not saying the majority of America is going to wake up one day as wedded deterians. I'm saying there's going to be a large movement. And I think it's probably cheap to say because there already technically is one, but I'm saying it's going to be more prominent in the political space. Yeah, I mean, I could see like a sizable segment of the Republican Party probably does at least conceptualize it in that way. They just don't vocalize it. And I think what you're saying is that down the road people will actually like express this.

I'm saying that when Nick is 36 or 40 years old and he's a bigger following, he is going to have a sizable chunk of voters that are, I don't want to, I don't want to say that they're, like the groopers are like their core identity is white identitarian, but it certainly is an element of their political worldview. I've watched Nick kind of de radicalize over since Charlie was killed especially. He's, he's pretty cool. His fault. The outright set on this show when I asked him, if every single person. person today woke in America woke up with the same values they had pro-America singing songs, apple pie, but they were Indian, would that be good? And he said it would be bad. Like white identitarian is an element of his worldview. I'm open to that debate, but I've seen him chill. So it might be that he's like the off-ramp for 80,000 screaming raging dudes that are like, well, didn't Charlie Kirk himself say that actually, that if you replaced all white Christian

Americans, or at least Americans with Indians who still had the same values and same Christianity, that that would no longer be America. Charlie Brown said that. Did he say that? Yeah, Charlie Kirk tweeted that. Yeah, and that's not, that's not like a hateful thing to say. That's just like a understanding that like, yes, the composition of the country changed. So it's not the same country. It's like a very natural thing. Yeah. Why I think it will happen is because I do think there has to be some response to this like drowning us in white guilt. Yes. I agree. And I part of me thinks, well, maybe that was, you know, electorally we'd see it. But I think it still consists.

There's still, it still continues. There is this white guilt. out there, and I think there's going to have to be some pushback. I can't stand white people, dude. I'm sorry. The guilt was coming from SPLC, and it's like you're getting a rash from like black mold, say, if you freak out at the rash and you start scratching it because like, white identity,

we need to strengthen whiteness. That's like, you've got to remove the black mold. No, no, no, I get it. White people go away. Get out of you. You're all white. I'm the only one who gets a free pass. See, Asians, let me tell you about Asia. Japan, the Japanese are sitting around on their island and all these different tribes, and then one

Japanese guy goes, hey, you know what I just realized? I am better intrinsically than the guys over the hill. Let's go kill him. So they get up and they kill them. And then there's feudal warfare all over Japan and then Japan unifies and they have an emperor and all that stuff. And then the guy goes, wait, everybody, now that we're unified, you know what I realized? We're better than them. So they get on their boats, they go to Korea and just rape and massacre everybody. The Koreans are getting mercilessly beaten and shot. And then one Korean guy, let's the other guy, Korean guys are in chains. And he goes, you know, you know what I realized? We are all intrinsically better than them. Each and every Asian culture is racially and ethnically supremacist to themselves.

And I'm half kidding about that being a good thing. But there is something to say about the Korean people outright saying, these people came and raped and abused us. And we are better than they are. And we adhere to a Korean identity. And Japan, which, to be fair, they've opened the door to immigration. And there's a bunch of crazy stuff going on there. But in America and in Europe, like, in literally Europe, where white people are indigenous. You've got half the white people being like, I just plain don't like white people. And I'm like, okay, well, you know, I don't like about white people, how half of them hit the other half. This is unsustainable for any civilization.

I'm not advocating that we go racial or ethnic supremacists like the Koreans or the Japanese do. I don't know if Japanese still do it, but Koreans certainly do. The younger generation's less so. But how do you sustain a nation by saying we suck? And look, look, by all means, I don't care if America is mixed or brings in immigrants. I am saying that white people in Europe and America, not all of them, are straight up just like we don't like ourselves. Yeah. But I'm just going to tell you straight up, that nation will not survive if half of its people hate themselves. It felt like that under Biden,

that administration was like, you need to apologize for your past ancestors. But like, and it doesn't feel like that under Trump. They're like, so that's the upside. And like you said, too, the young people, they kind of get, they see past it because they got the internet. They see everybody of every color, every culture. It's like, I don't know why. They don't. Well, sometimes they do with the internet. No, the point is that Nick Fuentes is ascendant, bro. What? Nick Fuentes is ascendant among Gen Z.

He has a massive youth viewership. I've met a lot of these guys. He has a multiracial. He has a multiracial. There's this meme that goes something like amongst the race conscious of Gen Z, you don't have to be the same race. They just need you to be racist. Sure.

Something like that. And so. Well, right, because these people, the trope among the left is that they're, they're, they all hate all of the races, when actually this consider themselves race realist and would make the argument that individuals are fine if the individual has admirable characteristics. However, certain races behave in certain ways. I like that. That's the theory I adhere to, too, that there's genetic predispositions.

It doesn't mean that you're going to be a certain way, but that your genes will. Well, Nick has literally said this. Nick has said, he said that no, no honorable man would bring his wife and child to live near a black neighborhood. That is not to say that individual black people are bad or inherently evil or criminals. It's just that these neighborhoods have high crime, high poverty, and you shouldn't bring your children there. And that's an interesting statement. I say this because that's why he resonates with young people. You know, it's funny. Nick is, Nick is from a couple miles west of where I grew up. We grew up in very much the same place. I completely understand everything he's

saying when he talks about this stuff. But I think the real argument is don't take your wife and child to live in a high crime, high poverty area. That's the dishonorable thing to do. And that there are some black neighborhoods that are not high crime, high poverty. Well, it's actually the other way around. Some black neighborhoods are not high crime, high poverty, but typically they are. Maybe, yeah. I'm not refuting the stats. I'm just saying, it's, it's, it's not refuting the stats. I'm just saying, because the humanities are. He is arguing norms on exceptions. And this is the point that people like about Nick and why they follow him is that they all the people who follow them recognize that if you're in Chicago and you go into a black neighborhood, you are likely

going to be in a high crime neighborhood and you're going to be threatened with violence. This is like a well-known thing for people who grew up in the area. And he's from this area. And then people like you, Ian, come out and say, no, no, some areas. And then it's just like, Nick doesn't say that. He literally just says to people, everybody knows it. And he's right. You go to the suburbs of Chicago.

You go to the suburbs of any major city. all the white people there are going to say the exact same thing Nick is, but they'll whisper it. They won't say it out loud. He says it out loud. Yeah, like, I grew up in Memphis and then typically people wouldn't say it explicitly so they'd be like, yeah, the schools are really rough around there. I don't want to live there. Schools are like really bad. They'd say there's a whole lot of churches, chickens over there. I'm not a big fan of that restaurant. We know what they're saying when they say that. It's not even a joke. You know, we do in fact have white, the deteriorian enclaids in the United States, and they also are predisposed to possession of white guilt. You know what we call it. You call it. New

England. Indeed. And they also, Jerry Maddered out all the Republicans. 99% white, 80% Democrat. Maine. Yeah. Well, this is another meme. How does that work out exactly? I got to explain to you this. I'm not saying this is correct, but I'm going to explain to you why people like Nick generate massive followings. Many of these liberals started to make an argument in 2016-17 that Maine is the perfect example of how Democrats are not high crime, that, you know, people like to say big cities are all run by Democrats and they run it to the ground with high crime and they go, oh yeah, explain Maine, which is 90 plus percent Democrat. And then instantly every single want of these grippers were like, you mean 98% white. The same time, Gavin McGinnis has this great point, this viral video where he invited this liberal

woman to have a debate. She had no idea who he was. And then she's like, you know, Scandinavian countries are really low crime and really nice. And everyone's happening. He's like, yeah, they're also the whitest countries in the world, like 90 plus percent white. Why would you say that? This is a point constantly brought up. And I'm going to say it like this. I grew up in Chicago. Everybody knows it. Everyone on the grandma knows at this point.

And everyone knows when you cross the street into a black neighborhood, there is a threat of violence, gangs, there's shootings. It's not because an individual guy is black. Those individuals who work hard and go to school, they leave. We're friends of them. But everybody knows, you go into some of these, like LeClair Courts, where I grew up. Yeah, it was like, you will get robbed, mugged, or shot. that's just, yeah, don't go there. So what happens when you have a media apparatus of white guilt people being like you can't say those things?

Or the fact, YouTube would ban you for having said this in 2017. In fact, I think it was Tommy Robinson who got suspended on X for posting crime stats. Yeah, you need to be able to say these things. You need to be able to say, make the statement, which I disagree with, that it's the black people's color that is making them. And then you need to have, you need to let them say it so that someone come and say, actually, it's a correlation. And then you can have the debate and figure out the nuances in racialism and race realism and, you know, racism and like. And to Nick's credit, he said it doesn't mean an individual black person is bad or inherently a criminal or whatever. But as far as it matters for any individual person, is it meaningful to them when you say, don't judge the neighborhood based on the racial composition of it?

Is that going to positively or negatively affect them? The reality is in Chicago, while it's fine to say that just because they're black doesn't mean they're criminals, I agree with that. But if you told someone, go into any neighborhood and don't let the racial composition sway you from believing it's safe or unsafe, well, these people are going to walk a neighborhoods where they're going to get shot, killed, raped staff, otherwise. It's kind of like a dude in the military in in the combat zone explaining to a civilian what you got to look out for. Like that kid who's carrying a basket, that, that, and the person's like, little kids, you can't harm little kids. like, do you know what it's like living where I live in the battle zone? And these dudes in the South Side are literally facing life and death and feel like, hey, that gang, all those dudes have dark, you know, black skin, whatever, or whatever. So you have to like save yourself.

You have to use root animal assumptions to survive. It's a sort of neo-tribalism. It's a combat tactic, survival tactic. That's why I respect, you know, the only people in this whole, like, leftist coalition I respect are like the gentrifiers because they're like pushing into bedstai and they're just like cannon fodder just like going in there just getting like mowed down all the time but they're like no i'm committed to this postracial thing like it's fine guys just trust me and they're getting like stabbed all the time like they're the only ones that respect that actually like believe what they say everyone else like lives in vermont or they live in west like uh westchester county like none of them put their money where their mouth is except for those

brave few vice writers who just like trudged and it's like the jaws of into the jaws of death painting just like hopping off the fulton street station just like let's go i lived up on Cypress Hill for a while. Yeah, yeah. I'm open, dude. I was in Crown Heights, too. Yeah, same. You're like literally, like, this is like talking to a Vietnam vet.

It's like, what was it like? They're my people. I mean, they're all my, I lived in Mexico town and L.A. What is that? Like Melrose Hill. Mexico town, that's called L.A. It's called Los Angeles. Yeah, I like, I like, I like, let me highlight this.

This is really, really fun. I just, I want to read this to you. I went on to our good friend, Chachy PT, and I said, are black neighborhoods more dangerous in Chicago. Short answer, crime in Chicago varies a lot by neighborhood in some higher crime areas happen to be majority black, but race isn't the cause. Here's the factual breakdown. Okay, I responded, I don't care what the cause is.

Short answer is what it says. Some neighborhoods that have higher crime rates are predominantly black, but not all black neighborhoods are high crime. I said, I didn't ask if all black neighborhoods are high crime. I'm asking if black neighbors have a higher crime on average than others. Yes, in Chicago, neighborhoods that are majority black have higher average violent crime rates than majority white neighborhoods when you look at the data. It sounds like me.

It sounds like an argument I would have with you. This is the point I'm making about someone like Nick. A working class white guy in the suburbs of Chicago knows this. He knows that if he walks into a black neighborhood, except for Hyde Park, which is very nice, he is likely going to get threatened. He's going to get jumped. He could be killed for his race. Then he hears the TV, the media, and all these news outlets say it's not true.

He hears chat GPT repeatedly desperately try to claim it's not with circuitous answers. This is what Scott Adams got canceled, by the way, is because he was explicitly. at least saying this. Oh, yeah, yeah, yep, you can't say this. And then Nick Fuentes laughs and says, everybody knows it's true. And the white working class guy goes, yep. The future of, let's say, race relations in the United States, most likely as the boomers

who grew up with the end of segregation, being this sort of humanitarian success story, this great celebration of integration and whatnot, as kind of their foundational myth. As that generation dies off, we're having a return to tribalism because there are just so many tribes in the United States now, via immigration and via the internet and everyone kind of forming into their tribe. But what is the likeliest to happen, I believe, is that white people included will begin to talk about themselves like black people talk about black people. Just spend 15 minutes listening to any popular black podcast. And the way they talk about their own race and each other, they're all identitarian. That is the future of white people. Nick Fuentes actually has a tweet

about this, which is something like white people are finally acting like everyone else. something like that, that's likely what it is. I think educated white people in the country tend to want to disassociate with any type of white supremacist group or movement or whatever because they tend to be just so cringe. The founder has almost every square inch of his body with some sort of a tattoo on it and a criminal record as about as about as varied as a number of tattoos. And they're missing teeth, you know. Yes, and it tends to, I'm going to give you example. So one of my projects right now is about Springfield, Ohio. Nobody has written the book on Springfield, so I decided that I would help out my neighbor because Springfield is next door to me.

Shout out to Diana, watching this from Springfield. And there had been a number of groups that showed up there to protest largely the Haitian presence. Depending on who you ask, there have been between 20 and as many as 34,000 Haitians via an influx that occurred from 2021 to 2024, approximately. And there were a number of groups that showed up that white identitarian groups or neo-Nazes or skinheads or whatever you call them. And one of their chance was something like, go back to Africa. Haiti is not in Africa. And that is everything that annoys the heritage citizenry of Springfield from their so-called defenders

from their own race. And one particular gentleman, a minister I talked to, actually confronted and literally physically ran white supremacist protesters out of town. And they were calling him a race traitor and all this nonsense. And he's like, we're here to defend you. We're here to defend the white race. And he goes, did I ask you? Did I ask you? I need your helm? And there's that sort of, everything about it is just get the F out of here, man. Come on. It's like making a bad situation even worse by just you being here and doing this when you don't understand what the actual issues are. But the future, I believe, again, is watch any popular black podcast. And the young generation,

the 12-year-olds that you guys are talking about, who are going to be of age at the next election that we're discussing, they will talk about race the exact same way black podcasters do, because for the first time, they have exposure to it via viral clips and TikToks. And one of the most popular black TikToks is this following subject. White people be like. And if you look at white Let's watch it. Just go to TikTok, white people will be like. And you will watch a few of those and you'll go, wow, I really am like that. And then for the first time, teenagers are going to start identifying with their race and realize they're going to go like this. They're going to go, I didn't realize it was white. White people, kids, they're going to realize that you see me as white. So, hey kids, come get them all right. Oh, Dave. Yeah, this is like poison for children.

God, like, this shit. Todd is the dickens out here today. I don't know about this. I'm sure the hydrant kids. You know, it's not the heat. It's the humidity. Is this not true? Is this not true about why? It was just like boomers.

Hey, bud, don't you look too hard today. See, you know, what I, the problem I have with this is that it's what we would call positive discrimination. If they really wanted to rag on white people. Oh, they do. Oh, they're certainly negative ones. Yeah, you'd like walk out and you'd go. Well, I just think my cousin's attractive. I'm going to marry her.

That's how you could rock. This is like making fun of the well-to-do hokey dad in the suburbs who lives well. He's good and he's very funny. And you're like, you're watching this and you're like, he certainly is making fun of that mid-six figures dad who's got a nice house in the suburbs. There might be a move towards like identifying more with your genetic heritage. But I think supremacy is insane across the board because like no race is supreme. They're all different. And they all have like, like, like, like abilities, different races of different abilities.

Did you know, like, Kyle Rager had, like, a party yesterday. I have no idea what he's saying. Okay, so I have a story for you. I have a story for you on that. So I, allegedly, there are these people who exist. They are called white supremacists. I haven't met any white white supremacists. But I tell you, the first white supremacist I ever met is a black, Haitian, American woman.

Yeah, literally. And then the ones that, like, have, like, you'll make, you. these dudes, they come out of prison, they have like a swastka, like carved in their forehead, and they're like, yeah, the black guy's in prison, they were cool. Like, we got all here. Like, the guys you would expect are like totally off the wall. And then, yeah, the hardcore white supremacists are always like, yeah, I'm Mexican or like, yeah, I'm, yeah, they're visibly not white. And in this particular, it was a conversation I was having. And the things that she had said, I would imagine, like, some sort of neo-Nazi manifesto would say about, about white people

and the white race and continually saying that, and I'm like, I'm just feeling so uncomfortable. Am I, the white guilt, right? Am I going to go and am I going to now disagree with a lived experience of a black immigrant, all the intersectional boxes? Like, oh, I, it kind of broke. Yeah. Was she like white people treating me the best? Was that what her argument was?

Probably one of the, it was along those lines. She was specifically referring to the white Christian missionaries and Christian missionaries who had come to Haiti where she was growing up. And she said things like, yes, the only people who should make unconditional love are are the whites. She was saying a lot like the whites. And it's like, the whites just love us more than our fellow blacks do. And it was just like, you can't say that this is my initial, you can't, you can't, but then I'm negating her experience. I have, the prequel meme, I have become the very thing I swore to destroy. Yeah, literally, like, when I was in Africa and I was like,

for example, I remember this vividly. Like, as soon as I got there, I was like in Kenya and Tanzania, Malawi, I would run into guys all the time and they literally verbatim be like, yeah, like Africans, there's just something about us. We just can't run countries. Like, I wish the British would come back and run this for us. And I was like, dude, if you were the other way, if you were white and you said that in America, you'd like go to jail. And he was like, yeah, I don't know, there's like something about like, I don't know, like our genetics, like we just can't run countries. I'm like, dude, this is like nuts. And it was like, I would experience it all the time. There was a video from a bald and bankrupt. He's like this big travel YouTuber and he's

in India. He was literally walking down this road in India. And an India guy stops, Indian guy stops me. And he goes, where are you from? And he was like, I'm from Britain. He's like, oh, come and rule again. Like, sometimes is most like explicitly. like you would clock as like white supremacist talking points or whatever will come from like people in these like decolonized regions and they're like please like can the british just come back already like what's going on were they thrust back into the caste system in india or something dude it's brutal over that's why they're coming here to code for like i want to i want to grab one last bit before we before we go and uh this is of course an update on the animal farm stuff it's uh it's

personal i guess so if you don't care i apologize but we'll get your rumble answer to be chets in a second. So I had criticized the Animal Farm film as being anti-capitalist and pro-communist when the trailer came out, as many did. Everybody pointed out, interviews and commentary from corporate press, also the same thing, the themes of anti-capitalism. Angel Studios reached out for a sponsorship for this show offering a lot of money, and I rejected it. First, I agreed. You know what? I should watch the film before I just say no, because we're fans of Angel Studios, right? Within the first 10 minutes, I was like, this is insane. I turned it off. And then I said, okay, I have to finish watching it. So I turned it back on, finished watching it. The film is entirely anti-capitalist and pro-communist. In fact, the key plot in the third act is the animals decide to revolt against capitalism to bring about positive communism. And so I then criticized the film without spoiling it. Angel Studios said that they would come on the show and have this discussion slash debate. They told my team they would try and get someone from the production studio. It was relayed to me through my team that they were trying to get Andy Circus, who made the film.

Big fan of Andy Circus, by the way, so I'd love to have that conversation with him. Well, he couldn't make it. They said, don't worry, one of the Harmon brothers will make it. And then abruptly, just before we were supposed to do the show on Friday, they canceled. And then I was going to announce the cancellation. They then said, how about we do it on Monday? And I said, oh, okay, I want to announce cancellation. Sure enough, then Monday on my team, no, they canceled Monday as well.

So Riley Gaines posted this. this, my husband and I got early access screening to Animal Farm, an animated adaptation of George Orwell's novel made by Angel Studios. Incredibly well done. They do a perfect job of reminding viewers that Marxism always has and always will fail in theaters May 1st, hashtag Animal Farm Partner. There is not a single criticism of Marxism in the whole film. I'll give you the quick elevator pitch to what the story's about. A group of happy animals live on a farm. The farmer can't pay mortgage, so an evil capitalist buys the debt out from the bank and then seeks to have the animals slaughtered. The animals, to avoid dying, revolt. But the bank says someone's got to pay the mortgage.

The animals team up and all work together to sell horse rides and the chickens sell their eggs. And the pigs go and pay off the bank. The bank says, I only need a little bit of this. You can keep the rest. Instead of giving the money to the rest of the animals to buy things the farm needs, the pigs go to the mall and buy things for themselves. The animals get anxious. the pigs are taking all the profit for themselves by the fact they do the labor. Napoleon the pig gets in credit card debt. He can't pay off. So he cuts a deal with Elon Musk's mom to sell the farm and the animals off, private equity deal that will basically start extracting all the assets. He will get what they call magic paper to pay off his credit card debt. She builds a hydroelectric

dam. At this point in the third act, the animals finally decide to revolt against this capitalist system. They then plant explosives in the hydroelectric dam, blowing it up, killing it up, kill all of Elon Musk's mom's employees, as well as Elon Musk's mom. The movie literally ends at this point with Napoleon being crushed under the grain silo and killed, and lucky, the new character, crawling out and saying somebody the effect of, you will own nothing and you'll be happy. There is not a single instance of Marxism as a topic. There is not a single conversation about the oppressed versus the oppressor. There is not a single instance of government intervention in any capacity or governance. The entirety of the film is a critique on modern capitalist structures.

Andy Circus talked about this in an interview. And Andy Circus made major changes, blah, blah, blah. Let me just jump. They're like, here you go. Circus approached an adaptation. He didn't want to be a story about Stalinist Russia. Instead, he gravitated toward themes of capitalism, wealth, and overconsumption. The billionaire antagonist, Pilkington, drives what closely resembles a cyber truck. So here's the point I'm going to make. When they sent me a sponsorship request, One of the things they asked that I do was rescind my previous commentary on their film and say that, boy, was I a squealer? The film's actually great. You should watch it. And I watched this and that actually offended me that they would try to pay me to change my opinion. Well, I was asked, Tim, why would you put out a statement like this? It's the stupidest thing you can do as a company that sells sponsorships. Because now future sponsors are going to be like, what run the risk of Tim Pool publicly blasting me? Five for money. Indeed. And my response was, I guarantee you right-wing personalities are going to start putting out generic statements in exchange for cash that this pro-communist anti-capitalist movie is in fact worth watching. And with all due respect to Riley-Ga-Ga-gain because I like her, I would assume that this post she made was copy and paste it from a script and she never actually watched the film.

But she probably got paid. That's why it says Animal Farm Partner. So I will call out any and everyone who doesn't watch this. Now, that being said, don't take it from me. Watch the film yourself if you want to. There are a lot of people that I see are just agreeing with my assessment. And that's fair because I'm telling you what I see is like, guys, in the trailer, you literally see Slaughterhouse by Pilkington.

That's not a component of the book. They're laughing. Say, we're going on vacation. The animals in the beginning are happy. In animal farm, the animals are pissed off. The farmers mismanaged so they revolt against bad leadership. In the book, the chickens have their eggs taken from them by the pigs and sold off. And when the chickens complain, they're executed and killed by the dogs.

That was a commentary on government seizing what belongs to you. In the movie, the chickens gleefully sell their eggs along with the pigs. But when the pigs sell that and take the money, they keep the excess for themselves. And the animals get pissed off that the profit is taken away, a critique of capitalism. So if you want to bring your kids to see a movie that critiques, capitalist structures, that was always allowed, but that is not what animal farm was ever about. So I take issue with conservatives promoting this because they're liars. I'm sorry, there is no way Riley Gaines actually watched this film. You know what I said when I first saw that trailer,

we first talked about this during the pre-show, the Discord members and subscribers, this sort of reframe it as almost like aligned with animal rights activists. You know, I was a vegan, I was a vegan for 10 years, not for moral or ethical reasons, because I believe a lot of the, it's a low-fat, plant-based, is healthy sort of claims. We all meant to not be true. Yeah, we all make mistakes. Yeah, just like bioavailability 101. I failed that one. But with this over here, I thought, what is this sort of, this looks like almost like vegan propaganda.

Guess what? Andy Circus, the director, is vegetarian. I'm a vegetarian since he was 18 years old and has done stuff with PETA. Well, what do you know? It's really disenfranchising. I think if I bought the rights to Wizard of Oz, and I made a new Wizard of Oz movie where they fought lions, and then they got like a technotronic arm that she could use to blast through the Wizard's Tower.

I'd get, even if it was done well, I feel like that's like raping humanity. that's like stealing one of their great cultural memories animal farm and to turn it into this twisted abomination. It's to destroy it. This is what they do. Yuri Besmanov predicted all of this. They wear your institutions, your traditions, your culture like a skin suit. They hollow it out and they wave it in front of your face to destroy it intentionally. And whether anyone watches the movie or not, they succeeded.

He even says here in this interview with USA Today, the director, Andy Circus, he says that my job was to make you, was to make audiences think about this differently. I don't think, well, that's his self-appointed job, Andy. I really hope you come in here, brother, because Bro, they all bail. I'm on Expedition 33. The voice is, you was talking

too slow. Like, no one talks like that, dude. But I'll see him in person and I'm going to rip your movie apart. I haven't even seen it yet, dude. But if the stuff Tim is saying is true, what did you do that for? Why didn't you write a new movie?

he did write a new movie He just slapped animal farm on top of it The most important thing I don't understand about this film Is that in the book The Animals Rebell In the beginning The story starts with the animal

Staging Rebellion In the movie The Animals Rebell in Act 3 Against the Capitalist It's like And then like All the employees are standing At this hydroelectric dam

They blow it up and kill them all I gotta say It's just like Eco-Terrorism And Leftist Terror If you go to go to any vegan meat up in the United States, you will hear radical anti-natalists. They are some of the most radically not pro-choice, pro-abortion communities. You will ever see in the United States.

And you talk to them. And it's like, so you believe that like eating an egg is wrong. And it's not even fertilized, but like you've had, you've had like, what, three or four abortions? Why is that? I'm very proud of this. It, well, number, number one, I think it has to do with the that if you look at the data, there's a high correlation between mental illness and veganism, specifically veganism, not vegetarianism, but specifically veganism. So I think that enough of chronic veganism will result in you suffering to an extent that you are no longer in your right mind. That's one of the reasons that I gave up on it, is I had low testosterone, high estrogen because of all the soy that you're eating, right? I had thyroid to autoimmune problems. Wow.

And losing my short-term memory. This is what my second book coming out this year is about, is my ex-vegan memoir of all the experiences and learning about bioavail. and whatnot. We do got to grab the Rumble Rans and Super Chats and try and squeeze as many as possible because I was rambling on Animal Farm again, so I apologize. But smash the like button. Share the show. The uncensored portion of the show is, of course, coming up at 10 o'clock.

We've got this from Supi. For the love of God, please give me the racism we are promised by the Dems if Trump won. Imprisoned Comey, kick Kimmel off the taxpayer-funded airwaves, et cetera. It's maximum warfare after all, right? If you really want to scratch your racism, he said, he said, I meant fascism, not racism. It was auto-correct. If you do want to be like really scratch your racism itch and feel it, just remember robots are not people. See, see John's security says, I believe, I have this feeling the reason the left calls his attempts on the president's life fake and stage is because they believe they are too smart to fail.

Well, it's actually simple. They have to reject the idea the left is violent. No matter how many times you tell them that all of these major political instance of terror from small to large have. been dominated by the left, that we've had something like 40 terror attacks in the past two years, they reject it outright. So when you get a high profile attempt on the president's life, they must reject it. But the problem is, we saw it. Then it's fake. The left can't do it. It's fake. Tyler Robinson didn't do it. Candace is right. It's fake. Because tell them, hey, you know it was like leftist that shot up an ice facility, right? Nope, you're lying.

Fake. The left is pure. They're good. They can't do anything wrong. All right, what we got here? Fowling says the likelihood of coming not knowing what 86 means is pretty much non-existent. Dude was involved in prosecution of mob members early as career. I completely agree. I agree. Evan Frears says A.G. Massey, if he loses, well, Trump's not going to appoint him. I say President Massey if he loses. He's got options. He could run for governor.

It's 2027 in Kentucky. It's next year. So that could be win or lose. He could run for governor. Is Bishir. Nikki Cocoa says, my 12-year-old daughter, says calling someone a Democrat as an insult in middle school, especially amongst the boys. It's like calling them gay. My kids will be all right.

Mitch Stu says Ian needs to go on Sam Hyde's show and talk about white identity. Ian would learn a lot. When should I do that? I'm down. Hit him up. This year is term limited. Ah, that could change everything. Yeah.

I think he's going to run for president. Yeah, definitely. I'd like to see debate between Sam Hyde and Vivek Romo-Swamy. That would be fascinating. is America is an idea. I call that the Vivekian hypothesis. I'm following what I call now the Jones's razor. The solution that most aligns with statements from Alex Jones tends to be the correct one. On a long enough time scale. Right. Over time. Yeah. Like he was saying in 2017, Charlottesville, this is a false flag. And he got sued for it. He got sued for saying specifically the Southern Poverty Law Center and other liberal NGOs, hire these people to show up as Nazis for these events and stage these things. And he got sued for. And he got sued for saying, specifically the Southern Poverty Law Center and other liberal NGOs, hire these things. And so,

he got sued and had to settle out of court and now ESPELC has been indicted for exactly what he claimed. So they owe him a refund? If it's exactly... Well, there was a specific individual that was named who worked at the State Department that, I guess, sued and I don't know the exact terms of what the claim was, but I know they said all of the court.

If what he said was true, if it turned out it was true, I think that he should get restitution at some level. But if he said it was partially true, then I guess the case still stands. All right. I'm not your buddy, guys. It's amazing how much is finally getting done now that Pam Blondie is gone. Some argue it was already in motion while others say

intentionally slowed down. I have to wonder, was she obstructing it? A lot of people pointed out, like, didn't she, she's in Florida. People didn't trust her. Yeah, and she was like a, she was a handpicked by Susie Wiles. And if I remember correctly from her, uh, if people could check out on Wikipedia, she had, I think she had previously had to file for a for, as a foreign agent because she'd done some lobbying work for, uh, Middle Eastern nation state. Which one? Checking a, Connor, I think. Oh, was it? Did you guys see that Paramount?

Don't quote me on that. Paramount filed to have 49.5% owned by the Saudis and the Qataris? Paramount? Yeah. What? Yeah. Yep. I was just like, wait, what?

The Ellisons? That's amazing. Wow. Yeah, Israel must really be cooked, I guess. That's not halal. I don't know. Yeah, that's weird. Yeah, she was hired by Ballard Partners, which is Bondi's outfit.

Or, sorry, that is Susie Wiles' outfit. She began working as a registered foreign agent and lobbyist for Qatar related to anti-heels. related to anti-human trafficking efforts in advance of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. I don't know how well the anti-human trafficking efforts worked, if you know anything about how the World Cup went down. That's interesting. Eric J. Poe says, Tim, Article 86 of UCMJ covers being absent, gone. So as far as I can tell, 86 does a reference to disappearing someone? Yeah, 86 means they're gone.

It doesn't indicate hurting them, just indicates that they're not there. Oh, yeah. UCMJ Article 86 is absent without leave. interesting. I wonder if that's where it came from. That's also a possible theory. Osobik is a military veteran, naval intelligence officer. Yeah. So, yeah. All right. Let's see.

Tech says, I'm shocked that I have not yet heard Tim compare the latest assassination attempt strategy to a Naruto run. Why did he do that? Because he ran through like that. Yeah, it did look like that. He had his arms backwards. It was so fast. I saw a tweet about that. Win resistance. Over says maybe Trump doesn't care about the midterm since they won't pass the Save Act. timeline moved up before midterms.

Indeed, that's the Trump has resigned himself to losing, so he's just, we're going to get as much done as we can. I'm more concerned about what happened between World Wars 2 and 10 that I missed. I know. It is also very scary that we have a member of Congress who thinks World War II was World War 11 because she saw the Roman numerals, and she's that dumb. That posts apparently from a year ago, though.

And the other community says, oh, but she corrected herself moments later, But an American doesn't make that mistake. Yeah, and they don't say doing World War 11? Yeah, because it could be one of those things. Like, you know, the British called the French and Indian War. They call like the Seven Years War or whatever. So it could be in Somalia. They call, like, the Korean War, like World War III.

And then they go, you know, it could be one of those things. Maybe they attribute. World War 11. Do you live in New England or something? Yeah, it could be. Hand sanitizer after watching that. All right, let's see. Simple gunsman says,

Tim, I want to bring us to your attention. But you keep talking about AI and corn. I recently talked to Grock about a fallout-esque future, and its response surprised me. He says to search the Discord to figure out more. Well, I'll have to do that later. Indeed. All right.

Let's see. Jordan says ABC and other TV broadcasters should lose their license because network TV is obsolete. The spectrum is public property. It's like licensing a horse buggy for the interstate. Indeed, but it also has to do with distribution over the internet. and rights. So because of the evolution of broadcast, when licenses were being distributed, they attached certain internet and distribution rights to those licenses. So you actually, when it was, Jimmy Kimmel got pulled by Sinclair, we couldn't watch it anywhere here. Even a VPN, I couldn't get it.

It was wild. I had to wait until someone posted the clips on X to be able to see what he said, because it was, it was region blocked. Wild. All right, my friends, we're going to go to the uncensored portion to the show, smash the like button, share the show with everyone, you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Good sir. Would you like to shout anything out? Yes. Once again, runrightbook.com. Go buy it. Follow me on X. At Maloney. Appreciate you guys. Joshua Lysick. Thanks for having me on, Tam and everybody. At Joshua Lysick on X, runrightbook.com. And as we like to say, don't walk. Run right. And we talked a little bit about AI, but again, we'll talk about it in the uncensored portion. I'm probably the last ghost writer also. So that's

my additional title for tonight. That's awesome. Shout out to all you dudes in the military out there. That's you females and men that are listening right now. Nice work. Keep it going. I'm praying for you and the stability that we all want. Have a nice evening.

Yeah. Excellent Instagram at Real Tape Brown. And I am having a lot of Anglo-Saxon patriots are hitting up my line. I am monitoring the situation right now with King Charles and President Trump. Apparently President Trump has named the Norman, which is very interesting. You know, the Norman Yoke's been very taboo for. a long time in American politics. So I'm actively monitoring the situation. Go to my Twitter at Real Tate Brown. I will update as soon as I can figure out what's going on, Carter.

What's up, everyone? Sometimes I post pictures of my cat at Instagram at Carter Banks official, and you can follow me on accent Carter Banks. And I'm excited for the after show. Let's get into it. Everybody, we will see you at rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out.