Timcast IRL - WORLD WAR 3 HAS JUST BEGUN w/ Justin Martin

Episode Date: April 21, 2026

Tim, Ian, and Tate are joined by Justin Martin to discuss the US firing on and seizing an Iran-bound ship, an insane report claims Trump tried using nuclear codes, Trump invokes wartime powers to fund new energy projects, a Democrat strategist unveils a plan for a Democrat power grab, and a gay "dad" taunts a baby.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwN... Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Tate @realTateBrown (everywhere) |  @TimcastTateBrown  (YouTube) Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Justin Martin @supertrucker (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! WORLD WAR 3 HAS BEGUN | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

This podcast is supported by the original organic bedding and bath brand, Koyuchi. So April is Earth Month, and one way you can celebrate and support our planet is by making small changes that actually matter, like switching to brands that support sustainable living. Koyuchi has spent 35 years pioneering quality organic sheets, bedding, and bath towels, all with a focus on responsible sourcing and manufacturing. Plus, Koyuchi products contain zero harsh chemicals or dangerous toxins that can seep into your skin. Koyuchi's crisp, cool, luxuriously soft sheets are ethically made and certified fair trade, with naturally breathable, pre-washed, organic cotton.

So this Earth month, make a small yet stylish upgrade that actually matters to your health and the planet. Get Koyuchi. Right now get 15% off your entire order when you visit Koyuchi.com. That's koiuchi.com to get 15%. percent off. C-O-Y-U-C-H-I.com. Yesterday it was reported that the U.S. fired on the engine room of an Iranian-flagged vessel that tried to run the U.S. blockade into the Strait of Hormuz. It is now being reported. The U.S. believes this was a Chinese-laden vessel carrying dual-use materials, meaning the reason this Iranian vessel tried to run the blockade is that it was providing supplies to Iran, which could be used

for war. Meanwhile, European intelligence. is reporting that Russia may be supplying drones to Iran for their war effort. And in the wildest of stories, which many people are saying is pure nuts, still a video is going viral of a guy claiming Donald Trump tried to activate the nuclear codes but was stopped. Now, I think that one's a little nuts, probably coming from some anti-Trump wacko, but it's been going viral on X, so, you know, I'll mention it. still put a, yeah, probably not. Well, the question now is whether or not all of the conflicts that are happening around the world add up to a World War III. And surprise, surprise, Russia's

foreign minister once again is saying we are already in World War III. Pundits across the board are saying it is now with Russia and China supplying weapons and intelligence to Iran to continue to disrupt U.S. efforts in the strait, they are suggesting with 20 plus nations now involved in this war, it is World War III. Of course, All right, we'll turn it down a bit. We don't really know for sure, and we won't until some time. In fact, according to some historical academic reports, we didn't call it World War II formally in the United States until after the war was already over.

And the question about whether or not World War II was a World War was happening before it even began and well into the war was going on. This could all die down, to be honest, considering now that we're over a month in, and Trump has whipped back and forth as to whether or not we're actually going to have peace talks, we're going to stop this conflict or it's going to escalate. It's hard to see how this slows down, especially with the latest reporting, that an Iranian vehicle was potentially carrying weapons from China or dual use items, let's be careful here, meaning it could be used for war and try to run a U.S. blockade. There is a video of the U.S. They're instructing with a threat of

death a vessel to turn back. And these videos tracking, these transponders and the straight are nuts with all the ships turning around. Wait till you see this video. It's absolutely crazy. We're talking about this. There's a lot of other news, of course, but this one certainly does take the cake. James Carville said on a podcast, when the Democrats take power, it is one party rule. D.C. Puerto Rico statehood. Pack the Supreme Court. Don't say it. Just do it. And there will never be a Republican government again if that does happen. We're going to talk about that and a lot more. Before we do, we get a great sponsor for you guys. It is true gold republic. freaked out enough yet about what's going on in the world.

Well, I've got to be honest, with the whiplash and oil prices and Trump going back and forth and complete uncertainty, it's got to be hard to figure out how to prepare correctly and appropriately for what's going on. You look at the world right now. We've got active wars. NATO is under pressure. The dollar is being weaponized. Gold can't be printed.

It can't be sanctioned. It can't be devalued by a press release. Central banks are buying it at record levels right now. The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print. tells you everything. Insert true gold Republic, real physical gold and silver, not paper, not ETF's money you can hold.

Check out their independence bundle, a physical gold starter kit, a one-on-one with experts and bonus precious metals on top. The chaos isn't coming, my friends. It is already here. So go to true goldrepublic.com slash tim to claim your independence bundle

or call 800-628-G-O-L-D. That's true goldrepublic.com slash tim. Shout out. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys. it. You got to go to casprue.com. Maybe you're trying to stay wired to consume all of the hours and hours of content we produce every day. We'll go to Casperu. Pick up some rise with Roberto Jr. or perhaps some Appalachian Nights. It's the best coffee you will ever have. I guarantee it because I'm legally allowed to say it as it is my opinion. So I can only guarantee you that I think it's the best

coffee ever. I really do. I think it's absolutely fantastic. If you want to support the show, we got a bunch of different products. We've got vault black. That's cold brew concentrate as well as well as pool water. Don't worry. It's actually fresh artesian water. Not pool water, it's pool brand water. Pick it up at casparoo.com. My friends, smash that like button. Share the show right now with everyone, you know, joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Justin Martin. Hey, Tim, thanks for having me. Who are you? What do you do? I'm a former truck driver. Now I'm a guy who rants about trucking all day on Twitter. Indeed. It's going to be interesting, too, especially with the AI conversation. Yeah. We've got the, right now there's another video we have.

Body cam footage was released of the Antifater attack on the ice facility. So, we We've got Civil War. We got World War III, and we have the AI Apocalypse all at once. It's going to be a lot of fun. Thanks for hanging out. Thanks for having me. Ian's hanging out. Hey, everybody.

Good to see you. I'm also here with Tate Brown. What's up, dude? What's going on? What's going on? And we got the Great Carter Banks here. What's up, everyone? I'm the great Carter, by the way.

You are fantastic, actually. You're really good at those buttons. You know, everyone's awesome. We're also great. Everyone's so great, man. Especially our guest. Our guest is the best. Yeah, Justin's fantastic.

We had a great talk about it. Everyone's so good. I just say yes to everything and it works out. Only for tonight, though, when the panel changes, I can't say that. We're not going to say who. A lot, Eliyah. I'm just kidding on I'm just kidding on it a lot because he's got problems. It's just fun because of friends, so I can be mean to him.

He should be mean to him. All right, let's get to the news. We got this from Fox News. China linked route exposed after U.S. seizes Iran-bound ship with suspected dual-use cargo. China's foreign ministry warned the straight-of-form situation remains sensitive and complex. Well, first, we've got this from NPR. Yesterday, U.S. seizes Iranian cargo ship in Strait of Hormuz. They said the U.S. Navy gave them fair warning to stop.

The Iranian crew refused to listen. So our Navy shit stopped them right in their tracks by blowing a hole in their engine room. Trump said U.S. Marines have custody of the vessel and that it is under U.S. treasury sanctions because of the prior history of illegal activity. U.S. sent com said in a statement that the Iranian ship refused to comply with U.S. warnings over the course of six hours before the U.S. fired on the ship and boarded it. American forces acted in a deliberate professional and proportional manner to ensure compliance. The latest update from Fox News, the vessel Tuska, remains in U.S. custody.

As American forces continue inspecting what maritime security sources told Reuters is likely dual-use cargo following a voyage from Asia. Shipping data shows that Toska made multiple recent stop in Shoehai, a major port in southern China, before transatlantic. transitioning through Southeast Asia and heading towards Iran. Part of a pathway analysts say has helped Iran sustain trade flows despite U.S. pressure. The seizure comes as part of it broader U.S. effort to enforce a naval blockade on Iran aimed at pressuring Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping lane. The ship had docked in Port Klan, Malaysia on April 12th,

and was en route to the Iranian port of Bonder Abbas when it was intercepted. The Tosco was seized in the Gulf of Oman just outside of the Strait of Hormuz as it was approaching Iranian waters. It tried to run the blockade, which seems like a particularly foolish thing to do, which would seem to indicate there was something aboard that ship that they really perhaps needed in Iran, said Ray Powell, director of sea light, a maritime transparency initiative told Fox News Digital. Powell said the vessel's route through Malaysia is notable, describing waters near the Singapore Strait as infamous for ship-to-ship transfers due to relatively weak enforcement, a tactic that can make cargo movements harder to trace. He added that the ship stops in China raised question,

about the origin of its cargo, though what was on board remains unknown. Let me show you this right here. I want to show you this viral clip. Myronoffa reporting the U.S. Navy boarded a seized Iranian-flagged vessel in the Arabian Sea yesterday. The Toska tried to run the blockade. Check this out. Let's see if we can get the audio run first. And...

Military blockade. Here we go. 196 warship 115. You're answering the area of a military blockade. The blockade of Iranian port to be enforced and the vice. all vessels regardless of flag. Any vessel to further intents, answer or exit, and Iranian port will be subject to the right,

a visit and search and importance with international law. If you attempt to run the blockade, we will compel compliance with force. Over. We will compel compliance with force. Look at that big old gun. He's got pointed at him. It's getting wild.

So we've got multiple reports now. We've got potentially a ship trying to run the U.S. blockade with Chinese-bound dual-use cargo, as well as reports. European intelligence believes that Russia is supplying drones to Iran. Not only that with the shooting down of the F-15E, many were concerned that I believe the F-15 is a stealth fighter, meaning Iran should not have had the capabilities to track it, but somehow did. And the people suspect Russia has been providing the technology to detect U.S. airships.

This is expanding beyond just Iran, and it's now pulling in other world powers. not to mention it already involves around 20 or so countries. So I don't know when everyone will just agree it's World War III, perhaps when China makes a direct statement. But I will add this. World War II was a series of global conflicts, not one single declaration. When we look back in hindsight, historians say it began when the Nazis invaded Poland. They say 1939. But at the time, the media already claimed World War III, I'm sorry, World War II was going

some said it still hadn't begun, and several years later, people started to say the phrase more colloquially, and it wasn't until the war was over. The U.S. formally called it World War II. So perhaps we won't know we will just watch it happen. And then after all this said and done, people might be like, yeah, I think that was World War III. During Vietnam, the Soviets were funding the North Vietnamese. So we could be looking at another situation like that that stayed limited. Of course, we pulled out of Vietnam. I don't know if we're going to pull out of the Iranian straight. Yeah. But just to kind of reinforce what you were saying, Tim, during World War II, the Japanese invaded Manchuria and 31. So that was already agro.

The Italians had already gone into Africa. Exactly. North Africa was already... Only when Hitler invaded Poland, did France and England declare war on Germany. And that's when, now colloquially, we refer to it as it beginning. Now, consider this. You are right about Vietnam and limited warfare. During the Cold War, we had many proxy wars.

Some might argue this is just another proxy war, except for the fact that China's been cut off from 40 to 50 percent. of its energy input. That, they could only last so long. Now, the interesting thing is, they keep trying to maintain this narrative that Trump wants the straight open. I don't think so.

It seems like Trump is intentionally keeping it closed. I mean, they're blockading ships. So it does not seem like Trump is trying to keep it open. I don't, I don't, it's, again, fog of war. I will say one very important thing. There has never been a war in which the public has known what was going on. even in World War II, you might get some reports later on, but a lot of it's propaganda.

So maybe a month after a battle, the news circulates, by the way, this is what we think happened. And then after the fact, even now people still question certain things that happened in World War II. And I'm not talking about the Holocaust. Obviously, there's people question. I'm saying, you know, how many people died in this battle or that? Here's the official reporting. Here's what we think we know. Right now, I think you would be insane to believe that Donald Trump is going to come out and say,

here's exactly what's going on in the Middle East, here's our plans, what we're going to do. No, he's going to come out. It's going to be confusing. It's going to be intentionally confusing because loose lips sink ships. And if Trump came out and said, here's our exact plan and what we want to do,

you'd never get it done. I mean, yeah, there's kind of some bizarre things happening right now. I mean, we saw this morning on Maria Bartomo's show where she was saying Trump had called her yesterday and said, hey, tomorrow, as in today, there would be a deal signed in Pakistan between the Iranians and the U.S. That was what he said.

That's what she said, he said. He said, she said, kind of stuff. And so now you look at what happened in Pakistan today, well, the Iranians didn't show up and they had signaled through their state agency or state media earlier today that they weren't even going to show up. So there's kind of a bit of a diplomatic mess right now. So that's why Trump, I think, he's looking at, again, keeping the straight clothes as economic leverage, because obviously like the military operation, as far as toppling the Iranian regime hasn't manifested. We haven't even really moderated the regime. I mean, if anything, all the people that got replaced after we would kill their leader, they would just get replaced by

someone at the exact same ideology. So it doesn't really make Iran a preferable. They're not more, you know, they're not more tenable to negotiate with as a stance. To Tim's point, though, like in regards to sort of the inklings of World War here, I mean, yeah, I mean, everyone points to Poland, but yeah, you look at World War too. I mean, the Marco Polo Bridge incident could really be cited as the beginning of the war. That's when the Japanese and the Chinese actually sort of exchanging fire. You're kind of looking at this and maybe some people will go back and if this truly keeps kicking off because we're seeing right now a power block stitched together, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians.

And you could look back at, I don't know, maybe the withdrawal from Afghanistan is when the war started or perhaps when, obviously, Russia moved into Ukraine. Maybe that's when the war started. But what is obvious right now is that three-man coalition, I guess the fourth would be North Korea if you want to include them. That doesn't seem to be unraveling anytime soon. And if anything, this Iran operation has stitched China and Russia closer together, which I don't really think was the intention necessarily, but that's just been the result.

I mean, the story says right here, the Chinese are sending dual-use cargo to the Iranians. Well, where has it's been China been sending dual-use cargo? Russia, they've been sending it for years. I mean, they've been supplying the Russians with this dual-use cargo. I mean, stuff they'll do is they'll call it cooling fans. You know, we're sending cooling fans to Russia. What's the big deal? Well, it's actually drone engines.

That's the most common source of, like, dual-use cargo. And they'll typically dock it in Malaysia or the Philippines. And what you do is almost like a move, you respray the side of the cargo. And it says, from Malaysia now. And so really no one suspects anything. Oh, it's full of cool. It's just Malaysian cooling fans. What's the big deal?

Yeah, they're trying to play video games. Next thing you know, they stitch together some drones. They want to mine Bitcoin, you know. All electric motors. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. But, yeah, we definitely seem to be having the inklings of two global blocks kind of having a standoff. Now, I guess the question is how tight can, you know, how tight can America keep the coalition together?

Well, it looks like what we're doing is we're using economic persuasion. We're seeing an East Asian. Now, all these East Asian countries have gotten plighting. right into our energy supply, because again, they can't, they can't depend on the Gulf states for energy anymore. This is why I'm saying Trump's motive is shutting down the straight. He's, of course, he's going to say something totally different because he doesn't want anyone to know, like the U.S. government, not just Trump. They're not going to come on, be like, here's our war plans. But you take a little what's going on. This is a great point. He is now, whether accidentally otherwise,

forcing the world to buy oil from the U.S., which for the first time since World War II is about to become a net oil exporter. China's in serious trouble. The U.S. is shooting straight up now. It's going to mean everything gets more expensive for everybody, but it also means it's going to get a whole lot worse for everybody outside of the United States. The problem, though, is that right now China is actually getting energy on sale. They're getting energy on sale from Russia, because again, Russia is still sanctioned quite

extensively by the West. So they don't have as many options to export energy. So even though now energy is in high demand right now on the global market, especially oil, China is able to source it at a discount from Russia. That's the problem. Now, an additional problem for China is that they would source a lot of their LNG from Qatar. Well, Qatar is not exporting any LLG anymore. What's the second biggest buyer in the region? The Australian. So now Australia kind of gets introduced into this global kind of reshuffling of the chairs, because what's Australia going to do with their LNG? Are they going to sell it to the Chinese, or

is there any other buyers on the market that are going to gobble a lot of it up? It looks like Taiwan. 50% of Taiwan's energy grid is built off of LNG. So now Taiwan is buying Australian energy en masse. So it's really like dramatic what we're seeing. We've seen an entire rewiring of the entire global energy trade literally within two weeks. And the only winners have been America, Russia and Australia. Everyone else is getting hammered. Australia, what are they winning?

On an LNG. A lot of LNG. Well, it's converting a lot of economies too because the reliance on crude is now sending them spiraling. where's Greta Toonberg to praise Trump for forcing these countries to start thinking about fusion and win? It is true. Like if you look at what the Japanese and South Korean press has been saying, they're thinking five, six, seven years ahead. They're already thinking like we might need to start switching to like renewables or switch back to coal. A lot of coal. A lot of coal. A lot of coal. A lot of them have discussed moving back to coal. I'm going back to Australia. Australians like sport a lot of coal.

West Virginia's coming back, baby. Yeah. All that coal. And you can upscale it into graphene too. That's what I'm talking about. See Ian's on the Trump train now. Oh, let's coal mine. Yeah. Well, you can actually convert oil into graphene as well with thermal eating. This could be, like seriously, the graphene play could manifest here.

Well, I wonder about fusion, and, you know, for decades, they've been like, it's just 20 years away, 20 years later. Is like, would the Chinese even go so far as to unleash fusion reactors across the board and give their populace access to that power? I don't think they would. If they feel the pinch, they may. I mean, look, I mean, you're looking China's window right now of truly asserting themselves as a global superpower is now closing. It is now closing. Again, like the American GDP and the Chinese GDP have diverged like quite extensively over the last few years. And China's population is aging rapidly. They still haven't really tested their military. Like they haven't actually been in a hot conflict really ever, or at least certainly not in the last few decades.

So they're kind of looking around at the global economy. They might be thinking themselves now might be the time to strike on Taiwan because all the East Asian allies are hurting right now. Again, they're paying out the wazoo for energy at the moment. I know they're buying it from the United States, but still they're in a strategically much worse place. and they were before the war. Taiwan, again, 50% of their energy grade is built off of LNG. So they're all like on their knees right now. I mean, there's a serious crisis.

If you go read the press over there, like they're freaking out. And so China might be thinking it's now or never. And that's what could really kick things off. Now I don't expect them to, but I'm just saying the odds of it happening now. I don't know what Polymarket or Kalshi is saying, but it's probably, I would imagine it's higher than it's been in a minute, just purely because of how vulnerable, again, East Asia is right now. And the U.S. also has diverted a lot of munitions.

We've completely abandoned East Asia. Maybe not completely, but we've largely abandoned our military posture in East Asia to sort of apply those resources to our Middle Eastern operation right now. So munitions are very low in East Asia. A lot of our navies out of the region. It's really just our bases. Our bases are what's providing our posture in East Asia right now. So it's a really like the last two weeks the world just completely changed, to say the least.

We've got this from PBS. Trump tells PBS news that lots of bombs start going off if Iran ceasefire expires. Now, the issue is, as far as I know, it's the news on what is going on is just, it's a Jackson Pollock painting. You can't track it, right? With the seizure of this Iranian vessel that's now suspected to be carrying dual-use materials, peace talks are apparently off. Iran's saying they're not going to be involved in this. Trump is saying, okay, then we're going to start bombing the craft. out of Iran. I don't know where this ends up other than escalation. I will say it does not seem

that there is an effort to calm things down. It seems like there is only an effort to escalate this. How do you never get out of it? How do we make anything different happen if this is what we're getting? Iran says no peace talks. Trump says, okay, then bombs. That's the scary, I mean, that's the scary situation. I know there's a lot of people that are sort of exclaiming that, you know, Trump has decisively won this conflict already. I think it's a bit premature. I don't think we're out of the weeds yet. I mean, again, things are looking promising at times. I mean, we've won this war eight times already, according to President Trump. I mean, he declares we won quite, quite frequently. But again, to Tim's point, I mean, where's the off ramp right now? I mean,

the Iranians are not willing to budge because for them, the victory condition for Iran is survival. The victory condition for us, the bar is much higher. Like, we have to draw some serious, some serious, we have to extract some serious, I guess, folds from the Iranians to like really emerge victorious. We got to throw this fact check in real quick because this video has been going massively viral. Jimmy Dorr posted it saying that a CIA analyst was claiming that Trump threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran and that Dan Kane was like, no, and like threatened Trump. The fact check is, Kane did not storm out of emergency meeting if Trump suggested threatening Iran

with nuclear weapons. They claim that the initial claim was that Dan Kane stormed out of emergency meeting with Trump. Insiders saying blah, blah, blah, blah. He refused to, you know, whatever. They say, lead story, search Google News, Yahoo News, did not find any matching reports

for Dan Kane stormed out of emergency meeting. Trump said he wanted to threaten around with nuclear weapons. Had such an incident occurred, actually occurred, and been confirmed by sources, major news outlets would have widely reported. I do want to stress,

that's the stupidest rationale for a fact check. no one's yet reported outside of rumors, therefore it must be false. But let me see if I can find the scuttle butt. Because I do have the video from Jimmy Dore, but I want to make sure I get the article on this one first. What is this? Trump faces Catholic backlash and nuclear code allegations. Okay. Here we have, wow.

Look at this from the mirror. Here we go. I mean, guys, this is what I'm trying to stress. this is like the mirror is not some random unknown blog this is the mirror this is like a well-known publication UK Trump blocked from axing nuclear codes by head of US military

they claim retired CIA analyst Larry Johnson said on his YouTube show judging freedom that during an emergency meeting on Saturday Trump tried to access the nuclear codes one report coming out of that meeting at the White House is that Trump wanted to use the nuclear codes and General Dan Kane stood up to him and said no He invoked his privilege as the head of the military, so to speak.

It was apparently quite a blowup. There's some very bizarre things going on in D.C. The claims have not been confirmed that is unclear what the nuclear codes would be. Let me play the clip for you. This is from judging freedom. Jimmy Dorposed this. Oh, you know, we have the site muted. Don't worry we got it.

And then there was a report out that they had an emergency meeting Saturday night. And apparently, well, one report coming out of that meeting, at the White House is that Trump wanted to use the nuclear, so-called use the nuclear codes, and General Dan Cain stood up and said, no. He invoked his privilege as the head of the military, so to speak. It was apparently quite a blow-up. There are pictures of Cain coming out of that meeting with his head down to the ground. So, you know, there's some very, very bizarre things going on in D.C.

I say shenanigans. I don't believe it. Especially considering Donald Trump is the head of the military, not a general. I know. So the implications of this would be scary in any which way. If it's true, Trump wanted to nuke Iran and he wanted access to the codes or at least to scare them by activating nukes, that's horrifying. If it's also true that Trump wanted to activate weapons, but a general, stopped him also terrifying. I'm going to go and say both are probably false.

I got a third theory that might actually be true. Trump wanted this story to get out that he's the crazy madman that wanted the nukes, but he just wasn't his, thank God we have the restraint of the military or he would have done it. That's a good point. He doesn't have to threaten the nukes. I think you're right. I think that's actually what happened. Once you make the threat, you've played your hand, you have nothing else to play.

So he doesn't, we can't. It's like saying if not for them, then this would have happened. I mean, because yeah, that's a really good point. I just want to reiterate, Ian saying Trump, his administration intentionally leaked a story that he was trying to nuke Iran but was stopped from doing it. I mean, it'd be interesting that it fell under the hands of Napolitano because, like, he was a, I mean, he was a Fox News guy for a long time, like 20 years.

Larry Johnson's a little different. I mean, Larry Johnson, like literally three months before 9-11 was like, there's no terrorist threat whatsoever. I don't want to listen to him. But Napolitano, I don't know. Like, he's kind of been around the block. So as far as media goes, so I don't know. There's a possibility there's some sort of connection between him and the white.

I think Ian's right. I think Ian's right. That is kind of thing. Trump's a PR guy. Yeah. So he's like, we need to freak him out. If Trump actually says I'll nuke you, they'll say, shut up. If a story comes out where it's like Trump's trying to nuke him and they won't let him,

they're going to be like, uh. A few weeks ago, he Trump said, you got to bow to my demands. I'm putting words in his mouth, but the way he said it, or we're going to unleash hell and fury on Iran and wipe out genocide the civilization. He basically alluded to total war and just didn't do it. And like, once you make that threat and don't fall. through. I don't think any of these threats are going to be taken serious. So you do want to tone down the threatening rhetoric and just let them believe that something's coming.

Everyone's cheering for Ian right now in the chat. They're saying a broken clock. You know what I mean? The downside is I want to help the United States come out on top on the conflict. So I don't like want to reveal his hand. But at the same time, I feel like as doing commentary. Okay, then let's do this. What's that? It's my phone. What's that, Mr. President? Hold on. I'm getting a text. You're actively trying to nuke Iran right now. He does want to do it. Oh, yeah. She's right here, President Trump. My group chat with Heggseth. Don't nuke Trump. But, and you know,

bad ass keep it up, guys. I mean, it's good. It's working. Wait, no, no, that wasn't. Yeah, yeah. I don't know what he's talking about. Block from nuclear codes. That doesn't sound right. I know. That's fake. But also Trump might have asked like, hey, so what's up with these nuclear codes? Can I get them? Yeah.

And the general's like, uh, this idea is we open that box. How do you not ask that when you're the president? Every president has been busy. He's been busy. Oh, the first thing I'm doing. How do you not? I'd be like, let me see the football, open it up. Watch, it's probably four numbers. Like, it's easy to get. It was my birthday.

I think, too, the way he operates in this administration versus previous administration, you know, his first term. Sorry, the code is 1776. His first term, anytime he wanted to, like, dangle the keys and, like, distract everybody, he could just put out a tweet. He doesn't tweet anymore. He doesn't tweet anymore. He puts, truths or whatever it is now.

So anytime he wants to, like, muddy the waters to get everybody all up in arms and distract and stuff, he's got to go throughout these other circuitous routes. Yeah, I mean, yeah. And to your point, to everyone's point, is, I mean, we just saw this with Cuba. I mean, the idea that, like, the Pentagon, whoops, there was a leak. Oh, we're going to invade Cuba. Like, that just slipped out. No, Trump is, like, infamous for AB testing ideas.

Yeah. You'll, like, throw out an idea, kind of see how everyone in the space reacts, and then we'll, like, either double down or kind of back off of it. He's famous for this. And this is kind of a little way of doing that. He's going to madman theory. I think that's what he was trying to make. He was just a slow weekend.

He wanted to, like, spice things up. Throw that out there and just kind of see what everyone reacts. We're at 100% toppling Cuba. Oh yeah, dude, it's happening. Like all the reports that are coming out now, again, I think this is trial balloon stuff, but I'm seeing more and more reports about the U.S. preparing an invasion, like drones flying over Cuba now, secret meetings with Cuban officials. I think they're freaking out.

Again, what if the reports on a U.S. invasion of Cuba were to force the Cuban government to start negotiating? That's what it was. I mean, we saw a report today that one of the Cuban officials came out, but he gave the wrong answer. He was like, oh, we're sovereign actually. And I was like, nope, wrong answer. You're not. We can, like, destroy you whenever we want. But yeah, that's true.

It's more of like ratcheting at pressure before like a round of negotiations. And who knows what we'll extract out of them. I think there, I think we, Venezuela, we can just like show them the video. Be like, hey, that'd be a lot easier to take over you than that. At least Venezuela had like some stuff going for him. You know what we should do. We should just have a bunch of tourists go to Cuba. Yeah.

And then just like a couple cruise ships pull up and like several thousand people come out in like Hawaiian shirt. and like khakis, and then they just stay. And that's it. Well, that would have, you know, and that wouldn't have worked in the 80s, because if you look how, like, CIA guys used to dress. They did used to just dress like that. They used to just wear, like, slacks.

Where now they're, like, all body armored up and everything. To be fair, we just send tons and tons of troops to Guantanamo Bay, and then they walk outside. Yeah, you know, and this is maybe, this is kind of one of my pet issues is, like, Guantanamo Bay, why are we not turning that into, like, Hong Kong 2.0? Because the actual part of, like, the actual concessions that we got, as far as, like, what we can utilize, there's a lot of land. there we don't use for development. I'm like, we should just turn it into like a paradise,

so that way Cubans look across the fence and they see like skyscrapers and they're like. Or an ice detention center? Yeah, just something that would like send a message to the Cuban people of like, oh, wow, we need that actually. That would be really cool. Like I'm sitting here like begging for bread and I could have like skyscraper. We have that. It's called Key West. Kews is closer to Cuba than Miami is. Yeah, they could just get their binoculars out and just be like, whoa. Yeah, Cuba is a fascinating story about why like liberating someone isn't always the best thing for them. sometimes you want to take control of them

because like when we liberated Cuba from the Spanish Empire in 1898 with a Spanish American war we gave them sovereignty and then a communist dictator took it over. But had we taken it and taken control of it like Puerto Rico made it a territory, it would still be a peaceful probably

well I don't know not like Puerto Rico's a haven of wealth but it would have a better shot than Castro's you know demolition of the country so it's crazy to think that like maybe we should have taken it and conquered it. Yeah, totally.

We totally should have. I mean, this is the case with, like, pretty much every decolonization, like, post-decolonization story throughout the world is that more often than not, they just, like, diverge back into, or they revert back into, like, basically tribal warfare. I mean, this is what you saw all throughout Africa. And there's exceptions, obviously, like Singapore actually probably was better off decolonized, so to speak. But that was for a variety of other reasons.

But, yeah, like, Cuba's a great example of we cut them loose, and then, what, it took 20 years before they had a literally a communist government. I mean, like, yeah, maybe we should just sort of incorporate them into the fold. And now you have an elite ready to go because they have an entire elite in exile. They're all in South Florida. You could just tell them to go back to Cuba and take back, like, whatever their lands were or whatever, and just rebuild the economy. I grew up around many of those guys. Yeah.

South Florida in the late 90s, early 2000s. And, yeah, all of them, they came into the U.S. during, like, the 70s and 80s, and they're just waiting to get the green light to go back. Were they wealthy capitalists that had had their, property seized by Castro? No, actually, one of them, this guy named Sal, he swears up and down. If you watch the movie Scarface, that news footage at the beginning of the movie of the guys washing up on shore, he's like, I was in that boat. I was there when they were filming the movie. And, yeah, he's like a plumber in South Florida. But he had two Harleys when he lived in Cuba

that he buried in a septic tank when he fled the country. So he's like, I'm going back and getting my Harleys back. Yeah, it wasn't so much that they were like the elites that got targeted, but like the middle class, I mean, Cuba was fairly wealthy. So the middle class there before the revolution was actually doing fairly well. And so, again, compared to what Cuba is now, they would be perceived as quite wealthy. But at the time, a lot of them were just middle class. And same thing in Venezuela. Like, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Well, a tide going back in sinks a lot of boats. And that's kind of what happened in Cuba. I mean, I'm sure there were some elites that had, like, their, you know, their housing and land stolen. And that's why they're, like, angry. But a lot of them are just, like, normal middle class people. And that's, you could afford to buy quite nice things on a middle class salary in Cuba in very recent memory.

Great Americans, too. I knew a lot that when they would celebrate Thanksgiving, they would all dress up as pilgrims. It was the weirdest thing. I'm in South Florida, and I'm hanging out with a bunch of Cuban Americans, and they're all dressed as pilgrims. Yeah.

So one of the claims on the Iranian cargo ship is that it was carrying ammonium percolate, sodium perchlorate, sodium chlorate, oxidized and propellant chemicals like dual-use materials, which can be used for ballistic missiles. Right, and like probably fertilizer or something. They're like, hey, it's just for farms. and or...

Recurcer chemicals. Any of that stuff in bulk, you can do a lot of damage. Let's grab this story from Bloomberg. Trump invokes wartime powers to fund new energy projects. Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to provide federal funds for energy projects targeting areas including domestic coal power and power grid infrastructure. The move allows the energy department to deploy funding to overcome delays, financial shortfalls, and market barriers. And it support projects such as coal-fired power plants and facilities that manufacture gas turbines.

Trump said the actions are necessary. to strengthen grid infrastructure, unleash reliable energy and support national defense, citing concerns about high energy costs in the nation's aging and constrained electric grid infrastructure. Two things here. Trump invoking wartime powers with the Iran war stuff going off. It's kind of freaky, except presidents invoke wartime powers all the time. The question is, is this just a move for energy independence to strengthen us in the United States? Or is it executive encroachment that our legislative branch is so dysfunctional, The president is just rubber stamping projects now.

Do you want power to have those AI data centers turned on or not? Man. Yeah, the guy. Hi, dude. What is it? And not Anthropic CEO, but what's the other? Oh, oh. No, no, the defense Palantir.

Pallentier. Your CEO in his book said he wanted a draft. He thought that military service should be. What's that? Well, he thinks the service should be mandatory. And military service should be mandatory. Like, yeah, the executive takes control. and then institutes a draft, that could be very concerning.

So, like, we do need... I think you thought for a second that it was a tech company, an AI company, or I'm sorry, an energy company, but Palantir is just like a government contractor for surveillance, so... Yeah, but... It's unrelated to Trump's wartime powers. It's like our AI defense grid. If that thing starts calling for drafts and compelling service and the president takes the authority to... That is largely an exaggeration.

He said national service. He said, we have to bring back some kind of national service, which we all agree with. Are you sure the quote I thought it said... No, it was a manifesto when he said national service. It's like in the Heinleian sense, you know, Stars for Troopers, that kind of thing. I'm going to look it up because I thought there was more, but I'll check it out. But to, I mean, to the story, I mean, Biden and Obama both invoked wartime powers over cleaning our electric grid up as far as like Obama was trying to, I think it was literally just called it like the Green Act or something and he used wartime powers. And then Biden did the same thing.

And Biden, this was like 2022, he invoked wartime powers to build out like clean energy. and he did it. The reason he justified it was he was saying because we're competing with China for renewable energies like in the renewable energy race. So we need to invoke wartime powers and our economic war against China. It was like his rationale for it.

So this idea that this is like a unique thing is just like laughable. I mean invoking it for renewable energy. Like what are we doing here? I want to know what got invoked. Did he say what specifically or is it kept general on purpose? Who? The defense.

what is it, the defense production act? Yeah, but they use it all the time. Biden used it for a baby formula shortage. Yeah, exactly. They use it all the time. He did it for like batteries. We had like a battery shortage. Like it happens like once every three months, three to six months.

Since he's been in office in the second term, they've been trying to re-invigorate the industrialization, re-industrialization of the U.S. And I feel like this is just like a, in case of emergency break last measure because we're expending a thousand Tomahawk missiles in Iran and we build 100 per year. So any attempt to ramp up production of anything in the U.S. is going to require a ton of energy. And I think they're realizing we have a limited amount of time left in this term, and we've got to get as much done as humanly possible.

I wonder if we stay on the oil is our main energy source, if we will inevitably be led to global war. Like the whole Iranian seizure and control is about oil. And if we're stuck on oil as our main and only or our main fuel source. We're not stuck. We want it to be that way because we control. it. Right. And if it's hydrogen, you kind of lose control. Unless, well, the theory is not, I mean, first sort of thinkers are like the U.S. won't allow any other technology to exist because

they own oil. Further down the order of thinking, you have, there are multiple different energy sources the U.S. is trying to control. Once they control them, they have no problem with anyone using them. The hydrogen is a little risky. It's a great fuel if you can control it, but, and they can make it by-fitting. They get it as a byproduct. So it's very cheap. They're not going to make hydrogen through a byproduct of graphene, they're going to make it much simpler ways. Well, it's pretty simple. The hydrogen, I mean, if you superheat carbon and then it flashes into graphene, gives off hydrogen as a byproduct, it's pretty easy. That's the thing is, if we, if countries start doing it, it kind of frees up their fuel source because it's just carbon.

You can get carbon from, like, trash. There's other things you can do with oil and, you know, LNG, liquidified natural gas, too. There's all kinds of petrochemicals and stuff that we produce as byproducts during refining. So, you know, just the fact that we're controlling or we're exporting so much natural gas right now is great because it doesn't just stay as natural gas. It can be burned for energy. It can also be turned into other products. So anytime we're net exporting all that stuff, it's a win for us. Yeah, I mean, we use LNG for ethylene. Is that how you pronounce that word? It's what, like, is the primary chemical that we use in like plastic manufacturing. So like if you can dominate an LNG trade, you basically dominate like the global

plastics production. And then in addition to that, I mean, our energy grid or electric grid, like our actual electric grid is primarily utilizes LNG. So, I mean, at Tim's point, that we don't want to diversify if we don't have to because it helps us on the global stage. The LNG, that's methane, liquid natural gas is methane. CH4 is the chemical structure. You can strip away the carbon and turn it into graphene. I know it's, I brought it up a lot of times, and then you've left over with all that hydrogen. Similar, you actually turn carbon dioxide into methane and then turn that methane into graphene with the hydrogen byproduct. But I think, I think you're probably right that the ideal for the power structure is to maintain the oil

and methane chain and not open up a new fuel source yet until we have total control. Like, I don't know what they're thinking, but I mean, the inevitable transition to another fuel source is coming. It's just a matter of, of when and how and how disruptive it is. Yeah, yeah. Well, and the LNG. market globally was super competitive up until recently. I mean, like literally last week. So I'm, I mean, for the longest time, yeah, a lot of that was used domestically

but now that we're able to export a lot of it. I mean, again, who knows? Who knows how the global market will rewire? Anyone have any further? Does anybody have any stronger opinions on the analogy? The world's going to end and aliens are going to come at the same time and then there's going to be a big earthquake like Japan again. Wasn't there supposed to be some UFO stuff announced this week?

It's supposed to be. That's why it's, it seems like now's the time for it. It's what feels so lame. It's like being in commentary, and then literally having to give the answer, I don't know, let's just see what happens. Like, that's actually how I feel about a lot of this. And it's like, I think most people feel like I don't care anymore.

We've just, it's, you know, it feels like the last 10 years. It's just like, imagine there's some morbidly obese, purple-haired woman to your right. And I guess to your left. And then on your right is like some mug, some mug guy in a suit. And the person on left is going,

ah, just in your left here the whole time. And the guy on the right's going, oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Really? the whole time. That's what it feels like for 10 years. And so I'm just like,

is the new Game of Thrones done yet? Because I'm waiting for that book. If the Chinese were blockading the Panama Canal right now, I'd be out of my mind screaming rampant, like, ah, thing about thing, about thing about thing. I don't think so. I think you'd be going like the Americans shouldn't have colonized Panama. No, I would be very, I'd become very warlike

if the Chinese were to start to blockade our anything of ours. But if we've blockaded the Iranians, I don't, I'm not. I'm just like, if I'm not going to speak out against my government right now, I'm maybe supposed to if they're doing something wrong and maybe they're. China's been stealing our intellectual property for decades. Yeah, no. And so what? And we don't even do anything about it.

I don't know what to do about. We just mock them. We like our free stuff or cheap stuff. Yeah, we're like, I mean. I had neighbors that used to come home. Like I had a kid who lived next to me. He's dad worked in China a lot. used to bring home DVDs before the thing came on film.

That's awesome. Well, yeah, it's like a punchline. We're like, oh, that's the T-Moo version of such and such. It's like, we're litigating our IP ripped off and then, like, we make jokes. Even though they are under, I mean, that is a problem. Like, they are, like, totally undercutting our economy. I mean, personally, I'm not a big fan of IP law in general. It's kind of silly that a corporation can buy a likeness and then profit off it for 100 years.

Like, what is it? What do you mean? Mickey Mouse. Like, they're supposed to give it back to the commons. They did. What do you mean? They were, they held it for longer than they were supposed to. No, Mickey, Steamboat Willie is now public domain.

We've made jokes about it. We're like, we were going to, people are making like Nazi paraphernalia with like Steamboat Willie's saluting inside that. They did figure out ways to like prolong their control. That's true. It's like it was supposed to be like 50 years. It's like your lifetime plus 70 years, I think, is what used to be at one point. It is, it is pretty insane to think that there are stories so like just old and common that

their public domain now. Like I think Peter Pan is, right? Captain Hook and all that stuff. That's the whole Disney back catalog. All those stories were public domain. But their versions of these characters they do own because they're unique, right? Like, what is it? Little Mermaid is slightly different.

So the actual Little Mermaid dies at the end of the story. Yeah. She turns into C-phone, which just disintegrates. There's constant jostling over Bible and Quran translations because it's like, okay, clearly you can't copyright the Bible, but this specific translation, we have copyrighted. like I'm on like the new living translation or something. So it's like spawning all these like new translations that are really obscure. You know, to your point, Ian, like IP law is over anyway.

Yeah, I know because corporate, that's corporations. It's over because of AI. The corporation wants to own you in your likeness. It's not about corporations. That's a weird communist nonsense. Well, my concern is the corporate takeover. It's not the Chinese. It's the corporations sliding in the back.

Oh, corporation. Bro, there's like millions upon millions of corporations. Corporate law. I just think they have personhood. It's very weird. But the Chinese, if the Chinese, broke it open and they're like, you know what, screw your IP law, everyone can have access to every character. I'd rather that than corporations owning your likeness. I disagree because a corporation

could be one single person with a legally protected entity just so that it houses that particular IP. An IP law. I don't know, but they can sell that IP too. That's the danger of it. Let me, let me put it like this. You've written a song, right? Yeah. What if one day on this show, you said something that was factually incorrect and defamatory. So they sued you and took the rights to that song away from you. Would that make sense? No. But that's the way it works.

You own that song. If you are sued, you have to pay the damages, right? So they'll look at your assets and say, what does Ian own a value? Nothing. The person might go, he does have the rights to these songs, and they do have a potential value. I'll accept the rights to that. Now you've lost the rights to your song, and they can do whatever they want. You'll never see a penny for it.

So how about you form like a corporation that isolates that IP so that it can't be seized this way? And to be fair, the corporation is still an answer to yours. It works in the inverse. If you as a representative of corporation do something defamatory, they can't come after you personally after the fact unless you personally are involved. The purpose of corporations is to limit liability to key areas. Otherwise, you could own a house and then someone slips on a banana peel at a work, a business

you own, and then sue you and take your home from you because something the business was doing. So we separate these so they're legally distinct. To be fair, there's still ways to go after the individual, the principle, and go after his assets as well, just harder to do. So corporation just doesn't mean the whole lot when you say, I don't like corporations. No, I didn't say I don't like them. I just don't like Megacorp's owning, I was supposed to me, I'm supposed to make a personal like likenesses. It's a very strange form of IP that I think is aberrant. It's not what the law was made to do. It was specifically. I don't think the law wasn't made to own people's likenesses against their...

They literally created laws so that people's likenesses could be held as IP. Yes. I think the laws... That's why they're able to do it. The laws were originally made so that the British government could control the copies of the Bible they were selling. They wanted to make sure the same copy now. And I am talking about IP law in the United States drafted by Congress to protect

companies owning its contract law. They weren't like in the 1970s going on, let's go back to Britain. They were like, let's pass a new law in Congress so that corporations can hold these contracts. I got a song called copyright. It's awesome. I like IP when it works for the little guy, so the corporation can't take their idea. What is the corporation? You keep saying that. Whatever. Some giant money organism. So you have an issue with one particular

company, you're blaming the structure itself. It's when big money comes in, buys an IP, and then you can't get it back. Those are terrible. They bought it. What do you mean? Right. Like they use don't sell it then. You write a song and then Columbia Records comes to you and sues you because you have like the same chord progression as well that's that's that's what are there pop songs that's something dramatically different has happened but but but often we see that the inverse like when sam smith got sued by tom petty they're two big major label stars or when i think it was the family of marving gay could be wrong sued uh what's his face over blurred lines because the

vibe was similar uh thick robin thick is that his name yeah robin lives love it yeah that's a good that that that's something totally different the the the idea that a corporation purchased via a agreement from you, the right something and now you're mad about it? Well, what are you complaining about? They could do it, a contract. Some corporations have old contracts. You have to agree to those terms. But like, do you understand what you're agreeing?

I don't think there's, I used to sign these entertainment contracts. They're like, we own your likeness across all space and time through multiple universes. How would you agree to it? Well, it's like, do you want the job? And these are the contracts. And you're like, I'm like a 22 year old actor. How do I, can I, this is Hollywood. Welcome to the 19th century.

What right do you have that another company give you things for free? None. So why are you complaining that some other company offered you something in exchange for something else? Because what they're offering says the same thing on paper. Let me answer your question. Of a corporation. It says the same thing on paper that it said 30 years ago, but it means something different now. No, that's not what you're doing. Owning your likeness 30 years ago is one thing.

You could do picture. Now you can make AI carbon. Irrelevant to the conversation. Are you agreeing to sell your likeness? Yes or no. You've got to define what that means. And it meant something different. You have.

So today, you don't pull up a 30. year old law book to figure out what the contract means you go to a lawyer and then you agree yes or no and if you agree to it that's your choice you can't be like yeah well i want the job therefore they should give me beneficial terms you're basically saying the government should interfere in the negotiation between me and another another entity because i want from them something they don't have to give me well i think the unethical contracts should not be honored what's an unethical contract something that offends you something that buys and owns your likeness that's your opinion if an individual voluntarily agrees to those terms, that's their fault.

Doesn't mean it's ethical. Ethical is subjective to you, I guess. I mean, I've listened to you say that contracts are useless. Indeed. Not probably like eight times over the last year. Contracts that go beyond the scope of what a reasonable person expects or agrees to. Right. And only...

However, if I said to somebody, you will be an artist, we have a right to your likeness to market and portray and do all this art for the span of X amount of time. Do you agree? And they say, yes, that is totally ethical. before the span. Now, now that's another, that's a better way to go about it for the span of X amount of years, but across all space and time through all universes is insane. Don't agree to with them. But also like IP law, if you're like an individual and you want to like license your likeness, that benefits you. Now you're in the driver's seat because if there were no IP law in regards

the likeness, like, you know, a football player can't control his name being printed on, you know, any piece of merchandise or his photo being put on any trading card. I would actually say that, you know, it actually benefits the individuals primarily. until someone else buys it from them. But you have to agree to that. It's their likeness. Yeah, but people used to sell their children in Rome to pay their slavery debts. Like, I don't want some companies.

Yeah, I mean, if you pay a lawyer and he thumbs through it and then mislead you on what the terms of the IP, like, in this exchange. It would be thrown out in court in two seconds. What if the corporate? What if mass layoffs we see in the next five years, mass layoffs, 20% unemployment, corporations come in there. They're like, we will give you universal basic income. if you sign your likeness to us across all space and time. So wait, wait, wait, you're saying we would like to purchase from you a thing in exchange for food resources. We'll license you survival.

That's called voluntary exchange. We'll license you survival if you give us the rights to your likeness. It seems like a great deal. Your survival is not the responsibility of somebody else, you communist. But they'll license, they'll give you money. We'll buy, we'll contract your likeness. Okay. So you sold something to them for money.

We'll buy a 150-year contract from you. We'll give you $700,000. You can retire. I'd do that. A fiat garbage that's worth, next to one-tenth of where it was. You can buy a house right now. You can buy a big house. I wouldn't sign that in a heartbeat. But as soon as they start throwing away, what are they just 50 billion Amazon's putting into, like the money is, how much are they printing?

The core of your argument is I should get free stuff from big corporations. No, it's not. Then why should they give you money? What the fuck are you talking about? You said they come and offer you $700,000 for your likeness and that's wrong. And I'm like, what? If a corporation comes and tries to, let's say they offer somebody 15,000. thousand dollars because they're destitute and they own their likeness after that don't sell it to him well what tell that to the starving guy who's looking for some some lifeline we need legal barriers so that that can't happen you're right the starving guy should not be given something of value and exchange something of value should just die not for his soul not for his it's his choice

look does he have the choice but under duress it's not really a choice how is it duress well if he's starving any on you know would he be starving if the corporation did not exist that's a tight The answer is yes. The existence of a corporate entity is not a hindrance to an individual, and an offer is not unethical. If the individual says, I will take the $15,000, should we just

eliminate the corporation and say, nah, starve to death? What about all the Chinese corporations that own American farmland? You're fine with that too. You're talking about corporations buying things and having the right to own them. I mean, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

It sounds like just changing the subject because we're saying it's not saying it's pointing you how some corporations can buy things unethically, and you're supposed to rectify it legally. Purchasing something legally is not unethical. It's voluntary exchange. It's legal, but that doesn't mean it's good or ethical. It's legal. I'm not saying it's, were you going to say something, Jeff? I was just saying, I could give you concrete examples of like where these contracts get squarely. In trucking, all these guys that are crashing and killing people right now, they're not employees. They're all, quote unquote, independent contractors. So they're right into the country.

they are told to immediately form an LLC and then that company that's employing them is contracting to them technically. So none of these guys speak English, they don't go to a lawyer, everything's presented to them. Completely different issue, but also bad. But we were talking contracts and stuff and the way my brain works, everything goes to trucking.

So there's actually like a big class action lawsuit against a lot of these trucking companies because these drivers are starting to realize, oh, I can take this contract, punch into the chat GPT and realize just how much I'm getting ripped off. Because even the lawyers, the lawyers all work for

Well, the problem we have with illegal immigration has always been these companies basically going to illegal immigrants knowing that they have no legal recourse no matter what they agree to. Contracts don't exist, basically, because the individuals didn't have legal standing to enter into these contracts to begin with. Famously, some of these companies would bring in illegal immigrants from Mexico to work in certain, like, factories. At the end of the month, when pay was due, they'd call INS. This is back in the day. They'd call ICE. Show up, deport them all, pay nothing. Yeah.

That's a totally different issue. if one of these people tried, you know, had a contract and their illegal immigrants or unlawfully working or bunk CDLs, they go to court over this. They're going to be like, oh, ICE is waiting for you outside. So the contracts are just fake anyway. You know, I don't, I'm not like totally against IP law because I think it is reasonable in the right situations. But like owning data is very concerning for the future that we're going towards with like owning the the schematics for a gun. If you then can say now no one can trade this data online or it will be a felony to send this email to your friend with that information because I own that information. You can't send that. That's like, bro, what? And like, that's the whole name of the game in the West is you come up with an idea and then you can make money off of your ideas. How is anyone supposed to make money off of any, you know, unique idea that they have if they have no way of protecting those ideas? Right. And if a corporation then buys all those things and then shelves them. it kind of defeats the purpose of the little guy making money off his invention,

which was the whole purpose in the common man's mind about why IP works. It doesn't even need to be another corporation. It could just be you and me. I show you something cool on my laptop and you're like, oh, that's pretty dope. And then you rip off whatever I'm building. I have to have some kind of defense to go after you to protect whatever I'm building. Yeah. Yeah.

That's the argument. Dude, corporations got person. status. What is going on? What does that mean? That they get, we should pull up exactly what it means. You should tell us because you're upset about it. So explain to us without looking it up. Oh, and I'll look it up and tell you. Because you don't actually know what you're talking about. No, I just know that to call a corporation a person is kind of insane. It sounds like you've never actually looked into it and you don't know what it means. No, I don't know exactly what it means. Because it's called corporate

personhood, not a corporation is a person. So now he's looking it up because he made it, he made an argument without understanding what he was talking about. Let us know when you figure out what you mean. Oh, I'm happy to. Corporate personhood, the legal concept that corporations are treated as independent entities separate from their owners, managers, and employees granting them certain legal rights and responsibilities, typically associated with natural persons. So I'm okay with the independent entity thing. And right. So corporate personhood means that a corporation is a standing legal entity unto itself, which means it can be fined and penalized in whatever ways you can.

fine and penalize it for breaking the law. It means that it can be sued. It means that it can own property. That's all it means. It has speech rights apparently. And yes. We are a corporation and we produced. George Washington would have said about that. He was it completely agreed because newspapers exist. To be fair, the corporation didn't exist back then for the most part. But the idea right now is that Timcast is a corporation. The government can't stop Timcast from publishing content. We have the right to produce content. That's the First Amendment. See, this is what happens. Low intelligence and midwits are sitting around to the TV and someone like Rachel Maddo goes, corporations are not people. They're legal entities and they go, yeah, and they get all mad about it.

And then people like Ian here and they're like, that should be allowed. And it's like, do you need what you're talking about? You say it shouldn't be allowed? This is like the third time you put words in my mouth tonight, dude. Bro. Homie, man. Did you say it was wrong? No, I just don't like the concept. I'm looking, I'm reading about it now. But you didn't even know what the concept was.

Well, they get weird, more legal, like, look, no. This is, this is, again. You do a corporate governance, man. This is the whole point is a corporate, they want to undo the United States and they want to set up a global corporate governance. What does that mean? It means that they want people to be shareholders and stakeholders in their process. And if you violate their corporate ethos, you lose your free speech, you lose your right to

speak, you lose banking. You've got to be part of the corporation. I could go on and on, but I mean, it's the World Economic Forum's modus operandi as corporate serfdom, basically. So corporations exist. You can choose to work for it, right? You can choose not to. See, this is communism. I think you need to understand why what you're saying is communism.

You are an individual human being, right? Yes. Do you have a right to any other property owned by anybody else? So if a corporation does not exist, you are not being oppressed, right? A corporation can't oppress you. I ask you a question. It's a deep question because Nestle owns water now. And if we as humans were like running out of water.

What are you? If we as humans started to run out of water and Nestle was like you're not going to have any, we kind of have a right, but it's not a legal right. This is communism. It's like a, it's quite literally communism. Well, it's... The argument of communism is the commons, that the people have a right to the commons. I mean, you know, arguing against corporatocracy, it's not necessarily common.

It doesn't have to be too extremes, but using the government to see. Let's try this. A man is standing in the middle of a barren planet where nothing exists. Is he being oppressed? No. No. On the other side of the planet, a corporation emerges that's producing food and water. Is he being oppressed?

Not. Okay. He's very hungry. And the corporation says, okay, well, because we're the only source of food and water, you can work for us and will give you food and water. Is he being oppressed? No, not at this face value of the situation. No, but like how did the corporation get the water? Was it his old river that they now? No. Like I don't know. He walked up to them, stood next to the factory and says, I should, I deserve that water you've got. And they went, no, it's ours. We built this. And he goes, I'm being oppressed by you. That's your argument. The existence of luxury is not oppression of the impoverished. This is communism. Communists look at a factory and say, I should own that. Well, no, you had nothing to do with its creation or production. you don't work there. They work. They produce things. You don't get to just have it. Yeah, well,

they're offering me some money for labor. That's oppression. Just say no. Well, no, because I need food. Then go find food somewhere else. I can't. Sounds like that's a you problem. If you were in the middle of the woods and there was no corporation around, you're not being oppressed. But the moment someone starts fishing and catches fish, you deserve it? No, it's like not the moment it happens, but if you're born, say you're factory towns, you're familiar with what those are? Uh-huh. Corporate towns, they would set up little towns and then they'd pay them with corporate script and the person would only buy food from the company stores. So leave.

Well, that wasn't that easy for people when they're desperate. Neither is surviving in the wilderness. Yeah, I know. But that's why we- That is not anyone else's responsibility. We, the people, have created a system to protect ourselves from predatory advancements from corporations, from governments, from foreigners. So again, do you understand the idea that if there is no factory or corporation, you are

not being oppressed and the existence of it does not oppress you. Well, it might. You can leave. That's easy to say, dude. It's easy to say live in the woods and be naked, right? Yeah, it's easy to say that. Would you die, Ian, if you were left in the woods naked with no supplies? Yeah, maybe, probably.

Well, why don't you leave? Because it's hard? Well, you have no choice. You better do it otherwise you're going to die. Why is the existence of someone else's stuff all of a sudden something you're entitled to? It's not, well, first of all, if someone licensed my personality, it's my, it's my stuff that they're trying to take. Not if you sold it. What? So all those farmlands is back to that same stupid cyclical argument. All those American farmlands that are owned by Chinese, that's just,

you're cool with it. No, that's a different subject. It's kind of the same subject. It's not. Corporation legally bought a piece of thing. Sure did. And then at certain scale becomes a threat to national security. Exactly. At certain scale is the problem. That's where I'm going. It's not about IP. It's about the scale of IP. We have an adversary purchasing farmland next to our military installations to spy on our military is different from a guy buying a farmer. But if BlackRock bought the personas of every American citizen on birth somehow, that would be something, that's like a scale. I'm not comfortable with IP. Don't get money idea.

That's not how IP law works. You can't do that. I don't know, man. We have, we have, what are they called? Those freaking number, social security numbers, like they can put you in the system as part of it. You're in the system. Let's jump to the story from Real Clear Politics. Carville to Democrats. Expand the Supreme Court, make Puerto Rico and D.C. states, don't talk about it. Just do it. On the politics war room podcast, Carville encouraged Democrats to make Puerto Rico State. Expand the Supreme Court to 13 seats if they win.

This is the gameplay for a permanent one-party state. Carville is telling Democrats to do it. And you know what? I've got to be honest, I think they will. I think given the opportunity, Democrats absolutely will pack the court. think there may be some squishy Democrats who get in the way. We saw that with Mansion and Cinema last time. However, they're not around anymore. At least cinema's still around, right? No, she's gone. She's gone, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I thought, I thought so. So it's Gallego and Buzz Lightier. Buzz Lighter, that's right. So rolling a dice, what do you think is the probability

that Democrats are going to just take everything over, Republicans are wiped out forever? It's very high, because I mean, like, here's the difference. You know, people always make this distinction. It's very true is the Republicans are retarded broadly and then the Democrats are evil. And I think that is, again, when you look at these types of things, it's true because Republicans will, like, throw out these grand ideas all the time. And it never actually manifests into policy. It rarely does. It only happens to the executive, like in Trump, the Trump second term. I mean, any idea that Congress was thrown out there, like the Save Act is dead. So it never happens. The Democrats, in the other hand, like, when they propose ideas, they do the full intent of delivering

on that proposition. So, again, Carlin. Art ofelt, you know, some people are hand-waving in this way, and they're saying, well, you know, he's like a, you know, advisor that's kind of on the fringes of the Democrat Party as far as like he's not anywhere close to the power structure. But I actually don't know because, again, I think he's a good thermometer for what the mood of the base is in the Democrat Party. And I think the Democrat Party going to 2028 really has no appetite to moderate at the moment. Like I know on the conservative media, we're like, oh, Gavin Newsom's a shoe in, but I'm like, hang on, hang on. If you look at what Democrats are saying, again, Normie Democrats are saying, they're all saying the exact same thing. They're all saying Trump's second term is a fascist takeover the United States and we need to respond. We need to meet fire with fire, fight fire with fire in this instance and actually go back at him and ensure that this can never happen again.

They're saying during Trump, too, is this can never happen again. And how do you do that? You just game the system. I'd predict Democrats are going to win bigly and continually because every time Republicans win, they just don't do anything. We've got a republic. The Republicans are in Senate and in the House and they just aren't doing anything. Save Act is widely popular and they're just going, boom. Yeah.

Yeah, literally. They just don't have the willpower. I think for a variety of reasons. No, I think they're in on it. Yeah, I mean, I think for a variety of reasons, I mean, the main one I would say is they've bought into sort of the principles of proper governance. And they don't actually realize that we're sort of in a civilizational battle at the moment. They don't really, when they saw the Charlie Kirk thing happen, they just went, wow, that's sad. You know, things happen.

The reaction from all of us in the commentary and the reaction from the base and really everyone on the right was, oh my gosh, they want to do that to us too. He was just in the way. Guys do something. And the Republicans were like, and Congress were like, well, that's just a really tragic thing. You know, bad things tend to happen sometimes just spontaneously. Anyway, we can't repeal the blue slips because, you know, they're part of our government. They've been, you know, we've been using him for decades. They don't see things in the same way we're seeing things of like, oh my gosh, like we're on the precipice of Brazil or South Africa.

Africa do something. They see things as like, I've made it to this point and I'm going to make sure that I, you know, I hold up this proper governance and democracy and this beautiful republic and that. So they don't realize how dire things are. I have a question for you guys. If it were as such that humanity would be destroyed and wiped out through war, conflict, or otherwise, definitively, 100%. Like someone came to you and said, look at this irrefutable proof. You looked at it and you were like, oh my God, the earth will be destroyed in one year. And they said, here's the only solution. And you looked at it and said, wow, that is definitively the only solution.

But that solution was totalitarian government. Would you, would you allow it? Yeah. Yes. I mean, yeah. Yeah. So. What if that's what is going on politically?

Yeah. And I'm not saying just of the Democrats. I'm saying the political machinations are largely that for some reason. They're like, we're going to have World War III, nuclear and I violation, here's the only way to avert it. And that means the media is going to be full of lies and manipulations and narrative control. Otherwise, the people are going to just massacre each other and the world ends. I think that's the thought process. I'm still a chaotic nightmare. You need chaos, dude. You have to be able to break the order. I understand chaos is terrible. Real chaos is

one of the most horrible things we could ever face as an animal. But totalitarian and evil order is genocide in a can. You can't do it. You need to be able to break systems when they go evil by corrupting them with chaos. So that's where I disagree with the ordered technocrats.

But that's why our American system's so great because you can vote in new people that corrupt the system. You can change the laws and repeal the laws which corrupt the system internally without destroying it. It's like a self-corruptible system. Well, yeah, I mean, that's kind of the,

I guess what a lot of people point out, democracy is that it works really well when the government is broadly benevolent or broadly accountable to the people. But then as soon as there's that incentive structure, right, is broken. As soon as there's a block in between the government, how they operate, and then the voters, right, like the people, then that's when you end up in these situations where you affectively have an autocracy, but then you don't actually have any leverage you can pull to get rid of it. I mean, like, you know, you had these, and you throw out Europe throughout, you know, for centuries. I mean, you would have like massive upheaval, you know, you would have these kings overthrown. And

these sorts of things. And that was recourse that was actually fairly accessible. Like it would take very small militias to go in and just, you know, topple a government where now it's basically impossible. People can't organize. People can't really do anything. The only recourse you have is at the ballot box. But when you're locked in a two-party system or even in Europe, we have parliamentary systems, but that's dominated, you know, primarily by like neoliberal. You don't really have any recourse. There's not really any options you do have. The best you can do is, again, push the party that is broadly similar to your ideology and then push them in the direction that you want them to go. that's what we've seen

to Trump. You know, you had people outflanking the Republican Party on the right by and large. And so when Trump came along, they're like, okay,

finally, this is a chance to sort of reform the Republican Party. And I think the Democrats are in that moment right now where I think the Democrats are out flanking

their establishment to the left and they want to push the Democrat Party to the left. So you're going to see that play out in the next primary cycle. Because that's the only recourse you have. The reason I ask this question is that Democrats,

that's what they think. They think democracy is over. Trump's a fascist dictator. We must do whatever it takes to protect humanity from being destroyed by Donald Trump. And if that means stealing elections, if that means redistricting in Virginia, if that means arresting anybody in our path or even blowing up Tesla facilities, they will do it. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, they literally say it all the time. They say it out loud. And they have a particular with Trump, the reason why Trump draw so much ire is because he disturbed the status quo. By and large, you know, people can argue like how effective has he been at

disrupting the status quo, I'd say, quite effective. But that's why he draws the most ire from the Democrat Party is not because he's the most radical, not because he's the most, you know, out of the box or an orthodox, but it's because he's the most effective way. He's been the most effective vehicle thus far in disrupting the status quo. And so now they're reacting. Now they're saying, oh my gosh, we're going to extinguish this fire. What's the phrase that's like you're going to kill a squirrel with a bazooka? That's basically what they're going to do here. Is they're going to essentially... Hold on. That sounds very. pretty fun. Yeah, that would be pretty fun. Not only if it's a bad squirrel, like a rabid one or something.

You know, you don't have just killing innocent squirrel. Fortunately, in this regards, we're talking about Western civilization. So, uh, the squirrel or the bazooka? Um, the, so the squirrel is, the, uh, the squirrel is, the, uh, that would be the squirrels would be the, uh, that would be the stakes would be Western civilization. I guess Trump would be the squirrel. Like, if you had like a, uh, you know, groundhogs are, they, they, I got to be careful here. So make sure you you fact check this one. But I was told by a local that you're required to kill groundhugs. Really? Really. Because they're, they're, they're nuisances that destroy the found foundations in your buildings, something like that, like when they dig.

I was told the same thing, actually. Yeah, like you. The hole digging and stuff. You, yep, you can't just move them. They have to be killed. And, you know, if you had no choice, and you're on a large enough property, I mean, a bazook would be the most fun way to. Yeah.

Then it takes out your whole property. And like, in this instance, the Democrat Party perceives Trump as a nuisance, so they're going to take out the whole country. The guys at the gun shop told me to buy 17 Supermag. And I said, well, why? And they were like, well, that's what it's for? You know, and I was like, what will it do? And it was like, turn them into pink mist.

And I was like, oh, that sounds horrible. Yeah. Yeah. That's my concern, Tate, is that the people have been radicalized, whether to become one of Trump's acolytes or to be one of his haters to the point where they will throw away the American Republic to try and defeat a perceived enemy. And whether that's enemy is real or not. Right. They're willing to. That's so crazy because that would be the obvious way to destroy the United States.

is to get the people to turn on each other. Well, you have to look at, like, going through the Obama era into the beginning of the Trump era, is like we, I think the American people, by and large, realize there is a systematic issue. Something needs to change. Something needs to give here. So I actually almost, I almost sympathize with the far left

because they're seeing the same thing I'm seeing, which is the very basic fact that, yes, this is broken, yes, this isn't working. Now, obviously, their applications are completely out of line and they would probably get me out of the, you know, get rid of me if they had the option. But at least I can concede that, okay, they've also seen the same thing that I'm seeing,

which is we need a radical change in this country. We need a new paradigm. Wait, wait, real quick. Fact check, I had it mixed up. It's raccoons, not groundhogs. Oh, okay. That makes sense. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

We were warned about raccoons for foundations and trees and stuff, but they can be relocated with certain permissions. Raccoons, on the other hand. Yeah, it's got to be humanely dispatched, it says. Humanely. Man, those things. Fearless. Yeah.

I want to love them, but they're bandits. Yeah, but... Well, they're rabies vectors. Yeah, I mean, like I said, going into the Trump area, you had mass migration, you know, basically unfettered for 50, 60 years. That's going to put a lot of pressure on the markets, put a lot of pressure on people's livelihoods. I mean, you saw purchasing power has declined slightly, but if you look at some metrics like the housing market, I mean, the housing is completely detached from earnings, from real wages.

So housing has gone up exponentially, and that's like the number one thing people are going to need. That's the number one thing where someone can measure how well they've done in life is. is like, what's their house like? Is their house pleasant? They have a pleasant environment. That's how you determine how well you're doing in life. That's sort of the score is like, oh, my environment's quite pleasant. I mean, I'm doing fairly well for myself.

And so people go crazy when you sort of eliminate obvious indicators of their prosperity. And that's the number one as I see it. I align with the far left's diagnosis of the problem, which is the corporatocracy. But that's about it. I don't, I'm not a communist. I understand that property rights are super important. Because corporatocracy is communist fake nonsense. Corporatocracy is where the corporation takes the property.

They want to own it all. So it's kind of like a communist. What do you mean take it? They buy it. They buy it legally. Oh, buy it. They get the government to make it legal to buy and then they buy it. So they buy property.

And they're like, hey, we did it legally. Therefore, it's ethical. And you're like, oh, wait, no, there's the mistake. The issue with that is like, I agree. I mean, there is some degree of like, you know, cronism has, like, decimated a lot of aspects of, like, American life. But you're always going to have an elite. Like in every society, every civilization, there's always an elite.

There's nothing you can do about that. So when you adopt the framing of like it's us versus the elite, the problem is that like will naturally push you into Marxism. Just again, because that's going to be the inherent conclusion of, well, how do I, how do I flatten this hierarchy? Right? There's a hierarchy. Some people are elite and some people aren't.

How do I flatten? How do I make everyone equal in this sense? And that's going to naturally, you're naturally going to end up with Marxism. Because the other idea is you become so wealthy that you become elite. Yeah. But then Kanye West, for instance, says you get to a point and then the people that actually own and run the banks ice you out. and you're like, you're not one of us.

You're not getting beyond $80 billion. That's it. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's kind of the problem is like, okay, how rigid is the elite? Like, can people move up and out and move in? I mean, you see these legacy families, like the Vanderbilt's. I mean, the descendants of the Van derbyr was born. I mean, he's part of the Vanderbilt family, but they really didn't have that much going for it.

So he kind of like is the first Vanderbilt to like truly be. Look at the Kennedys. I mean, like three, four generations. I mean, yeah. Anderson Cooper, he did an internship with the CIA for a couple years. Then just became a prominent personality in American mainstream. where he's on every single night and has been for 20 years. But I mean, as far as like him inheriting that like Vanderbilt wealth, like it didn't really

happen. So like we used to have, I'm saying this is examples, we used to have a system where actually there was a lot of churn in the elite. And that was kind of a very natural thing. It was a very good thing. Where now I do see what you're saying is like there is a lot more rigidity in the elite right now, the truly elite class in America. And that does indicate some issues.

And I have an offer for you. I will buy 10 acres, you know, you can live on it. There will be no housing, no. no structures, no power, nothing, and you will be free. And you'll be bothered by no one. Would you like that opportunity? Why not? I mean, it sounds deadly. Why not? It's deadly about it. What do you mean? Without shelter. Life is your, so built shelter. I need my basic needs. I got to focus on the basic needs first. Yes, so build a shelter. That's your responsibility. Build a shelter. Yeah, like every other human being for 30,000 years did. Take me some time. So how would you

expect to have shelter than if you don't put it together. So I can either find one that's already constructed or pay someone to help me or... No, you can't pay someone. They'd be oppressing you. What's that? I mean, you're desperate for shelter, right? Well, I mean, I'm not at the moment. If I was, it might be a different argument.

Yeah, you need shelter. If you were outside and heading a home, would you be desperate for shelter? Yeah, probably. But if you'd have to give away your money to somebody in exchange of that shelter, they would be oppressing you. It depends on how. They come to you and they say, I own a building. You can live in it, but you got to give me stuff.

Like if there was a piece of Riverland that someone owned and that's the water source, and he's like, hey, you can all live on my property, but I get access to your firstborn child. People would be like, we're going to revolt against that guy. Firstborn chance. That's a crime. Yeah. Like if the corporate owner starts to do insane stuff, whether legal or not.

That's called crimes. Whether it's legal or not, when it's insane, that's when the people might say this is unethical and they might rise up against the owner. The problem we have, I think, largely, is the insistence among many lower-ord thinkers that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor. That is the modern condition. I don't know if entitled's the right word. It's like some things you have to have to survive.

And if anybody, through that threat of force or whatever, prevents you from it, like some of the basics, you know, if you're prevented from clean water. Who's preventing you from clean water? Well, necessarily just bought a bunch of water sources. So like if a corporation's like, look, you have to play our game to drink our water. you're like, Ian, at some point... I own private water.

Well, that could become a very dangerous scale. Should I be allowed to own the water on the property? Or should someone be allowed to come and take it from me because they're a person who needs water? I guess, you know, that piece of land, I don't know how it works exactly. You have a piece of a river that flows off property? Yes.

There's a creek that rungs on this property, and we have a creek that drains into a pond on the property, and I own the land. That water is mine. I assume there are things you can't do, even though it's your property. I can't, like, dump oil into it because it flows off site. Right. But I can trench the creek and make a pool.

Can you damn it up? You can damn it up completely? I don't know that you can damn it completely. We could trench it and then create a pool so the water fills it up and then it keeps flowing. And then we have a body of water on the property. There's limitations of how you can handle it because it's water. If it was like rocks, if you bought rocks on your property, no one's going to make all these. We have an aquifer.

But if it was like a not, not a basic. need thing. Like, it wasn't water. I think that that would be... So how about our ground? How about our groundwater? We have a, we have a well pump that pole, the aquifer we own. It is, it is part of the land and we have access to it. Beneath that, there's mineral rights. I think we own that too, actually. Usually, sometimes they're separate. Surface rights and mineral rights could be different. There's not really any minerals in West Virginia, at least in this area. So typically people still retain their mineral rights. If somebody was like, I am thirsty, you must give me access to your well. Should I be like,

okay, you can come on to my private land. You have to be able to. No, but if there was no water in the 10-mile radius, then yes. Then, so if I move out to the middle of a desert where there's no human beings, and there is a small plot of land with a water source, and nobody's there at all, right? So I file the registration and I say, we're going to be setting up a little, a little, you know, factory here. There's no one around for miles.

Now with this factory, I'm producing some food and farming from that water. people start showing up because there's food and water and they go, I deserve that. Should I have to give it to him? Well, they're going to say I need that. Indeed. And my response is, go somewhere else. Why did you come here? To work at your factory? No, they just started showing up and they said,

hey, look, there's water here. Let's come and to this guy's place now that he's producing food and he's got water. Well, that's different than if there's a community there and you own the water source and there's people living there and working there, you have kind of a right and a duty to protect and supply the water to the people. What does that mean? Like, they come,

and the city voluntarily sells the rights to a water, to an aquifer, to a company? I don't know why it happens. I don't know why a corporation would ever own a water source. It's crazy. I am a corporation that owns a water source. What are you talking about? You own land, but...

My corporation owns land, and that land controls a water source. Because I want to protect my right to that water. We chose land with water on it, specifically so that me and my family and the people work here could have water if we ever needed it. So we intentionally said we want access to water. if we're going to buy land for emergencies. Now, now if there's an emergency, strange people can show up with guns and be like,

nope, it's our water now. Certainly they can try. Yeah, right. I mean. But that's, I know. Now, if they came out to the door and said, we'll be willing to trade for you for access to your water because we're desperate, I'd say, absolutely.

Yeah, there's different scenarios for how you would handle water sources, I suppose, because their needs, it's, I mean, it's such a basic need of life. This is the debate Jay Dyer was having here. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it was effectively that if a company goes to the middle of nowhere, invests money, brings in supplies, and builds a company town, it's communism now. And it's like in the most technical of senses, sure, but it's all voluntary. You choose to come to work for the company town. And if at any point you don't want to, you can just pack up and leave. The response from communists about the United States is that it's too hard to live any other way.

I agree. It is certainly easier to work as a cashier at McDonald's. than it is to forage in the woods and build shelter and survive in the wilderness. So you can make the choice. Then many people say, well, it's no choice because, you know, if you go, they'll arrest you. Bro, I am telling you there are a lot of homeless people that choose to be homeless and they are taken care of and they get free stuff. Like, you don't have to do anything in the society. So you make a choice.

You kind of speaking about the Chinese model, I just saw a story today that I don't know how many tens of thousands of people are homeless because they failed their social credit score. They said the wrong words online, so they lost access to their bank and now they live on the story. street. All by choice, they could always leave, but like, can they? Yes. I don't know. Leave China? I don't know how it works. No, they can go to the wilderness. I have a question for you. In China, go to the wilderness? I mean, that's just doing it to their population. So with deer population, we know that when deer population reach environmental equilibrium, they all suffer. That is, the deer eat all available food until there's not enough food yet for the entire, for the entire population. They become sick and starving, and they all suffer. So what we then say is,

the deer need to be culled. We intentionally, as humans, hunt the deer, killing the bucks, so that the food supply can regrow and the deer now have full bellies. So I suppose the question is, understanding this nature of reality, do you believe it is conducive or it is functional for human society to allow those who do not produce enough to survive to be subsidized and reproduce? Me personally? Yeah. No. What do you think, Tate?

Should humans subsidize families and populations that do not have the capability to provide for themselves? I mean, in a vacuum, no, but it's going to be a result of democracy at a particular time. Why would a minority group voluntarily sign away their sort of economic? Well, I'm talking about that. I'm just saying functionally. In a vacuum, yeah. So what do you think? It's kind of what we're doing already.

I mean, if you... All right. So, you have people that cannot provide enough for themselves to survive. Should the society just provide for them and allow, and there you go, should they provide for them? I think, like, in instances of, like, mental handicap or sort of any handicap, like, it's justifiable, but that's obviously like an exception, not disproving the norm. And temporary provisions, I understand, like, a year and a half of unemployment, stuff like that, but... Well, that's different. That's emergency relief. Permanent subsidy. So the end, and the end result of...

subsidization of families, I don't mean, I don't mean humans, and just in general, of populations that can't produce enough to sustain themselves, is that you will expand that. Yeah. So if you have 10 people, five overproduce and five underproduce, so you take from the five to give to them to create equilibrium, they all die. They all suffer. They're miserable. Maybe fighting breaks out. Yeah. Now, for us, with technological advancement, we've staved a lot of that off, but Now, I think this is one of the reasons the Malthusians wanted to curtail population growth and they advocated things like abortion. There was this post that I was reading about UBI. I did a video on it talking about how this guy believes that in the future, we will come to realize that advocating for abortion, soft euthanasia, was actually the merciful way to deal with people who are consumers and can't produce for themselves.

On outside of any moral issue, there is a question of, we know in nature if you subsidize a population, population that can't sustain itself, you will create a population that becomes destitute and eventually just dies without your assistance. That's why we have signs everywhere saying do not feed wild animals. We as human civilization intentionally do this. So we are ever expanding every day the population of people that can't actually survive on their own. And I mean adapting for technology. Like knowing that life is getting easier and easier every single day, there are people who are a greater and greater detriment, right? Like the average American right now would not survive a thousand years ago. They just lack the skills to even start a fire. But technology and

social cooperation has made it so these people can survive. Adapting to that, there are people who are capable of going and getting a job and providing for the system enough to get to get an output. There are people today that are still worse than that and can do literal nothing. You've all know a Harari works with the World Economic Forum, calls them useless eaters, literally his quote, calls these people useless eaters that they consume, they don't produce enough. Is he wrong? Well, that's a good question. Is an individual who only consumes through welfare and provides nothing to the system a useful or useless person?

You're not technically useless in totality, but they're relatively useless. They're still produced heat. You know, their bodies produce heat. You might be able to get something out of their body heat. Yeah, line them up on the walls. They require food to produce that heat. I want to grab at least one more segment. Let's grab this from AOL.

The gay dad has broken his silence. over the backlash over him mocking the surrogate baby crying for mama. So you may have seen this video, I'm sure you did, where the man is holding up the baby and the baby cries for mama. We talked about it last night. I'm going to play. Actually, this is a different video. I want to play that video for you.

Let me see if I can pull it up. I pulled it the wrong one. Well, let's play this right now, and you can get some context on another video he made. And we'll play this one first. Yeah, you are. Yeah, because you have a brother. Yeah, and you have a sister? Yeah, and you have two puppies and two dads?

Oh. And it just froze on me. Great. That's what happens. The stream is working, but the... Yeah. Thanks, Macro. You're such a happy boy.

Yeah, you are. You are. Dads. And now the babies. Homophobic baby, it says. Here's the video that went viral. Who do you want? Dada or pop?

Nope. Do you want dad-da? You want pop. No way, Jose. There is no more. I think, oh. There is no mama. I'm so sorry.

You have Dad Dad. You have Papa. Two choices. No, Mama. No. No. No, Mama. I implore you all to share that with women in your life because it's radicalizing.

And anyway, he responded. He said he shared the clip to be self-deprecating as he and Baum found it funny that while most babies find it easier to say, da-da, their baby went with Mama. Okay. So just those I don't know, the reason why babies say da-da first is because babies spend more time with their mothers and mothers make references to dad more often than dads make references to mom. To be fair, it's entirely possible that moms and dads reference each other equally. But as long as the baby is with mom more often, the repetition of mom saying, where's dad? That's dad. Babies go da-da-da-da first.

They do say da-da and mama with comparable frequencies slightly leaning towards da-da for that reason. So I think the reason the baby is saying mama is because they were telling it over and over again. no mama, no mama, and so it started repeating what they were saying as they made references to mama. Seeing them laugh and say there's no mama feels cold, and that is an Ed commented under the video, while another called McAanely and bomb cold-blooded criminals for depriving the child of a motherly bond. Now we've got a couple posts.

Matt Walsh responded to the homophobic baby story saying, this story is horrifying. It's also a direct result of the legalization of gay marriage, in quotes. If you're willing to pretend that two men can be married, then there's no reason to object to the equally grotesque farce of two men pretending to be parents. To which I responded, and I think I have to go back a couple times. No, where's that post? Was it here? I said, two men approach a woman and ask her to become pregnant by one of them, and they will then pay her to take the child from her. I see no functional difference between this and a woman just offering to sell her child outright.

It's a semantic debate by degenerates that want people to be allowed to. sell children and an effort to devalue human life. Now, Brandon Strach has chimed in, triggering the debate. He's had 3,000 births every year are through surrogacy, and the majority of them are heterosexual couples. Tim, why don't you call out surrogacy in general since you feel so strongly about this? Seems silly to folks in the small pool of gay couples using a surrogate when a much larger swath of people are doing the same thing who aren't gay, so what's up with that? My response to Brandon was, what did I say? I do keep up. You're confusing a current news cycle for the scope of my arguments on the issue.

To which he responded, but it's only news because they are gay. If he feels so strongly about this, you should go stick microphones and cameras in the faces of thousands of straight people who are doing the same thing every single day. Indeed, whoever filmed, there was a viral story where a guy was asking a gay couple with a baby about surrogacy and about child molestation, and they started punching him and beating the crap out of him. And another guy come up and threatened to murder the guy. And now we're getting many individuals defending them, even people on the right. So I will just say this for Brandon. A woman who doesn't want to carry a baby. So she hires another woman to birth that child.

That's wrong. That's creepy. I don't think it should be allowed. A woman who cannot bear children on her own and needs assistance to do so, I also think is wrong. But as someone who is not a staunch conservative, I'd be willing to make certain exceptions for a woman who wants to have a kid but physically cannot do it. That's a struggle. I'm not a big fan of it, but I'm willing to have a debate on the issue. What about an older woman, like in her 50s or 60s?

Same issue. I think surrogacy itself is wrong. I'm only trying to be somewhat compassionate to a woman who would normally do a natural birth, but physically cannot for some reason, and she wants to have a child. The problem is a child grown in the mother is attached to that mother. There's a chemical bond. The child that nurses off that mother sends chemical signals back and forth. This is all very important for the child.

child's development. So any individual that pays a woman to give birth and then hand that child over is human trafficking, in my opinion. And my point is this, if a woman gave birth and a gay guy said, I'll give it 20 grand for that baby, that would be a felony. But if before, right before she gives birth, he says, I'll give you 20 grand for the baby, that's surrogacy? Or if she gives the baby to an adoption center and then the guy's like, hey, adoption center, I'll give you 20 grand for the baby. It's the same. Yeah, that's just solicitation. That's just a loophole. So yes, to Brandon Struck, I think it is all bad. I think it is substantially worse because in the instance of many gay surrogacies, the female surrogate is actually providing her own eggs, meaning the baby is biologically hers.

Now, it is one million times worse if gay men or anybody goes to a clinic and receives a donated egg and then uses their sperm to fertilize a random woman's egg they purchased. to be jested in a different random moment. Now we're talking man-made horrors beyond your comprehension-level stuff. Yeah, I mean, that's why it's funny. Like Brandon Strachey isn't his bioformer liberal, but he's like regurgiting like left-wing boilerplate, which is just hilarious in this instance. In addition to that, no, it is, yeah, to your point to,

I believe, yeah, gay adoption or gay surrogacy is significantly worse. I mean, I would broadly be against surrogacy anyway. But no, I'm comfortable saying gay couples, you know, participating in surrogacy is far worse because I, I, do think you do have the right to a father and mother. This is why when people end up in instances of single parenthood, everyone acknowledges this is not the optimal condition to be raised in. Everyone can acknowledge, even if it turns out well. I know this situation very well. It's still, everyone can concede that it is sort of a tragic situation to be in because everyone knows that having a father

and a mother will provide the best outcome for the child. And then there's no limiting principle on gay adoption. Okay, if you have gay adoption, why is it just two parents? Why that's just arbitrary at that point because the whole purpose of monogamy is saying it's a man and a woman with a gay couple why not that means three dads must be even better that must mean four dads is even better because again they would acknowledge that a single father is sort of tragic but two fathers that's fine so then why not three fathers why not four fathers what's the limiting principle here it's just completely arbitrary you're just completely warping the concept of monogamy completely warping the sense of again a couple of marriage of child everything about it is just fundamentally broken and

it's going to cave in on itself as it all i i this leads to one this leads to one direction this leads to one conclusion. That is, womb factories, baby factories, they're going to grow human beings in bags. We are moving towards a society where a woman who wants to be a mother, but as a girl boss, goes to a facility where they take an egg and the husband's sperm, and they say, we will grow the baby for you in this artificial womb. We will send you progress reports. And they'll get emails being like, oh, baby's growing.

They actually made a movie about this that was really bad because it had no ending. and I am sick. I am warning you, Hollywood, if you keep making movies with only two acts, I will come for you and fix those movies. But they made a movie and it was about a woman who wants to have a kid, but she has a job. She can't leave. So she buys an artificial womb where they put the fertilized embryo in it. And then you put like food packs on top that the baby then eats and consumes. That's where we're going. That's the point of all of this. So I will just say, in response to my post, Heidi Briona says 90% of surrogacy is just, meaning the surrogate is not the biological mother.

I asked, where do gay men get the egg from in gay surrogacy? Egg donor. Different woman like sperm donors from an egg bank. That's substantially worse. That is like, now I'm just like, okay, ban it all. Just ban it all. You're telling me that a guy went to a store and bought some random woman's egg, grew a baby, that baby has no mother was a different egg grown up.

Now we're, holy crap, I am just done with this. Ban it all. It seems like adoption. It seems more like adoption than anything. No, because adopted kids are still aware that like, okay, I do have biological parents out there somewhere. And the reason that I was surrendered was for like some sort of tragic reason. An emergency. An abusive family.

The parents died or passed. This is we are going to grow a child intentionally in a different woman she's unrelated to and then pay her to hand it over. I think all of these people should be in prison. Yeah, like adoption is a break glass in case of emergency situation. this is like purposely creating the conditions that will be to an adoption without like the pre-requisite. We're going designer babies. Like the next step in all of this is going to be like, well, who cares?

We can gene edit the babies. Why not? Then you're going to have a bunch of weird like little baby Arnold's walking around. They're all just ripped. Yeah, it seems weird now. But the generation that grows up with it will be totally cool with it. Then my fear of what's going to happen is we're going to genetically engineer a bunch of people because we have no, like look at what they're already doing.

There's an eliminating principle. These people are going to be smarter, faster and stronger than the average person, which is going to cause a create a threat to governance on the Earth, and we're going to then isolate these people and freeze them and launch them into orbit because we have no idea what else to do. And then when, in 100, 200 years from now, when like a starship is flowing through space and they accidentally find these, they're going to open it up, and the dude's going to try and take over the world and kill Spock. Oh, that's who that. That's who that. Was that Cybok? That was con. Yeah, or they'll, they're going to land on, on Jorrell or whatever that Superman

planet was and get superpowers and come back a thousand years later. Dude, I think we're going full designer, baby. I'm into it. Do you think they're going to create like a super trucker out of this situation? I'm thinking Elon Musk is like booting up a fetus X startup right now. Just populate Mars. Yeah. Because you could like optimize for the perfect trucker, you know? I could see it now. Like Jack Link's just like anim, it's just like they get fired up. It has no, has no arms or legs. He's literally just like mind-meling with the truck, beef jerky in one end. Yeah. out the other. Yeah. I was going to say caught fetus, F-E-T-U-X, but people call it FedEx. They wouldn't use the S-a-S-S-a-L-L like Xavier that feed us, you know. He's very concerned about the underpopulation

going forward. Yeah, I know. I'm like, is this how they're going to backstop it when like the populace kind of upheaval of the immigration system, like takes root? And then these companies look around, they're like, we still need cheap labor. Like, if we don't, if we're not carefully or it's, I mean, I'm usually hesitant to go to like worst-case scenario. But in this instance, I'm like, that actually seems pretty realistic, actually, is that. Again, when they start feeling the pinch on labor, instead of what paying workers more, no, they're just going to say, well, let's just spawn people. Like, let's go in a clone army. But what they're going to do is they're going to be like, we're going to design your baby just like you like it, but we're going to own the rights to that baby's persona.

And then they're going to gestate it for you. I agree. They're going to create templates, like genetic profiles that you'll license. And they'll own the IP to that profile. That's another reason why I'm like, do this IP. And they will say things like, if you agree to these terms, in the event your baby goes on to be a movie star, weren't told to 5%. And parents will agree in the life. If he's an athlete, we're taking 10% of his earnings.

Like, there'll be the manager, you know, where manages kids' life and all that. You already saw a little bit. I mean, the Olympics was some of the stars. If you, like, dug into their background, they were sort of conceived through surrogacy or conceived through these sort of, like, where they could control for parents with the best genetics.

I won't say which names, but there were, like, prominent athletes that were sort of, like, test two babies, quite literally selecting for the best genetic traits. Send the video of the baby saying mama to every woman in your life. every single one and don't provide any context. Don't say you hate these men. Or just be like, hey, I want you to like, oh, this video, you got to see it.

And then see their reaction because I will tell you, as I have shown many women this video, they immediately start welling up. Yeah. Because they understand. And what I think is for a lot of these, a lot of people defending this, they have no kids. Yeah. The only thing I saw when I watched that video was imagining my daughter crying for mama, if something heaven forbid happened to my wife and she was no longer around and someone like let's say

somehow you know alice and i were out of the picture through some tragedy a knock on wood and then someone you know some guys with her and she's saying mama and he's laughing being like no mama no i'm just like the nightmarish reality of that the horrifying torture for that poor child the reality is this whether or not that baby actually meant mama like i want my mother sure make the argument babies don't actually understand what these words mean we reinforce it. That baby knows what a mom is. Human babies nurse. They want to. It is instinctive. That baby is looking for its mother, whatever you think, and it can't find it. It's going to create massive trauma. Yeah. I mean, we're all former babies at this table, I presume, all of us here. Not Ian. He was, he was grown in the lab. Yeah.

You know, I came out of the box. I came out of the box. I'm just like, without my mother, I mean, like, my dad was awesome, but that was because he had my mom to compliment him. It feels like two virgins of my dad, I'd be like a train. Well, how long has gay adoption been around? Because in my early 20s, I had a friend who had two moms, and he grew up to be like, you know, normal okay guy. Is it different when it's like two women raising a baby versus two guys? I think the difference is two guys raising the mom.

Two moms that have a slightly better outcome, but it's still marginal. I would still. No, I'm, I think the stats are inverted, actually. I think the stats that we see. So the one thing I will say is this. A lot of people keep pushing that gay parents who adopt or if surrogates are more likely to molested children. I've looked at this. I don't believe those stats bear out.

To be fair, they always try to play with the numbers. But it seems to be one for one, like molesters are molesters. I think this has to do with the fact that there are people who molest children who were molested and it does create a cycle. So many people have this presumption that there's a relation then between two gay married men. not that I'm saying my fan of it. However, the stats that I did see show that two women households are substantially more dysfunctional, more instances of domestic violence. The highest rates of domestic violence are among lesbian couples, as well as dysfunction for the children, child abuse.

Child abuse is higher among lesbian couples than two men or a man and a woman. At least that's what I saw. I don't know. There was a study through the University of Texas, and they tracked the outcomes of like 3,000 children in these environments. And it was like the children of lesbian, a couple said welfare participation rates that's like 70% versus, you know, 17% from the control group. The gay fathers actually was lower. So that may be true that actually gay fathers may be that you would have a better result. But again, compared to heterosexuals, it's just like not even comparable.

Is there any evidence about dysfunctionality coming from surrogacy with like a man and a woman as the parent? The thing is so new that it's going to be a while before we see the results. I would imagine like crazy mental illnesses because you do see sort of examples of that. But at least, like, the data is coming in now where initially people were like, see, they're the same. It's like, because we're looking at eight-year-olds. Like, of course, eight-year-olds are very similar. Don't women who have gestational surrogacy have to take a bunch of drugs to prevent rejection? Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah. That's a big problem. It's like heavily dependent on pharmaceuticals. And then I was even seeing like postpartum, the postpartum depression and that sort of thing among surrogate mothers is like insane. Like, I mean, it's really grim. I don't even want to get into it because it's disturbing. But it's like the postpartum disorders that would come from a,

woman who has to surrender her child through surrogacy is mental. You see all these different stories about these women, some of the things they do afterwards, and it's quite horrific. Well, there's also the stories of the women who the gay men wanted her to get an abortion. Remember this one? Yeah. The woman was pregnant, and they said that there was a risk of, you know, like, Down syndrome or something. They were like, abort it. And she was like, no. And they were like, you have to. It's ours. And we're requiring you to do it. Yeah. And I believe she had zero legal recourse either. I think it was like, nope, that's theirs. I'm curious on these rates of postpartum depression if these women had like children of their own.

So I talked to my sister about this years and years ago. And if like having babies was a job, my sister would be like the LeBron James of having babies for people. She just, she's one of those women who just loved being pregnant. She's got four boys of her own. And she was like, I would be a surrogate in a heartbeat. You know, again, this was like, you know, 10 years ago. It's one thing to say that. It's another to actually go, you know, follow through with that.

But yeah, I'm curious if these were women who, if this was, their first child and then they had to give it up versus you know they had children before and they're like oh here I go again yeah yeah it's I mean look you know you look at outliers and like Ian let off with I mean it is tough to like go to a couple who are like struggling with fertility and then just say like sorry but I mean it goes back to when you're when you're when you're defining policy right when you're like trying to implement policy you can't make policy based off of exceptions you have to base policy based on norms and I would presume again I would have to look at the data but I presume the majority of surrogacies are for vanity reasons or in situations with their homosexuals.

I would doubt that a lot of them are fertility related, or at least the majority. I could be wrong there. I'll check afterwards and I'll correct it if that's true, but I would presume it's not the case. We're going to go to your Rumble Rance and super chat, so smash the like button and share the show. Subscribe if you haven't already. The uncensored portion of the show will be at rumble.com slash timcast.I.R. I can go to Timcast Premium.com to sign up and watch that part of the show. members of the timcast.com Discord

get to call in and talk to us and the guest. Let's grab your chats in Rumble Rants. H.S. Disturb says nobody seems to be talking about this, but what are your thoughts on Virginia's SB322? The governor just signed seems highly unconstitutional. How do we fight against dirty tactics like this? I don't know what that is. Are you talking about the gun bill?

No, that was the interstate compact. Like, quit the electoral votes. Oh, they just passed that. Yeah. Wow. Well, see, the issue is when you look, Democrats are dumb. And when you look at the popular vote, you see Democrats tend to win.

So they've been making this argument that we should just, every state that's under this compact. And that way, if the popular vote swings Democrat, your state then just votes Democrat. The only problem with that, there are blue states where Republicans won't vote because they feel like it doesn't matter. They say, well, it's 55% Democrat. We're never going to pull that five-point swing, so I just stay home. In the event, they switch to the national popular vote. In California, for instance, you will see a major uptick of Republican votes. This could actually change the game because there are more reds, there are more Republican voters in blue states than blue state voters in red states.

So it could dramatically shift things in favor of Republicans. We just don't know what's going to happen. Yeah, and the reason that Virginia is like the first one that you're like, Whoa, guys, I mean, like, there's, what, 13 states that are already in it. Hawaii, California. Fairly inconsequential. Oh, yeah, it might be a little bit higher, but fairly inconsequential if, like, again, a deep blue state joins.

But Virginia is a state that teeters on elections. I mean, like, Trump came fairly close. I believe they didn't even vote for Bill Clinton. I believe they voted for Republicans. Just real quick. Virginia is like, California would have gone red this time in 2024 because Trump won the popular vote. Right, yeah. Imagine California going, no!

And it being the deciding factor. Yeah. I know. I'm sure that they have some sort of like recourse. There's a, oh, it doesn't count this time. 18 states plus DC, giving them 222 out of 538. So they need 48, 40, is it 48? Yeah, 48 more electoral votes to trigger the actual threshold. Well, that's the reason why Virginia is the shocking one, because like thus far it didn't matter because, look, if the Democrats are going to win, or sorry, if the Republicans are going to win the popular vote, they're definitely going to win the electoral college.

but now with Virginia, again, that's the first one where it's like, Republicans could win Virginia and that could win them the electoral college, but if they lose the popular vote, now the Republicans lose the election. So that's why it's like, this is the first one, but it's like, holy crap. But again, California would have turned red this time around. Yeah, yeah. Well, yeah. But like Republicans are going, if they win the popular vote, that means they've won the electoral college.

You will see, yes, but Washington, Oregon, and California, a lot of Republicans just don't vote. because they're like, what's the point? It's a 60% blue state. Then you go, well, it's popular vote now. You might actually see the Republican vote jump and then all of a sudden the blue states are forced red. Yeah, yeah. That's, oh, I see what you're saying. No, that's true. Yeah, yeah, you would see higher turnouts in like deep blue states. I mean, Hawaii is kind of the most infamous example where it's like so done and dusted for Republicans there that they just don't bother voting. Like, if they participate, if they all came out in numbers, like what the projections would be, it would be a lot closer of a state. I mean, it would still be Democrat. But in a situation where they're like, yeah, we could contribute to the national popular vote tally.

Yeah, they would turn out in quite large numbers. Steele's shattered hand says, I don't want to set the world on fire. I just want to start. He said, sad, but I'm fixing it. A flame in your heart. What he didn't add is that he's lost all ambition for worldly acclaim. He just wants to be the one that you love. And with your admission that you'd feel the same, he'd have reached the goal he's dreaming of.

Yeah, you hear those old do-up songs, and it's like the women must have been a lot better back then. because not only would one guy sing about it, but he'd get like four guys to join him and sing about the same woman. You don't see that anymore. You just see power ballads, just one guy singing. He doesn't get like his squad to join him

and sing about these women. So I don't know, maybe the quality of women has declined on the market. I'm not sure what's going on. The reference, of course, is the intro song from Fallout 3, which is a reference to a nuclear apocalypse. But there's a song from Fallout that I want to play for you guys

that let's just say, you probably can't play on YouTube anymore. I mean, the songs from like the 50s. It's called Civilization, and the lyrics are a lot of fun. I was a big fan of Fallout 2. It was a Louis Armstrong, I think. What a world or something like that? What a wonderful world?

What a wonderful world? And then it zooms out and it's Fallout. You're like, oh my God, but it's like playing on an old radio in the beginning. All right. Failing says the F-15 isn't a stealth fighter. It's a fourth-generation fighter that has been serviced since 1976. Fifth generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are our stealth fighters. Well, thank you for the correction.

It went down and then what? Iran got a hold of it? Is that what you were saying earlier? Well, so there were comments about how they should not have been able to track the F-15 without some kind of ground radar technology or something. I forgot the exact details. And so the presumption is Russia must be providing them with the technology to track U.S. military assets. Indeed.

All right. What do we got here? El Jaffe Lopez says the media just makes is up and Trump is, A. B. to not just start arresting those lying media POS. Well, he can't. You can't just arrest journalists for lying. Thinker for Life says, the longer the straight is

closed, the larger the price plummet right before the midterms. That's a good point. What people don't understand is that happiness is relative. So, famously, there was a study that found a lottery winner and a paraplegic one year after their formative moments, either winning a lottery

or becoming injured, registered the same levels of happiness. Shocking, isn't it? That's because humans adapt. You have to. And happiness is relative to your current circumstance. If you took a guy from like the year, I don't know, 1300, right? And let's just say he's like a surf with no family because only I think 40, what was it,

40% of men reproduced back then. And you transported this guy to modern America. Do you think he be happy or sad? Well, probably sad at first. And then if he adapts very, very. happy. He'd be very happy. He'd have running water and be like, what is this magic? Yeah, just a hot shower would change. You all live like kings. He'd freak out and be like, what is this? And someone would be like, here's a cheeseburger. And he'd be like, I'm so hungry and taste it.

Kings did not eat so well. Could you imagine what like King George would have said if he was given Mack sauce? Yeah, he would have fought a little harder. Happened as his relative, man. So, you know? Oh, so you think Trump will do some shenanigans right before the midterms and make gas drop in price by 40% and be like, we did it, we did it. And then the votes will come in and then it'll be right back. And then what happens is Trump says, like something he can do, which is not out of the question, right before the midterms, the price plummets due to some executive order. And then he says, look, if the Democrats get in, they're going to reverse this and make gas go way up, way up. You got, the Republicans are going to

keep it. Then all the Republicans come out and say, we're making gas cheaper. We're dropping your prices. Democrats are going to go, they're lying. They're lying. They're lying and they're going to say, well, what's you going to pick? Yeah. Just repeal the gas tax at the end of October because it'll take like a couple months before the courts can be corrected. And then what's going to happen is people are going to say, I mean, the Republicans are probably lying, but I'll flip a coin on whether or not they're lying. You know what I mean? Like, look, I don't know what Democrats are going to do, but Republicans are claiming they'll do it. Worst case scenario is they don't and no one was going to do it anyway.

Yeah? Yeah. And then three weeks later, it'll be like, oh, the Iranians, they did the thing. Now gas prices are back to where they were. Sorry. It was the Iranians that did it. Azriel says, ammonium percolate is an oxidizer that can be volatile but primarily used in pool chemicals and sold by places like Walmart and Lowe's. Fascinating. Wow. K.O. says shockingly, Ian has a point twice today. How about that? Indentured servitude is illegal and yet is voluntary exchange, you communist. There is always a level of coercion even in free markets. Even in free markets is bad.

The issue with indentured servitude, actually it's completely legal and you are incorrect. The issue referring to is an archaic form of indentured servitude. The idea was simple. You were in the old world and they said, how would you like to come to the new world for opportunity? Okay. I'll give you a loan. You got to pay that loan back once you get there. And then once you do, you'll be a free man.

We call that a student loan these days, functional identical. These people are indentured servants, many of whom have paid more than the principal on their loan, but still owe the same amount. There were people who took out $50,000 to go to college, paid back $60,000 and still owe $50,000. Like, you were in a certain similar situation, weren't you? I took out $20K. I paid off about $9 or $10 of it, and I still owed $20K. Yeah. I was like, oh, my God.

Indentured servitude still exists, still legal. That's why I'm in favor of shutting that system down, but people who got money still got to pay it back. So, indeed, it is still allowed. We see that the donkey, they call the donkey route, all the Indian Punjab truck drivers in the U.S. That's how they end up here. Well, how does it work? Typically, it's young men on Instagram back home. They get inundated with ads saying, look how much money I'm making, look at my cool cars.

They're just inundated with ads all day long saying driving a truck in the U.S. is great. It's all lies. They pay a human trafficker. They call them travel agents to smuggle them into South America, and then they hoof it. on foot through the Darying Gap into Mexico and then into the U.S. So they owe money to the human trafficker. Now they got to owe money to whoever's paying for them to go through trucking school, whoever's giving them the loan to the truck.

So all these guys that are panicking right now about losing their CDLs, they're panicking because they owe everybody money. They go through the Dary and Gap? Yeah. Wow. Okay, I'm in favor now of all of that. So long as for everyone that comes in, a leftist has to leave. You're just like a communist who doesn't want to do work,

who thinks they're entitled to everything, versus a guy willing to go through the Dary and Gap to get a job in America, the leftists aren't working at all. You know what I mean? At least the H-1B guy does some work. It depends on what... See, that's the thing.

These guys aren't even H-1Bs. Oh, that's worse. That's a different cast. Those guys have the money to fly into Dallas and go straight to work for software companies. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, I don't like that. But I will say, like, crossing the Darian Gap is a lot of work.

Very hardcore, yeah. Yeah, there's no roads. It's just raw, like, jungle. And, like, there's banditoes there. And, like, it's brutal, man. If you had the choice between a communist who grew up in, you know, like the suburbs of New York, then moved to California, went to Berkeley and is part of Antifa, if we could deport that person and bring in some Indian guy who traveled 2,000 miles from South America to the Darien Gap, which would you rather have? The American, but a communist, or the guy who crawled through the Darian Gap to come here for a job. I want to put both of them in a truck and see how well they can back a trailer up to a door.

nothing will de-radicalize someone against unionization than sending them to a union-on warehouse and having to deal with it. Well, there's a viral video of an Indian guy backing a truck up to a loading dock and crushing the guy. Did you see this one? Yeah, yeah. Went super viral. Yeah. Because he's like, here's the truck, and he's looking over and he looks out to see what the trucker's doing, and then...

Oh. Because the driver doesn't know. What is he? Or do you see the one where the truck driver ran the women over? He backs up and just runs two women over. Jeez. Yeah, this stuff happens. all the time. They tell you in training, goal, get out and look. You know what they're going to do, right?

Once they replace as many drivers as possible with low-skill, unqualified individuals, and we get a bunch of accidents, they're going to say, we have to automate this. That has always been the conspiracy, but we were talking about this earlier on the other show. The cost that it takes to run these autonomous trucks for now is still way higher than it is to have meat in the seat. So that's why you go back 10, 15, 20 years, we had all these autonomous startups and trucking, and over the last decade and a half, they've all gone bankrupt or consolidated. There's only a handful left, and they're just holding on for dear life, trying not to burn through their cash reserves before they go bankrupt.

It's going to happen. I don't, I don't, I'm not denying that autonomous trucks are coming. The timelines that people are saying six months to a year or two, we're talking 10, 15 years. I don't think so. They're going to make driving illegal. Like, 10 to 15 years for driving to be illegal, but I think autonomous vehicles are around the corner.

I don't even think they need to make it illegal. We're seeing right now a cultural shift with, you know, Gen Z and younger. Fewer and fewer people, forget CDLs, just driver's license, period. Fewer and fewer young kids are going through that right of passes of getting your learners permit and getting your license. Everyone's got Uber or ride shares and all that stuff. I'll tell you that's going to happen. Insurance companies. The insurance company is going to say insurance on a truck that is autonomous is X amount of dollars,

and insurance on a truck driven by a person. because of liability is going to be X times Y or something. That's a good point. Right now the minimum coverage you need on a semi-truck for cargo and all that is $750,000. That's been a rate that's been set since like the early 90s. It has not kept up with inflation. Had it kept up, it's supposed to be like at least a million and a half to $2 million right now. Most of your small mom-and-pop carriers cannot afford having that much coverage.

And then they're going to say, oh, it's a robot. Those are safe or statistically. And then they're going to offer these things up. I think, however, the argument that trucks will be electric, I don't think so, but you'd probably know better. No, I think the Tesla semi, the freight liner, E-Cascadia, those are great for like small local runs going from the Pepsi plant to another Pepsi plant charging overnight. But as far as them actually doing like over-the-road freight, having to go into a truck stop, we don't have the charging infrastructure. It takes too long to charge them, period. By the time you get to a regular truck stop, if there's three trucks ahead of you in the fuel line, that's not.

45 minutes you're already waiting. But from the warehouse to the gas stations, I think that probably will happen. So like if you have a Dunkin' Donuts Distribute factory where they make all the donuts for all the like 20 stores, one truck electric autonomously could pick up the donuts, drop them all off and come back in charge, and that would work. But the long haul stuff, it's got to be gas. Well, so there's a company right now called Gatic. The way that they're kind of sneaking into the radar is they are not class eight trucks. They're like the much smaller trucks. So they mostly do B2B.

So they go from the Walmart distribution center to a Walmart store and it'll be the guys on the dock unloading the trucks. But again, they've been around for a while, but they only have 10 trucks. So you look at any of these companies that are in this space and you actually look at how many trucks they have running right now. It's very, very few. Most of this is just they're still trying to nibble around the edges and the rate at which they can grow at scale is just not here yet. You said the minimum insurance got frozen at $750. Yeah. Most of those insurance companies keep up.

They don't. There's God help you if you get rear-ended by one of these guys with like a non-dominousal CDL because the company that they drive for, you know, you go down the highways and you see billboards for like, you know, truck attorneys all the time. Yeah, yeah. If one of these guys rear-ends you, they don't have any assets for that attorney to go after you. If you're, I'm not saying to do this, if you were to get rear-ended by a semi-truck, you want to get rerended by one of the big guys who has lots of assets and lots of money to go after. They call those nuclear verdicts. Anything that's over a million or $10 million will just completely wipe out a trucking company. Let me agree with this. Max says,

no, Tim, you don't own the water. Look into it. People can legally travel through the water but can't legally go onto your land. Wrong. The water on our property is not navigable water. We own the access to that water. Now, the water system itself, there are restrictions on whether or not we can dam or do anything because we've looked into all this. But as the creek that we have is non-navigable, no one can come onto our property and take access to that water. That being said, upstream, you can't interfere with pollute or compromise that water intentionally. We can't either. But the point is this.

If people needed to access any of the private land because they needed that water, they cannot. It was secured by the individuals who live here for the purpose of protecting themselves and their family. If it was as such that anyone could just go into anyone's property and take it, there'd be no point in buying land with water on it and nobody would. but land with water is more valuable than land without. Now, you are correct. There are many properties nearby with navigable water, for which when you own a portion of that, they can travel down it and there are certain restrictions. Also, there's like fishing restrictions. But again, my point is, we have a pond and we have a creek. We control it, we own it, nobody can come on the property and touch it, and I can drain the pond and destroy it if I want to. As for the creek, we can do some

things to it. We can trench it out and expand it and make it bigger. We can create a pool. We can actually trench it out and then dig a gigantic pool and create a pond if we want to. But we cannot stop the flow to or pollute or damage that water because then you're causing problems downstream. The only issue is a lot of people do and you can't prove it. So if one day you went to your water and notice there's something off about it, good luck figuring it out because there's going to be a thousand houses upstream and you figure out where the sources, I guess, good luck. All right, my friends, let me see if we'll grab one more over here. I want to make sure I get this one.

The free man says chicken or the egg. Elon wants the UBI because if it's adopted, his robots would be a necessity for any business to survive in a top commodity for homes. Think he's rich now. It would be like Amazon on steroids. Elon is correct about some kind of UBI not because he, I don't think that's the case. I think the issue is that the transformation that we're experiencing from AI will be so dramatic.

Humans won't be able to generationally adapt. With the Industrial Revolution, it was an overnight shift, but it still took a bit of time, and there were Luddite revolts. There was violence, there was explosions, you know, bombs and all that stuff. AI is going to make the same, like, think of the Industrial Revolution, but in a flash, the exponential increase and change to our economy will wipe out 10, 20, 30 million jobs overnight. And these people will be pissed off. So they're trying to taper it.

So the job losses are as such that people. People don't have a revolution. We'll talk about more of this and we'll play a fun song for you that is too offensive to play on YouTube over at rumble.com slash TimcastIRL. Smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. Justin, you want to shout anything out? Yeah, find me on Twitter at Super Trucker. We're still looking into all this stuff with Super Ego.

You know how a couple weeks ago Twitter changed the algorithm and like everyone's feeds was flooded with posts from Japan? Yeah. Mine has been that, but from like posts from Serbia lately. The Serbians are pissed. They're just like They want Super Eagle burnt to the ground. It's a war.

Are you Serbian? No. I'm a big fan of the Serbs. They're good people. Shout out to 420. It's 420 today. Happy 420. Shout out to marijuana.

Gets a bad rep sometimes, but it's cool. I liked it. Also shout out to Hitler, whose birthday was 420. Not a big fan of the guy, but I figure we should drop a mention. Hit me up on my DMs.

Slide on in, Tim. Slide on in my DMs anytime you want. Tate Brown. Yeah. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Realtape Brown. Happy birthday to all birthdays today, not just Adolf. I think anyone's 1 in 420 deserves to celebrate today. So, yeah, Carter.

No shout-outs for me tonight. Anyway, yeah, let's get into the after show. We'll see you all at rumble.com slash Timcast.IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.