Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - SCOTUS Hands Trump THIRD MASSIVE WIN | Timcast IRL

00:01:51.000 In another massive victory for the GOP and Donald Trump, the Supreme Court issued what would be calling a sudden ruling, granting Alabama the right to redistrict, which means one by one the dominoes are falling and Democrats is cooked.

00:02:08.000 Now, in Virginia, it's really funny.

00:02:10.000 Instead of just realizing they've lost, they've decided to come up with some nuclear options.

00:02:15.000 One is to force the retirement age of Supreme Court Justice in the state to 54 years old. 0.69

00:02:22.000 Old enough to eliminate all of their justices, I guess, as a FU.

00:02:22.000 Just.

00:02:27.000 They're just going down with the ship.

00:02:30.000 Donald Trump may have some polling issues, but the way this procedural war is going, Republicans are certainly winning.

00:02:36.000 And then there's the question of Donald Trump's election integrity army that they intend to dispatch across the country.

00:02:42.000 I'm wondering if it's going to have an impact in the California races as well.

00:02:46.000 Spencer Pratt is skyrocketing in public notability, and there is this attack ad that I thought was a parody of.

00:02:58.000 I thought Spencer Pratt made this ad that was a gag meant to act like it was insulting him, but in fact, it's actually an attack ad where it's like, Spencer Pratt doesn't want to spend taxpayer dollars on housing for our unhoused neighbors.

00:03:11.000 And I was like, huh, very funny, Spencer.

00:03:13.000 It turns out, no, it's actually a group that doesn't like the guy.

00:03:16.000 And they just made an ad that accidentally supports him.

00:03:19.000 So we'll talk about that.

00:03:20.000 Donald Trump wants to make Venezuela the 51st state.

00:03:23.000 I guess it's not going to happen, but it's funny anyway. 1.00

00:03:26.000 And then, uh, Hantaviruses here in the United States, I guess, which, eh, we'll talk about it, but I'm not holding my breath. 1.00

00:03:32.000 I'm not, eh, you know, everybody's freaking out, but eh, we'll see what happens.

00:03:37.000 We'll talk about that more.

00:03:37.000 Before we get started, we got a great sponsor for you guys.

00:03:40.000 It is PocketHose.com.

00:03:43.000 Pocket Hose is the number one expandable hose in the world.

00:03:45.000 Super lightweight, easy to manage, easy to store.

00:03:48.000 Turn the water on and it grows.

00:03:50.000 Turn the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size.

00:03:52.000 The Pocket Hose ballistic is reinforced with liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, making the anti burst sleeve practically bulletproof.

00:04:01.000 And that liquid crystal polymer fiber is actually five times stronger than steel.

00:04:05.000 Comes with the pocket pivot, which gives you total freedom of movement at the spigot with 360 rotation.

00:04:10.000 You move, it follows, and the water flows.

00:04:13.000 Enhanced with an upgraded UV coating.

00:04:15.000 So the hose looks new year after year.

00:04:17.000 Re engineered thicker washers that resist leaks.

00:04:20.000 Pocket hose carries over 100 patents worldwide.

00:04:24.000 And now, for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle.

00:04:33.000 Just text Tim.

00:04:34.000 To 64,000.

00:04:36.000 That's Tim to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase.

00:04:41.000 Text Tim to 64,000.

00:04:44.000 Message and data rates may apply.

00:04:46.000 Shout out Pocketos.

00:04:47.000 Don't forget to also go to timcast.com and join the community.

00:04:51.000 Tens of thousands of people hang out every single day.

00:04:53.000 And they need you because people need to stand up, get involved, be active in this space.

00:04:58.000 It only takes a handful of people to change the world.

00:05:01.000 And we've got more than that at timcast.com, building new shows, making music, making shorts, whatever.

00:05:08.000 You want to do, you will find people in there that can assist in some way.

00:05:11.000 And more importantly, you would be standing up and supporting the work we do and getting involved.

00:05:16.000 So don't just sit idly by.

00:05:18.000 Don't let the world pass you by.

00:05:20.000 Join us at timcast.com.

00:05:21.000 You'll be supporting this show and everything we do.

00:05:24.000 Also, don't forget to smash that like button.

00:05:26.000 Share the show with everyone you know joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.

00:05:30.000 We have Brett Weinstein.

00:05:31.000 Very excited to be here.

00:05:32.000 Thanks for having me, Tim.

00:05:34.000 Who are you?

00:05:34.000 What do you do?

00:05:35.000 Oh, I'm an evolutionary biologist.

00:05:37.000 I taught for 14 years at the Evergreen State College.

00:05:40.000 Actually, you and I.

00:05:42.000 We did a little documentary about it.

00:05:44.000 You did a documentary on it.

00:05:45.000 Yeah.

00:05:46.000 I have been podcasting, authoring, public speaking, that sort of thing.

00:05:51.000 I host the Dark Horse podcast.

00:05:53.000 We do one live every week, me and my wife, Heather Hyang.

00:05:56.000 That's where people would know me.

00:05:58.000 Yeah.

00:05:58.000 Well, it's great to have you.

00:05:59.000 Welcome.

00:06:00.000 I think it's been years since we've had you back.

00:06:02.000 It has been quite a while.

00:06:04.000 Quite a while, but it's great to have you.

00:06:06.000 Your insights will prove invaluable, good sir.

00:06:08.000 Let's hope.

00:06:08.000 Yeah, absolutely.

00:06:10.000 Libby's hanging out.

00:06:11.000 I'm here.

00:06:12.000 I'm glad to be here with you guys.

00:06:13.000 I'm Libby Emmons, editor in chief of the Post Millennial.

00:06:15.000 I have a podcast, The Pod Millennial.

00:06:18.000 You can check it out at thepodmillennial.com.

00:06:20.000 I'm Ian Crossland and Brett, dude, your stuff kept me sane during COVID.

00:06:25.000 You and Heather did a lot of excellent biologic work, research on what was going on.

00:06:29.000 Also, when you and Jordan Peterson did that episode with Rogan in 2017, it was a very dark time in humanity.

00:06:36.000 I feel like that was a moment where I started to feel like there's hope for the human part of what's happening right now.

00:06:42.000 There's a lot of common sense in that conversation, and that Joe brought you guys to the forefront like that after the Evergreen.

00:06:49.000 Debacle and Peterson got canceled.

00:06:51.000 It was like, thank God, thank you for coming.

00:06:54.000 I'm really happy to be here, and I'm really glad that episode with Rogan reached you.

00:07:01.000 It actually, interestingly, we talked in that about Jordan and I did a very deep dive on what the meaning of Hitler and Hitlerian like characters is.

00:07:12.000 And it actually resulted in a student reaching out to me who was doing his PhD on the Holocaust, and I actually became his PhD advisor.

00:07:22.000 He has now done Dissertation research on some of the ideas that we presented in that podcast.

00:07:27.000 So it's a demonstration that actually this podcast stuff causes interesting changes in the world, positive.

00:07:34.000 Spread on.

00:07:34.000 Super powerful.

00:07:35.000 Also, really pumped that you're here.

00:07:37.000 I watched Benjamin Boyce's entire series on the Evergreen debacle, and it's really cool that you're here.

00:07:43.000 So let's get into it.

00:07:44.000 Let's get to the news.

00:07:45.000 We've got this from CNN Supreme Court allows Alabama to eliminate congressional districts held by a black Democrat.

00:07:53.000 You know what I love about this headline?

00:07:55.000 Is that when Tennessee eliminated the district held by a white man?

00:08:00.000 We didn't get that kind of headline.

00:08:02.000 They didn't say Supreme Court allows Tennessee to eliminate congressional districts held by a white Democrat because we know what they're doing at CNN.

00:08:10.000 They say Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday cleared the way for Alabama to revert to a congressional map with one majority black district in a sudden ruling that drew a dissent from the court's three liberal justices.

00:08:21.000 We have that ruling right here.

00:08:22.000 Now, I will say, wow, the Supreme Court justices are just ramming these things through.

00:08:29.000 I got to say, I'm surprised to see it, but it looks like the Supreme Court conservatives have joined the fray and are actually now deciding to stand up for this country.

00:08:40.000 We've got this ruling right here.

00:08:42.000 It's relatively short.

00:08:44.000 The motions to expedite are granted.

00:08:45.000 The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted.

00:08:50.000 The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in that case is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District, et cetera, et cetera.

00:09:00.000 Today, the court vacates a district court order enjoining Alabama's 2023 redistricting plan and remands for reconsideration in light of the court's new interpretation.

00:09:08.000 I just want to, of Section 2 of the VRA, I just want to really quickly stress these states were trying to redistrict before we got to this point in 2026, and they were blocked by lawsuits and the Biden DOJ.

00:09:22.000 Alabama was trying to redistrict from the census in 2020.

00:09:25.000 Right.

00:09:26.000 So we have here this is their dissent.

00:09:30.000 Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson joined dissenting.

00:09:33.000 They say there's no reason to do so.

00:09:35.000 In addition to holding that Alabama's 2023 districting plan violates Section 2 of the district court, held in one of three cases before this court that Alabama violated the 14th Amendment and intentionally diluting the votes of black voters in Alabama, that constitutional finding of intentional discrimination is independent of and unaffected by any of the legal issues discussed in Calais.

00:09:51.000 Vecatur is thus inappropriate and will cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the election scheduled for next week.

00:10:01.000 I respectfully dissent.

00:10:03.000 I think it's plain to see at this point.

00:10:06.000 They are not playing the decorum game, which in 2020 they very much did and said, we're not going to look over this Texas v. Pennsylvania thing.

00:10:13.000 It's not going to change the outcome.

00:10:15.000 We're not going to do it.

00:10:16.000 Usually, what we see in these lawsuits, they say, well, we don't want to affect an election underway.

00:10:21.000 So we'll just next time around.

00:10:24.000 This time, the Supreme Court conservative just like, nah, run it through.

00:10:28.000 We don't care.

00:10:29.000 Well, it's good that conservatives are actually taking some action.

00:10:32.000 Yes, indeed.

00:10:34.000 The final.

00:10:35.000 The final paragraph The court today unceremoniously discards the district court's meticulously documented and supported discriminatory intent finding and careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so, without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue.

00:10:49.000 And with all vacatures of this kind of the court, the district court remains free on remand to decide for itself whether Calais has any bearing on its 14th Amendment analysis of its prior reasoning or if its prior reasoning is unaffected by the decision.

00:11:04.000 So, wow.

00:11:05.000 We are in a culture war, and I see us just, I guess, what is it, the exponential momentum towards physical violence and civil war? 0.89

00:11:17.000 Yeah, I think, you know, that's a decent way. 0.79

00:11:20.000 Will you say?

00:11:20.000 You think civil war?

00:11:22.000 Do I think we will actually get to a hot civil war?

00:11:25.000 We've obviously been in something like a cold civil war.

00:11:25.000 I don't know.

00:11:29.000 I must say, as much as I fear the Democrats returning to power, I think they are a diabolical party at this point.

00:11:38.000 I also think that this is a bit of a tragedy.

00:11:41.000 That redistricting is not in any way new.

00:11:46.000 It has always been cheating.

00:11:48.000 And that it is now escalating and that the judiciary is weighing in on one side is bad for the U.S., it's bad for the Republic.

00:12:00.000 And so, you know, you can call me naive, but I would like to live in a country where we agree that actually we want to.

00:12:08.000 Poll the electorate and discover what they want in terms of governance and not go outside and, you know, draw funny lines on a map in order to wield power.

00:12:17.000 Now, that's not the country we live in, but it should be.

00:12:20.000 Well, here's Chicago, which I just love in terms of their congressional districts and how they make no sense, but are specifically designed to maximize power in certain ways.

00:12:36.000 You look at the whole of the state.

00:12:38.000 Illinois is just one example.

00:12:39.000 The Pacific, I'm sorry, not the Pacific, but the Northeast, Massachusetts, all of it, a really obvious example of just the political manipulations to steal power.

00:12:50.000 So I'm actually just, I shrug. 0.91

00:12:53.000 I see, you know, Kyle Kalinske is just throwing up every day all over himself on X, be like, they're fascists, oh God.

00:12:59.000 And I'm like, well, I guess I just don't care anymore, you know.

00:13:04.000 Look at this district right here.

00:13:04.000 Part of who I am.

00:13:05.000 Can we just point this one out right here, which takes this.

00:13:10.000 South of Chicago, conservative area, and just slides it up on into the city to make sure it's Democrat.

00:13:15.000 Okay.

00:13:17.000 Well, that's what Spanberger's new map was trying to do, right?

00:13:19.000 I mean, it was trying to have like what five districts or something start all in Alexandria, Arlington, so that those rural areas were, you know, lumped in with Democrats.

00:13:30.000 The thing that you mentioned too about Tennessee and Tennessee's ninth is the person who's representing the incumbent in Tennessee's ninth is Steve Cohen, I think his name is.

00:13:39.000 And he's a white guy, he's a Democrat.

00:13:41.000 And Justin Pearson, who's a very outspoken Tennessee state senator who's always going into Nashville and like throwing a fit about something other, whether it's trans or gun control or something else, he is running against Cohen in the ninth district as it was prior to this new redistricting.

00:13:59.000 And now that it's going to be, you know, it's likely more Republican.

00:14:03.000 What they don't want you to know is that the person who's going to win that, her name is Charlotte Bergman, and she's a black woman.

00:14:08.000 She's a black Republican.

00:14:10.000 So they're talking about how it's Jim Crow because they really wanted Justin Pearson, but instead they're going to get this black woman instead.

00:14:17.000 Well, maybe not.

00:14:19.000 The structure of the district is splitting it into three different districts.

00:14:22.000 So we don't know exactly who will be able to represent these new districts.

00:14:26.000 Like the ninth.

00:14:27.000 We'll have to see.

00:14:28.000 Yeah.

00:14:28.000 I'm still feeling like this Supreme Court decision was a bad one because they say you can't.

00:14:33.000 You mean the Louisiana, Kelly?

00:14:34.000 No, the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:14:36.000 Is that what it is?

00:14:37.000 Calais is that says you can't do it by race.

00:14:37.000 Is that what it is?

00:14:39.000 But the thing is, they're going to be like, oh, really?

00:14:42.000 Okay, then it's just by political affiliation, and it'll be the exact same district.

00:14:45.000 That's what they said is okay.

00:14:46.000 And now everyone's got free reign to just fully redistrict everything.

00:14:50.000 They don't just now, they always had that ability.

00:14:52.000 Yeah.

00:14:53.000 So that's why I'm highlighting Illinois and Chicago.

00:14:53.000 I know.

00:14:55.000 What's that?

00:14:56.000 That's why I showed Chicago.

00:14:57.000 It was always the case you could gerrymander in this way, which is why people have always complained about gerrymandering.

00:15:04.000 Eliminating 5% of the problem is a good thing.

00:15:07.000 Net positive.

00:15:08.000 I don't think it actually looks like it was a problem that they got rid of, but the reality is you can have the same exact district and say it was just by political affiliation, even if it was originally by race.

00:15:18.000 So you can lie, and this just gives people the ability to redistrict.

00:15:22.000 You can't.

00:15:22.000 I mean, it's like almost a one to one correlation sometimes.

00:15:25.000 You are incorrect.

00:15:26.000 That can't happen based on the arguments of the woke left and their parity, national parity argument. 0.89

00:15:32.000 So if you have a district that has, at this point, greater than 13%, then someone's going to make an argument of black people that are going to make the argument. 0.69

00:15:40.000 That it's either over or under representing a certain race.

00:15:42.000 But you can't go the inverse either.

00:15:45.000 It's racist to say you can't have more than 13.

00:15:47.000 That's 1965 when they said that they ruled you have to have a majority black district, otherwise, you're being racist.

00:15:57.000 Now they're saying you can't use race as the predeterminate factor as to why you create a district.

00:16:01.000 It sounds like the Supreme Court's just tying up some loose ends as we transition to the New World Order, and then they're going to be like, okay, okay, you can redistrict back to, you can have whatever races you want.

00:16:10.000 It doesn't matter anymore.

00:16:11.000 But for now, they're shoring up.

00:16:14.000 No, no, the argument literally was we don't need this policy anymore.

00:16:19.000 Alito literally stated back then it made sense based on the structure and the nature of our society and culture, but the framers of this law intended for there to be some kind of sunsetting.

00:16:30.000 And at this point, we don't need to have districts based on race.

00:16:35.000 In fact, the only guarantee a person should have is that they will not have their district gerrymandered based on their race.

00:16:41.000 And that's actually true to the spirit of affirmative action.

00:16:45.000 It was always supposed to be a temporary remedy and it became a permanent feature. 0.89

00:16:50.000 And so, in that way, you can argue that this decision is good.

00:16:53.000 On the other hand, at some level, it's like we're rooting for different kinds of cancer that are in competition, right?

00:17:01.000 The redistricting is, in and of itself, anti democratic, you know, in the small d sense.

00:17:07.000 And we should be concerned about the fact that this midterm election was headed in one direction and that this may substantially change the.

00:17:17.000 Calculus, not because anybody's opinion was changed.

00:17:20.000 I actually don't care. 0.96

00:17:23.000 And the argument is that illegal immigrants padding the electoral college and congressional seats for blue states by upwards of being nice on the low end, two to four congressional seats, four Democrats they should not have. 0.95

00:17:33.000 And on the high end, upwards of 12 seats they should not have. 0.84

00:17:36.000 And I'm not talking about the VRA.

00:17:37.000 I'm talking about when you look at, there's the third way they did an analysis on does illegal immigration increase the amount of Democrat held seats.

00:17:46.000 And they said, actually, when you look at the data, California may gain one seat, but Texas gains one seat as well.

00:17:52.000 Therefore, it's one Democrat, one Republican.

00:17:54.000 There we go.

00:17:55.000 The only problem is the seat in Texas is in an urban area, largely around Austin, which creates another Democrat district.

00:18:01.000 So, yes, illegal immigrants tend to be moved towards cities where they could create urban Democrat congressional districts, even in red states. 0.62

00:18:09.000 So, when the Republicans say we are going to redistrict to eliminate past injustice, I say sure. 0.99

00:18:15.000 These black majority, majority minority districts should not exist. 1.00

00:18:18.000 And so, I'm happy to see that stopped. 1.00

00:18:21.000 I don't disagree with you, but.

00:18:22.000 But to your point, to address it, I grew up in Illinois, that's where I'm from.

00:18:28.000 The Democrats have eliminated Republicans largely from the state and they've maximized their power.

00:18:33.000 Even though the state is almost entirely conservative leaning, they've controlled it for 100 plus years.

00:18:40.000 You look at the Northeast, all the same.

00:18:43.000 I think it, I view it this way.

00:18:46.000 If there was an issue of me and Ian largely get along on most things, we're never violent, we don't fight, we may disagree, but it's always afterwards we're hanging out, we're eating cheeseburgers together.

00:18:58.000 Someone in this area or the governing authority or the police came and said, Ian now is going to be discriminated against for a particular reason.

00:19:06.000 I would stand up against that as he is a member of my community.

00:19:09.000 Communists aren't.

00:19:11.000 Evil people who have tried putting the frontrunner for the election in prison are not part of my community. 0.94

00:19:16.000 This multicultural democracy they've been building is the antithesis of the constitutional republic we live in. 0.96

00:19:22.000 So at this point, I just say, I may be opposed to war, to violence, and these things. 1.00

00:19:30.000 But in the issue of self preservation and defense, I'm fine with it.

00:19:34.000 Yeah, this is actually exactly the point I was going to make that I'm sure all of us are against killing people.

00:19:41.000 But when you're at war, you're actually for killing people because it's necessary.

00:19:45.000 If one side is against killing people and the other is for killing people, the side that's for killing people wins.

00:19:49.000 And so the world becomes more that way.

00:19:52.000 And so the fact is, we're living in a circumstance where we have to be rooting for one cancer or another.

00:19:57.000 But it doesn't mean that we can't look at it and say, actually, it's a tragedy that this is how the battle is playing out.

00:20:02.000 What we should be battling for is to end this nonsense.

00:20:05.000 Gerrymandering is anti democratic.

00:20:08.000 And even though it's like a court, right?

00:20:11.000 We may all be against people making fallacious arguments.

00:20:16.000 But in a court, actually, justice depends on each side doing so with equal strength, right?

00:20:22.000 You have two sides both trying to distort the truth, and hopefully, the actual truth emerges from between it.

00:20:28.000 And in this case, we should be rooting for actual democracy to emerge from this dysfunctional and anti democratic.

00:20:34.000 But I'll stress, it is not the Republicans.

00:20:37.000 In the past several decades, that have been engaging in anti-democratic or anti-republicanist behavior.

00:20:44.000 And so I view this all as a correction toward the better.

00:20:47.000 So I wouldn't call it cancer.

00:20:49.000 Well, no, it's a correction.

00:20:51.000 But the point is, it's a correction for an injustice that has you animated.

00:20:55.000 And I agree.

00:20:56.000 I don't want to see one side put down their arms in the redistricting battle, but I do want us to all recognize it's bad for the thing that we value.

00:21:04.000 So the issue of gerrymandering is interesting.

00:21:07.000 Typically, when people refer to gerrymandering, you're talking about the process by which you construct a party dominant congressional district or district in general politically for that purpose.

00:21:19.000 However, the problem I see with it is sometimes districts should not be just blocks.

00:21:24.000 They're going to look weird and you'll be accused of gerrymandering.

00:21:27.000 I agree with that.

00:21:27.000 Right.

00:21:28.000 So let me give you an example.

00:21:29.000 If we take a look at Illinois, I love this.

00:21:31.000 See this district right here, Illinois 13?

00:21:34.000 And that was the possessive.

00:21:35.000 I know it's not Illinois's.

00:21:37.000 This is Illinois's 13th district.

00:21:39.000 It makes no sense.

00:21:40.000 It's just connecting, what is it, Champaign, Urbana, and like Springfield and East St. Louis.

00:21:46.000 This manufactures a Democrat district.

00:21:48.000 This district, Illinois's 17th district, Combines Rockford with, what is that?

00:21:54.000 That might be Pure, I'm not sure.

00:21:56.000 It's manufactured as a Democrat district.

00:21:58.000 That makes no sense.

00:22:00.000 The lives of the people who live in this area are the same as the people who live right next to them, but the cities are distinct.

00:22:07.000 And so what the state did was they crafted these to ensure they would get extra Democrat seats for the national Congress.

00:22:16.000 Now, at the same time, you can look if we go down to like Texas and you can see an oddly shaped district like.

00:22:23.000 You know, this one's long and it stretches in this way.

00:22:26.000 These are largely seen as much more fair.

00:22:29.000 But the important thing to understand, because we're having this conversation, I can't remember what it might have been, Matt Gaetz.

00:22:33.000 And the issue, actually, no, it wasn't Matt Gaetz.

00:22:35.000 I can't remember what it was.

00:22:36.000 The issue is that humans don't live in blocks of the same populations.

00:22:40.000 So districts are always going to be oddly shaped in some way because you're going to have an urban center and you're going to have a disparate rural demography.

00:22:50.000 So that means if you just made a congressional district a square, it might only have 35,000 people in it, and that's not proportional to.

00:22:57.000 It's got to be 775.

00:22:58.000 I feel like we can develop heat maps for zones for what are these called?

00:23:04.000 Districts that where you can use I don't know, I don't want to just say like artificial intelligence is the end, is like the solution to everything, but you can.

00:23:11.000 They do that.

00:23:12.000 You can vote by your vicinity and it doesn't have to be in a sphere or a circle.

00:23:16.000 It can like travel through paths of least resistance to find the balance to make these districts without having to get some crudely drawn thing.

00:23:27.000 This is exactly what they do.

00:23:29.000 They use computers that draw districts.

00:23:32.000 The only problem is in most blue states, they manipulate them to gain power. 1.00

00:23:36.000 They bring in illegal immigrants to gain power. 0.97

00:23:39.000 The general idea, at least in my moral worldview of a congressional district, is that it's supposed to represent people who live similarly and their political whims. 1.00

00:23:50.000 So if you look at Louisiana, for instance, you can see here that the third district is the shore.

00:23:56.000 That's beautiful.

00:23:57.000 If you live on the water, you are going to have a similar life experience and goals to the other people who live on the water based on.

00:24:01.000 Flooding on shrimping or fisheries or whatever it is you might be doing. 0.98

00:24:05.000 The idea that they're going to create a district just for black people because they're black is the most insane thing imaginable. 1.00

00:24:11.000 Yeah, I think a lot of these come from like where you have the city has like nine districts is from like the time of better men where you had the plebs that ate, you know, garbage and they had terrible IQ because they had no nutrition. 1.00

00:24:21.000 And then you know, all the rich, wealthy men that ran the show behind the scenes. 1.00

00:24:25.000 And so you got these vestiges of people that think they're in charge.

00:24:27.000 We're like now with the internet and high access to nutrients, like even people in these red farmer districts can be pretty brilliant. 0.92

00:24:35.000 And so The age of like consolidating power in the city, I think, is sort of coming to a close. 0.78

00:24:42.000 The next big move, of course, South Carolina lawmakers will take up the proposed congressional map tomorrow, eliminating a Democrat seat and creating a solid red state.

00:24:51.000 And guess which South Carolina politician opposes this?

00:24:55.000 Lindsey Graham.

00:24:56.000 You are correct.

00:24:57.000 Lindsey Graham urges caution.

00:25:00.000 A South Carolina redistricting push.

00:25:01.000 Oh, here we go.

00:25:03.000 Well, it's going to invalidate.

00:25:05.000 This guy's a Democrat.

00:25:06.000 What is this?

00:25:07.000 How is this guy a Republican?

00:25:09.000 He's just been incumbent that long, you know? 0.97

00:25:12.000 He's the worst. 0.99

00:25:13.000 Yeah, he's terrible. 1.00

00:25:14.000 I want to mute him.

00:25:16.000 We got to get him on the show, dude.

00:25:18.000 Lindsay.

00:25:19.000 You know why he won't do it?

00:25:20.000 Because people whose ideas can't withstand scrutiny don't come on shows like this.

00:25:27.000 That's true.

00:25:29.000 Well, I'll go on your show then, Lindsay.

00:25:31.000 Does he have a show?

00:25:33.000 Not yet, but maybe he will.

00:25:33.000 I don't know.

00:25:34.000 Yeah, he will.

00:25:35.000 That would be a three minute edited piece where he would edit out any bad questions you ask him.

00:25:39.000 Right.

00:25:41.000 Indeed.

00:25:43.000 Yeah, I mean, it's interesting too.

00:25:44.000 We're seeing this happen in red states and it will match a lot of what's going on in the blue states.

00:25:50.000 Like, The entirety of New England is blue.

00:25:53.000 And when you look at the voting numbers there, it's like each state is 40 to 43% Republican voters.

00:26:01.000 And then people complain about, like, you know, they say West Virginia is gerrymandered or whatever.

00:26:07.000 And they tell you about all of these red states where there's no blue districts.

00:26:10.000 And a lot of those are either one or two senators at the most.

00:26:14.000 And West Virginia is pretty evenly divided, just in half.

00:26:17.000 Let's jump to the story from Axios.

00:26:18.000 I love this.

00:26:20.000 So we saw the news.

00:26:21.000 Supreme Court of Virginia said you will not redistrict.

00:26:24.000 Some woman went out screaming and pointing at the court building.

00:26:28.000 The argument is you can't just ignore your Constitution when you try to change the rules and ice out half of the population, which Virginia tried to do.

00:26:36.000 And it didn't work.

00:26:37.000 And now Virginia Democrats are discussing a court overhaul.

00:26:42.000 The strategy will be to let me just read it.

00:26:45.000 Behind the scenes, some Democrats considered going further after a Friday article by the down ballot, a progressive outlet proposed lowering the retirement age for Virginia judges.

00:26:54.000 From 73 to 54, and installing new justices to rehear the case.

00:27:00.000 I say, let's go do it.

00:27:03.000 Crazy.

00:27:04.000 I'd be so excited if they did.

00:27:05.000 Why?

00:27:06.000 Because they'd effectively invalidate every argument they made in 2020.

00:27:09.000 Right.

00:27:10.000 Yeah.

00:27:11.000 The argument about whether or not the right of the state legislature to hold and conduct their elections as they see fit shall be upheld.

00:27:22.000 The argument made by Democrats was that the courts and the governor can overrule.

00:27:29.000 What the legislature wants to do.

00:27:31.000 Now, this question was never answered in Texas v. Pennsylvania because the Supreme Court was too cowardly to answer the question, which leads us to this conflicted circumstance, which Democrats wish, wish they had answered now.

00:27:45.000 Because the issue would now be when the judges said, no, you can't, the argument from the Virginia Democrats is then we have to physically remove these people and overhaul them.

00:27:55.000 If they were to do that, they would surely face a battle from the DOJ.

00:28:00.000 Or from the Supreme Court, it would just be a legal catastrophe to which the Democrats would have to argue the judiciary has no right to.

00:28:10.000 Actually, you know what?

00:28:11.000 They're already doing it.

00:28:11.000 I'm going to pause.

00:28:12.000 They're already arguing the judiciary has no right to overturn the will of the voters in a referendum, despite the fact they argued the inverse in 2020.

00:28:20.000 So I'm just loving the hypocrisy, but the desperation is palpable.

00:28:25.000 Why don't the voters notice the hypocrisy?

00:28:27.000 You know, Democrat voters don't notice and they don't seem to care. 0.66

00:28:31.000 There's countless instances of hypocrisy over and over.

00:28:34.000 Yeah.

00:28:34.000 Well, they don't seem to care.

00:28:35.000 They don't seem to care.

00:28:36.000 Did you see the thing recently where Spanberger said that whoever that Virginia's electoral college votes will go to whoever wins the popular vote nationally?

00:28:47.000 Regardless.

00:28:48.000 Just regardless.

00:28:49.000 I mean, that seems like really overturning the will of Virginia's voters and selling them out.

00:28:55.000 This is why, you know, before the show, we were talking about having kids and hospitals.

00:28:59.000 I said, if you're going to have a kid, you got to go to Loudoun County or like the Fairfax Loudon area where the deep state.

00:29:05.000 Is holed up because we'll come back to this, but I'm just going to throw it out there.

00:29:10.000 That's where they use CRISPR?

00:29:11.000 No.

00:29:13.000 I'm only going to briefly mention this before we get to this later on in the show.

00:29:17.000 But every story I've heard about a baby being born in some other hospital in like any other state, the doctors come in and say, You have to get these shots.

00:29:27.000 You have to get these vaccines.

00:29:28.000 They separate the parents and coerce them.

00:29:30.000 They tell one parent, We're going to do these shots.

00:29:32.000 When the parent says no, they go, But the other parent already said yes.

00:29:35.000 And the other parent actually said no.

00:29:36.000 You go to Deep State Homefront, which is, you know, loud in Fairfax.

00:29:41.000 That's where my daughter was born.

00:29:42.000 Doctors were like, No, you're good.

00:29:44.000 And we were like, Should we get anything?

00:29:45.000 No, you don't got to worry about it.

00:29:46.000 Not even a joke.

00:29:47.000 You don't have superhuman vision.

00:29:48.000 They were like, No.

00:29:50.000 Any vaccine?

00:29:51.000 Whatever you want.

00:29:52.000 Nothing?

00:29:53.000 So, in this area in Virginia, we'll come back to that.

00:29:53.000 You're good.

00:29:59.000 To your point about they're going to give the vote to whoever they want, this is the deep state headquarters.

00:30:04.000 Rules for thee and not for me.

00:30:06.000 They do whatever they want.

00:30:08.000 That's why these are the richest counties in the entire country, the ones surrounding D.C.

00:30:12.000 Yeah, well, obviously, if it's the country, then it's the world.

00:30:14.000 But, you know, Fairfax, Loudoun, and a couple of them in Maryland.

00:30:18.000 And you're just like looking at it and you're like, what?

00:30:21.000 You're all just fleecing us and living in these beautiful homes, and you can drive through Loudoun County and it's like you can smell money.

00:30:28.000 It's very easy to make money if you know what's going to happen before everyone else.

00:30:32.000 Right?

00:30:33.000 Exactly.

00:30:34.000 And if you can listen in on all of their conversations and know what they're going to do.

00:30:38.000 You get tipped off.

00:30:39.000 You know, it's real fascinating that Trump made that.

00:30:39.000 Right.

00:30:42.000 He made a declaration about energy infrastructure, and instantly a bunch of key infrastructure energy providers saw a massive spike in their stock value, but it was.

00:30:52.000 It was just before Trump made the announcement, but you know, whatever.

00:30:55.000 But anyway, I'm sorry.

00:30:56.000 Well, I wanted to go back to the hypocrisy point because I think the hypocrisy is universal and the rule is obvious.

00:31:03.000 Everybody wants the rules bent when they are asking for something and they want the rules enforced when the other people are asking for something.

00:31:11.000 So we've become a country that views ourselves as teams.

00:31:15.000 That's the cancer I'm talking about.

00:31:17.000 And you can imagine a country.

00:31:20.000 And in fact, I think we have at other moments in history had a country that was much closer.

00:31:24.000 To imagining we all want the same things.

00:31:27.000 We want to be stronger.

00:31:28.000 We want to be more prosperous.

00:31:30.000 We want to have a more educated, better taken care of population.

00:31:34.000 And we disagree over policy, how to get there.

00:31:38.000 And we've so lost that that it's impossible not to root for the team that's closer to your values and root against the others. 0.89

00:31:45.000 So, you know, there's a question about the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, right?

00:31:50.000 John Rawls said you shouldn't want to make a rule that you wouldn't want to live on the wrong side of.

00:31:54.000 We should want the rules that we're happy with when we're down and we're also happy with them when we're up.

00:31:59.000 And we need to get back to being a country that does that.

00:32:01.000 I disagree, though, but clarify for me, maybe I misunderstood that we all disagree on the policies.

00:32:07.000 We generally.

00:32:08.000 In general, we should all want the country to be strong.

00:32:12.000 We should want the population to be well taken care of.

00:32:14.000 We should want disease managed well.

00:32:17.000 We should want good information about our health.

00:32:19.000 Those should be universal.

00:32:20.000 And then we might disagree about what the policies are that are likely to lead us there.

00:32:24.000 We do.

00:32:26.000 Well, no, we also now disagree over the values.

00:32:29.000 We are rooting against each other.

00:32:30.000 Well, my point is you and I, we.

00:32:32.000 We do.

00:32:32.000 Oh, yeah.

00:32:33.000 Libby and I do, Ian and I, you and Libby, we largely agree on most things with minor differences.

00:32:39.000 And we are beset on all sides by political factions that don't actually want anything good.

00:32:45.000 Half of them want to extract power for themselves, the other half want to extract status and appear virtuous.

00:32:53.000 And they are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get it.

00:32:56.000 I feel like I want to preserve the system.

00:32:58.000 I think what you're talking about is maintain a system that's honorable, that will function no matter where you are within that system.

00:33:04.000 But because there's been such a barrage on the system from outside, from Chinese AI, who knows where all this global misinformation is coming in and twisting people's minds and making them think Trump is Hitler and they hate this person and I'm afraid that, like, maybe the system, like Abraham Lincoln, you know, he suspended habeas corpus.

00:33:27.000 That's so far outside of my wheelhouse of reality of what I think I would do, but he did it and he's considered one of the greatest presidents.

00:33:34.000 Ever.

00:33:35.000 So, like, are we looking at another moment in time like that?

00:33:39.000 And if so, I don't want to be the guy that pushes the button to start any action.

00:33:43.000 But what do you think, Brett?

00:33:45.000 Well, I want to put a model on the table that's a level up from what we're talking about that I think explains it.

00:33:52.000 There's a problem on the right and there's a problem on the left, and the two of them are functioning in a dynamic.

00:33:58.000 The problem on the right is that the right believes the mythology of the market much more strongly than it should.

00:34:04.000 The market is the best tool we've ever come up with to figure out how to accomplish things.

00:34:09.000 Nothing competes with the market in terms of its ability to figure out that question.

00:34:13.000 But the market is beset by a tremendous amount of market failure.

00:34:18.000 Lots of people who are winning in the market are either partly or wholly winning as a result of rent seeking, and lots of people who are losing are losing for reasons that have nothing to do with their willingness to do the right thing.

00:34:31.000 So the right is stingy with respect to taking care of the losers in our competitive system, and there will always be losers.

00:34:37.000 What we should want is a system that takes care of people who lose, who want To do the right thing, they want to compete, but it doesn't happen to go well.

00:34:46.000 We should want everybody to have access to the market.

00:34:48.000 What we have is a system in which the stinginess on the right and the failure to recognize the amount of corruption that there is and the amount of wealth that is generated by it is causing a large fraction of the population to correctly understand that they are not going to win.

00:35:04.000 We have a competitive system and they are born into losing and they have no interest in preserving the system.

00:35:10.000 So, what you're talking about, the people who want to overthrow the system.

00:35:13.000 Do you want to overthrow the system?

00:35:14.000 And we are under attack because of it.

00:35:16.000 But we have to understand that both sides are playing a role in that dynamic.

00:35:20.000 But I would half disagree with you.

00:35:22.000 And I would be interested in your response to the right thing isn't universal.

00:35:29.000 And doing the right thing sometimes defies what people want, in which case, to instill upon them something they don't want would be the wrong thing.

00:35:39.000 So I'll give you an example of a non market circumstance which we should not support.

00:35:44.000 And I'll use a bit of an absurdity, and that would be asparagus flavored ice cream.

00:35:48.000 In fact, I'm sure someone's made it.

00:35:49.000 It's not the worst thing, but it's fairly bad.

00:35:51.000 But asparagus is good for you.

00:35:53.000 Ice cream tends to be bad for you.

00:35:54.000 I'm going to do the right thing.

00:35:56.000 I'm going to give people a dessert that is good for them.

00:35:59.000 But guess what? 0.97

00:36:00.000 I'm a loser in the market.

00:36:01.000 You should take care of me.

00:36:03.000 You should have to give me a portion of your labor because I'm doing the right thing.

00:36:06.000 Like solar.

00:36:07.000 Well, it turns out ice cream is way better for you than we thought because everything you told us about our health was a lie.

00:36:12.000 But let's put that aside.

00:36:14.000 That's true.

00:36:15.000 I agree with you.

00:36:16.000 I don't want to be.

00:36:18.000 I don't want to have a system that tells people what to do.

00:36:21.000 I want a system that protects people from true bad luck and exposes them to the results of their bad decisions.

00:36:28.000 Well, define true bad luck.

00:36:29.000 True bad luck is you make a gamble in the market.

00:36:34.000 Let's say it has a 75% chance of panning out, but the dice come up with the 25%.

00:36:34.000 It's a good gamble.

00:36:39.000 But what do you mean like someone taking cash and putting it in a market in a stock?

00:36:42.000 Or do you mean like running a business?

00:36:44.000 Well, no.

00:36:44.000 When you.

00:36:47.000 Put money into the stock market, right?

00:36:49.000 You need to suffer the downside of your judgment, including the 25% chance that it's going to go in the wrong direction, even if you calculate it correctly.

00:36:57.000 But let's say that we have a level of pesticide use that causes a certain number of cancers.

00:37:05.000 And let's say you didn't do anything to increase your exposure to this pesticide, but you're one of the unlucky people who gets a cancer.

00:37:12.000 We ought to take care of you, right?

00:37:14.000 I didn't get it.

00:37:14.000 I'm lucky.

00:37:15.000 You're unlucky.

00:37:16.000 And so, you know, that's the nature of it.

00:37:18.000 There's a moral challenge in that.

00:37:19.000 How do we prove the source of your cancer?

00:37:21.000 I'm not arguing that I know of a system that can do this, but I'm saying, ideal.

00:37:26.000 Well, no, I'm arguing about what we should want the system to do.

00:37:30.000 We should want it to protect you from real bad luck.

00:37:32.000 That is, you weren't involved in what happened that befell you, right?

00:37:37.000 Lightning struck your house.

00:37:38.000 You didn't put your house in a particularly lightning prone place.

00:37:42.000 But we should want to expose you to the results of your bad decision making.

00:37:47.000 That causes people to get smarter.

00:37:49.000 And it means that when you're the unlucky one and the dice go the wrong way, You know, we come together and rebuild your barn.

00:37:55.000 Where I agree with you is that there will be a firefighter's pension and it's got to be invested somewhere.

00:38:02.000 It can't, it's not just going to sit in cash in a bank account.

00:38:04.000 And so, with all good intentions, it's placed into a series of just some funds.

00:38:10.000 And unfortunately, many of those companies go bust.

00:38:13.000 The pension loses a large portion of its value.

00:38:15.000 And these hardworking men and women who all had good intentions, thought they made a sound investment, are now hurt because of it.

00:38:22.000 And we are facing Hard working retirees who now don't know how they're going to pay their bills despite doing everything right, versus a guy who is buddies with a member of Congress who whispers to him, We're going to vote on this bill tomorrow.

00:38:36.000 Go put a bunch of, you know, go short this stock and you'll make a billion dollars.

00:38:41.000 There are people that do nothing for society but the wrong thing and extract through the market value and live like kings while hard working men and women every day don't have access to these systems and suffer because of it.

00:38:52.000 What about something like, what about the people who lost everything because they invested with Madoff?

00:38:57.000 They believed they were doing the right thing.

00:38:59.000 They looked at his receipts.

00:39:00.000 They looked at his.

00:39:02.000 They didn't realize he had that sixth floor where he was, you know, rigging up fake stock printouts.

00:39:08.000 You know, I think the answer to that is insurance, some kind of insurance.

00:39:12.000 But the argument is.

00:39:13.000 Should you be, if you are investing in, you know, investment funds, should you be required to take out some sort of investment fund insurance?

00:39:22.000 Well, if we're going to bail out the elites when they engage in this, then we should bail out the little guy.

00:39:28.000 Bail out the people who are the big ones.

00:39:28.000 Right.

00:39:30.000 But the problem is, bang out the little guy is exponentially more expensive than the elites.

00:39:33.000 And the other thing, too, is no, I don't think this is necessarily true.

00:39:37.000 When we, let's say, we look at too big to fail, right?

00:39:41.000 Too big to fail was never properly adjudicated, right?

00:39:45.000 The fact is, too big to fail is a correct argument at one level.

00:39:49.000 That institution, if it fails, we will suffer more than if we prop it up.

00:39:54.000 But that does not require you to prop up the people who steered it into trouble.

00:39:58.000 Those people should have gone to jail.

00:40:00.000 So.

00:40:01.000 Because we didn't do that, what we ended up doing was bailing out not just those institutions that we would have suffered more for allowing to fail, but we bailed out the people who made the bad decisions, guaranteeing that those decisions would be revisited on us in a future context, like right now.

00:40:17.000 So the point is, none of this is as hard to solve as it seems.

00:40:22.000 It's being made hard to solve by people who are winning disproportionately, not because of insight, not because of hard work.

00:40:29.000 They are winning because they have power with which to seek rent.

00:40:33.000 And I think they that's the intention is that they are stripping the wealth from the United States through the corporate upward mobility, taking it away from common man, lower and middle class, to incite a communist revolution within the United States so that the United States will destroy itself so that they can centralize power in Switzerland with the Bank of International Settlements.

00:40:53.000 This is my point about stinginess on the right.

00:40:56.000 We're not going to pay attention to the suffering of people who are unable to compete in the market because they ate.

00:41:03.000 Garbage food, because their water was poisoned, because the schools were never properly constructed to educate, right?

00:41:11.000 Those people discover when they, you know, reach adulthood hey, I am structured to lose in a system in which the winners take from the losers.

00:41:19.000 Why would those people act to preserve the system?

00:41:22.000 They have no incentive.

00:41:23.000 I think because it's the least worst system ever made.

00:41:26.000 Not for them.

00:41:27.000 But if they truly understood the other economic orders that have come before, they would know.

00:41:33.000 It'd be very different if you were a loser in this system, but you realized, actually, I can better my station through hard work, right?

00:41:43.000 If you had that system, it wouldn't make sense to overthrow it because you're right.

00:41:47.000 The horror that will be visited on us if the system collapses is unthinkably bad.

00:41:53.000 But you have a large number of people who have too little stake in the system to care.

00:41:58.000 I do think there's a bit of projection in your argument, though.

00:42:01.000 What if you're a transhumanist?

00:42:02.000 You believe that. 1.00

00:42:03.000 There are stupid people who deserve to work at McDonald's, and when they fail, it's a good thing, and they should lose because the ultimate end goal should be a headlong rush into transhumanism, sacrificing the weaker for the stronger. 1.00

00:42:17.000 You're not going to want the same world you want, and their moral worldview is that they're just. 1.00

00:42:20.000 Now, of course, we can call that evil, but they're not going to exist in the same moral framework that you are.

00:42:26.000 Well, I believe their model of what makes people capable is in error and self serving.

00:42:32.000 That actually, the amount of this that has anything to do with genetic differences between us is tiny.

00:42:38.000 And the amount of it that has to do with mistreating people during development, even before they're born, is so large that actually, if you did have a system in which it didn't matter what zip code you lived in, your water was clean, that would do a huge piece of the heavy lifting.

00:42:53.000 If you made sure that everybody had proper actual food, which only rich people can even access now, you would see these fundamental differences disappear.

00:43:02.000 And then the question is, how good is the developmental environment that you're Family and your school provide for you.

00:43:10.000 I'm not saying that there's an argument to be made about nature versus nurture.

00:43:13.000 I'm saying that there are wealthy, powerful individuals who probably agree with everything you just said.

00:43:18.000 And they say, and still, human beings are limited, and we have to expand this through Neuralink and through technological advancement, for which the sacrifice of humans in cobalt mines and sulfur mines is worth every cent.

00:43:31.000 Yeah, I just don't think they understand or care to understand what actually motivates humans.

00:43:38.000 And what I've learned in traveling the world and dealing with people.

00:43:42.000 Many different continents, many different economic strata, is that people basically want the same things.

00:43:48.000 Well, no, no, agreed.

00:43:49.000 And there are powerful elites that know this, but view you like a chicken. 0.70

00:43:49.000 Okay. 0.70

00:43:53.000 Right. 1.00

00:43:53.000 Chickens all largely want the thing. 1.00

00:43:55.000 The wants and desires of chickens are immaterial to me because I want to build AI data centers and turn myself into a machine that can fly around the universe.

00:44:04.000 That's exactly right.

00:44:05.000 I want to ruin neighborhoods because I will benefit from doing so and it won't be mine.

00:44:09.000 Well, again, right.

00:44:11.000 So we agree on that point.

00:44:13.000 Your point about the world that we want to build is challenged by those that will lie to us and destroy what we want, manipulating our motivations and desires.

00:44:22.000 A hundred percent.

00:44:23.000 And that's my point is that we are actually being had by those exact forces.

00:44:28.000 They are causing us to get in the ring and fight people who aren't our natural enemies, right?

00:44:33.000 We need to fight that power and we need to have.

00:44:36.000 I mean, I know this sounds naive, but, you know, frankly, 50 years ago, it wouldn't.

00:44:41.000 We need a system in which we make rules that are good, irrespective of whether you're on the upside of them or the downside.

00:44:48.000 I, again, half agree.

00:44:50.000 And I think because it is idealistic, maybe as you even stated, a bit naive.

00:44:54.000 The challenge is we have consistently been on the side of those who just want to be left alone.

00:44:59.000 We want.

00:45:00.000 The rules to work for us, and they're exploited by the likes of these liberals, these Democrats, these big tech companies.

00:45:06.000 And so every step of the way, as we've been trying to implement this rules for all, they've been playing no rules for me, and we get crushed because of it.

00:45:14.000 Oh, I don't disagree with that.

00:45:16.000 And what I would say is actually, you know, it's not as hard as you would think to list the values that we all agree on, right?

00:45:23.000 It's not that hard.

00:45:24.000 And I think the top value is that the test of a policy, any policy, is whether it liberates individuals in the long term.

00:45:34.000 I would say.

00:45:34.000 Well, what does that mean?

00:45:35.000 Well, if you let's take the fire department to take, you know, a low bar.

00:45:42.000 Knowing that if my house catches on fire, all I have to do is make a phone call and people who have the capability of putting it out are going to show up and it doesn't matter what zip code I'm in.

00:45:52.000 That's a good rule, right?

00:45:54.000 The point is, I get liberated by not having to fight my own fires, not having to contract with a private company to do it, not having to arrange things this way.

00:46:02.000 There's a labor requirement from you for that.

00:46:04.000 What are you saying?

00:46:05.000 You're paying taxes.

00:46:06.000 Of course.

00:46:06.000 A portion of the labor that you buy.

00:46:07.000 I'm all for it.

00:46:08.000 I don't mind those taxes.

00:46:09.000 I'm good.

00:46:10.000 What about.

00:46:10.000 And I don't mind the fact that I will probably go my whole life subsidizing other people's houses being put out and mine's not likely to catch fire.

00:46:17.000 Then the challenge for police and fire is the people who live in more rural areas that don't have access to those but still have to pay for it.

00:46:17.000 That's fine.

00:46:17.000 I like that.

00:46:22.000 Right.

00:46:23.000 And.

00:46:23.000 So my labor is going to something I don't get without my choice.

00:46:26.000 I agree.

00:46:26.000 I don't want to live under a rule, right?

00:46:29.000 I don't want a rule put in place that I would not want imposed upon me.

00:46:31.000 And that's what's happening right now.

00:46:33.000 But you benefit from it, so you enjoy it.

00:46:35.000 Well, no, but.

00:46:36.000 Do you disagree with the top value I've put down that we can assess the quality of a policy based on whether or not it liberates individuals?

00:46:44.000 I don't agree.

00:46:46.000 Let's talk about air travel.

00:46:46.000 I think.

00:46:47.000 Okay.

00:46:48.000 We have tremendous regulation around air travel, maybe more so than anything else in common life.

00:46:56.000 That regulation allows you to get on a plane and in less than 24 hours be anywhere in the world you want to go.

00:47:03.000 It's tremendously liberating.

00:47:05.000 It's also tremendously constraining at the same time.

00:47:08.000 Do you resent the constraints that come with air travel?

00:47:11.000 Or do you say, actually, net, net, I want to live in a world where I can go anywhere I want.

00:47:16.000 I just have to, you know, figure out whether or not the price of going there is.

00:47:20.000 I would love it if I could build my own ultralight without having to be controlled by the government to do it so that people can have their $60 Spirit Airlines airfare.

00:47:28.000 So your ultralight, I want you to be able to build it and I want you to be able to fly and I want you not to have to ask.

00:47:28.000 Okay.

00:47:35.000 Otherwise, well, unless you're going to fly it in a way that you might crash into my house, then I become concerned.

00:47:41.000 It's just that imagine if every person had a flying car.

00:47:41.000 It's not even that.

00:47:44.000 What that would mean for air travel.

00:47:46.000 It would mean that many people would lose access because large commercial airliners would have difficulty flying in and out of urban areas when people are flying cars around.

00:47:53.000 So much liberty is a bad thing, is your argument here.

00:47:55.000 It sounds like. 1.00

00:47:56.000 No, but if you completely liberate everyone to have total power, one idiot monkey is going to blow everything up. 1.00

00:48:01.000 No, but you already made the argument, right? 0.99

00:48:04.000 If everybody has a flying car, you're less free because airliners aren't going to function in that world.

00:48:09.000 I don't know if that's true or not.

00:48:10.000 And it's not that everybody's a flying car, it's that those that are capable of having one can.

00:48:14.000 Right.

00:48:14.000 So other people cannot.

00:48:15.000 My point is, okay.

00:48:16.000 I'm constrained by the government, they prevent me from using these things.

00:48:19.000 To make sure that other people can have large commercial airfare.

00:48:22.000 Well, look, I have become unfortunately cynical about why the government does what it does.

00:48:28.000 But my point would be we should look at the question of whether you should be allowed to build and fly your own ultralight, whether you should be allowed to buy a flying car, based on whether or not the net effect is liberation of individuals over the long term.

00:48:43.000 The issue, I think, is exemplified pretty well by drones.

00:48:46.000 So when the commercial drone thing first started, we started seeing them pop up in Best Buys and things like this.

00:48:52.000 My friends and I were doing crazy experiments with them.

00:48:54.000 We were hacking them, we were doing a lot.

00:48:55.000 Broadcasts, and we actually got a request from the US government to consult on the expansion of this.

00:49:01.000 When they first launched, I was liberated.

00:49:03.000 I could do whatever I wanted.

00:49:04.000 The only issue at play was the liability of a drone crashing into the person or into a vehicle if that did happen.

00:49:09.000 Otherwise, I was in New York City flying it around, flying around buildings, flying over cops, and there was nothing constraining me.

00:49:15.000 Then more people wanted to do it too.

00:49:18.000 So, in order to liberate them, I guess, they put a bunch of laws in place stopping us from being able to do it.

00:49:23.000 Well, again, you're putting me at a disadvantage by forcing me to defend.

00:49:26.000 Current policy, and again, I don't trust it.

00:49:28.000 Well, I just, I guess my idea is that you can't have infinite liberty, right?

00:49:34.000 Because some liberties will infringe upon someone else.

00:49:38.000 So let me put, let me add to this like flying a drone over someone else's property, sort of privacy evasion.

00:49:42.000 Your claim that a rule that would enhance the liberty escalates as a value maybe it was a linear upward, the more liberty, the better.

00:49:49.000 But I think there's a diminishing return on liberty, and that you have to control the masses. 0.98

00:49:54.000 This is a utilitarian argument because people be fucking, excuse me, wild animals. 0.97

00:49:59.000 We've basically. 1.00

00:50:00.000 Domesticated ourselves, kind of, but we're like, like a dumb human that's hungry is super dangerous. 0.95

00:50:06.000 So if he has full liberty, all the weapons, all the power, like.

00:50:11.000 Well, doesn't your liberty end where it begins to infringe on someone else's rights?

00:50:15.000 By law.

00:50:16.000 I mean, that's sort of how it goes.

00:50:18.000 But in reality, like.

00:50:20.000 Well, you can commit crimes.

00:50:22.000 People are intentionally kept in the dark. 1.00

00:50:24.000 They're, you know, people go out of their way to make sure a lot of people are kind of like stupid and docile. 0.99

00:50:32.000 I think that's true. 0.99

00:50:32.000 I think that is the progressive agenda primarily. 0.99

00:50:35.000 I think the issue is liberate everyone, make everyone super powerful and strong and intelligent, but that might destroy us all.

00:50:40.000 Let me ask you another question about, say, having a rifle in New York City.

00:50:44.000 You want to have a SCAR 20S 308.

00:50:46.000 You live in a box apartment with 20 other units.

00:50:49.000 You've got two on each side, one behind you.

00:50:51.000 You've got a window facing outside.

00:50:53.000 Should that person be allowed to have that weapon?

00:50:55.000 Well, I have become persuaded that the net liberty argument strongly favors the Second Amendment, and it does so in spite of the fact that.

00:51:05.000 Liberties are limited by unstable people who use these weapons and rob innocent folks' life.

00:51:13.000 So, this person in this apartment has a break in, and this is their singular weapon, and they use it and they shoot the guy, cavitates, vaporizes a large portion of his chest, and the bullet carries on through other apartments, striking a child.

00:51:25.000 This is the argument why in New York they say we won't allow these weapons.

00:51:29.000 Now, if I live out in rural West Virginia, nobody cares because I can go outside right now and just unload and nothing, no one will get hit.

00:51:38.000 I got backstop, we're totally fine.

00:51:40.000 The challenge is that you maximize for, I suppose, in a situation like New York.

00:51:48.000 And I'd largely agree with we have a constitution, we have rules, and people should be allowed to have these weapons.

00:51:53.000 But I fully recognize a lot of people are going to get blasted if that's the case.

00:51:56.000 Well, a lot of people are going to get blasted.

00:51:58.000 But the hard part to calculate about the costs and benefits of the Second Amendment is that I'm fairly convinced that the founders understood the necessity of an armed populace to prevent tyranny.

00:52:12.000 And the question is, how many skulls end up in a pile if we end up with tyranny because our weapons aren't powerful enough as citizens?

00:52:19.000 Well, there was a really great meme where it's a guy with an American flag.

00:52:24.000 I posted it and he's got a big pile of guns.

00:52:28.000 And then he's like, he says something like, man, it's just so awful about these Epstein guys.

00:52:31.000 There's nothing we can do, literally nothing that we can do at all.

00:52:35.000 And that's the point that people keep making is, you know, around the world, the gag that they're saying is that Americans claim to have these guns to fight tyranny.

00:52:42.000 We get these disclosures about Epstein, the people flying on these planes, the powerful elites.

00:52:48.000 Everybody kind of knows what they're doing, but of course, no one.

00:52:51.000 Should go out with weapons and start.

00:52:54.000 I mean, what is the argument?

00:52:55.000 You get to take up your weapons and form militias and then go attack the government?

00:52:58.000 That's what we see.

00:52:58.000 We see that.

00:52:59.000 We've seen over the past year, we've seen, you know, at least recently, Luigi Mangione, right?

00:53:05.000 Thomas Matthew Crooks, Tyler Robinson, Cole Allen.

00:53:08.000 We've seen these young men take their weapons and go out and do what they believed was attacking tyranny, right?

00:53:15.000 In four distinct cases, two men were murdered and Trump was almost shot twice.

00:53:23.000 And just the excellent point is that.

00:53:26.000 What Antifa defines as fighting tyranny, we argue as fighting against democracy and vice versa.

00:53:31.000 Well, that's exactly the problem.

00:53:33.000 So, the argument of maximizing liberty, I think the challenge is moral worldviews are just very different.

00:53:38.000 Let's take it.

00:53:38.000 I want to stress test the maximization of liberty philosophy free speech.

00:53:43.000 So, if anyone can say anything on any network everywhere, that could be very bad.

00:53:49.000 That's not the solution.

00:53:51.000 Well, one demagogue can rally.

00:53:52.000 Free speech doesn't mean access to every platform. 0.99

00:53:54.000 Look what Hitler did with mass media.

00:53:55.000 Free speech doesn't mean access to every platform. 0.98

00:53:58.000 Well, technically, legally, you're right.

00:54:00.000 I mean, that's not what free speech is.

00:54:00.000 Yeah.

00:54:02.000 Free speech is, you know, like, no one can come out in the town square and shut you up, but it doesn't mean you have to be on, you know, CNN and Fox and wherever else.

00:54:12.000 You know, it doesn't mean you have to be on.

00:54:14.000 Time will tell whether or not free speech means for sure that you're allowed to be on every social media.

00:54:18.000 Does that mean you have access to a telephone?

00:54:20.000 Is that your right as an American citizen?

00:54:22.000 But just, I suppose, to the argument about liberty.

00:54:25.000 Do I have the liberty to enter someone else's property?

00:54:28.000 You know what I mean?

00:54:29.000 Of course not.

00:54:30.000 But let's say there's a big, let's say there's a plot of land, it's 50 acres with a house on it that, They just use it as an investment.

00:54:35.000 They've never set foot in it one time.

00:54:37.000 It was bought by a guy 2,000 miles away.

00:54:39.000 And here I am homeless.

00:54:41.000 If I go on the property, no one will know.

00:54:43.000 It will cause harm to literally nobody.

00:54:44.000 And I'll make sure to leave it exactly as I found it.

00:54:46.000 But I have no right to that.

00:54:47.000 Now you sound like Mamdani supporters. 0.99

00:54:49.000 This, this, that's why my argument against the liberty thing is. 0.99

00:54:49.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:54:52.000 But this is, this is my point about why the right has to wise up about taking care of the people at the bottom so they don't fall off the ladder and have no investment.

00:55:01.000 Right.

00:55:02.000 Well, I think that's what they're trying to do.

00:55:03.000 I think that's what the right was trying, has been trying to do a little bit under Trump, or at least that.

00:55:07.000 No, no, no.

00:55:07.000 Faction.

00:55:08.000 There's a solution to that. 1.00

00:55:09.000 Working class is part of the solution. 1.00

00:55:09.000 It's very easy. 1.00

00:55:10.000 Simple, simple solution to the poor people who fall off the ladder. 0.87

00:55:12.000 Camps. 0.99

00:55:16.000 No.

00:55:17.000 Don't they already have that?

00:55:19.000 Isn't it called LA?

00:55:20.000 Well, yeah.

00:55:21.000 And let's go back to the free speech.

00:55:22.000 There's LA camps and peer camps.

00:55:23.000 I think we should go back to the free speech question because we're getting tangled up in whether or not you have a right to be on CNN versus whether or not anything should be sayable on CNN, right? 0.54

00:55:35.000 And I would argue you're saying, well, you know, you could have a Hitlerian figure, you know, Mesmerizing the population over a platform. 0.86

00:55:45.000 I agree. 0.97

00:55:46.000 That's a danger.

00:55:47.000 It's a sobering one, but it is not nearly as dangerous as a system that decides who can say what where.

00:55:55.000 I think that some censorship is very good because some things you want to protect children from, some networks you need to make sure.

00:56:02.000 And like, I do think you should have unlimited net, maybe a network where you can be uncensored, but.

00:56:07.000 Didn't we used to have a thing called.

00:56:09.000 I agree that there are things that we should censor, like we should be very sure to keep.

00:56:14.000 Pornography away from kids, especially modern pornography.

00:56:18.000 We should be able to prevent you from doxing somebody online.

00:56:22.000 But there's no idea, no matter how despicable, that shouldn't be expressible on any platform.

00:56:28.000 And the remedy for it is to have other people explain why it's a terrible idea.

00:56:33.000 That's the best we got.

00:56:34.000 So, do you think that, like, if Epstein investor class wanted to launch a primetime cable show on CNN advocating for pedophilia, let them do it?

00:56:43.000 Well, like I said, we have a special obligation with respect to pornography.

00:56:48.000 And obviously, you would.

00:56:50.000 No, no, but advocacy of not showing it.

00:56:52.000 Yeah, but still.

00:56:53.000 Going on, making a political argument for legalization.

00:56:56.000 A political argument for legalization, I suppose I would have to accept that on the basis that we could meet it with the obvious counter argument and hopefully people would spot where it is.

00:57:09.000 I just say no.

00:57:12.000 I'm willing to accept that there are moral frameworks and moral worldviews that.

00:57:16.000 And this is the great challenge with the liberty argument, what we've been dealing with for a long time.

00:57:20.000 There is a line I don't think we should allow people to cross.

00:57:24.000 And I am happy to express that as a singular moral framework that exists in my mind and the minds of most people.

00:57:29.000 But there are people who believe in free speech that want to say that.

00:57:32.000 And I say, don't care.

00:57:33.000 Literally don't care.

00:57:33.000 Okay.

00:57:34.000 But now we're back in COVID hell, right?

00:57:36.000 Because you had a bunch of people using wrong arguments to say you shouldn't be allowed to discuss the virulence of COVID or the safety of vaccines or the utility of repurposed drugs.

00:57:53.000 And the fact is, those people got a lot of folks.

00:57:54.000 Killed.

00:57:55.000 And it seems like the real issue at hand was that those with the power had a different moral worldview than I did.

00:58:01.000 The same.

00:58:01.000 And sought to destroy us using that system against us.

00:58:05.000 And so if we adopt the, we will allow them to keep doing what they do as long as we get to do what we do, the end result is we get crushed and they do the bad things.

00:58:12.000 So I think you have just gotten right back to the question about we are in a war in which we have to meet fire with fire.

00:58:20.000 That's not where we should want to be.

00:58:21.000 We should want to get out of that situation as quickly as possible.

00:58:24.000 And the fact is, if you can't trust people in power to make decisions about what Can and cannot be said because you know what they'll do with it.

00:58:31.000 Then we are stuck with any idea should be expressible, and you meet it with the counter idea.

00:58:36.000 That's that's the it's not that that's a good system, it's that it's the best system that we can consider.

00:58:41.000 So, if someone came out and they were like, This there's a virus, and someone's like, This is what you have to do, they gave the wrong information, it got a hundred billion or billions of people believed it.

00:58:51.000 You think that the government should not step in and shut it down, or it would be up to the populace to self regulate?

00:58:57.000 You're saying that to a funny person to be.

00:58:59.000 Land that argument on because the government did step in cryptically and said that Heather and I were spreading COVID disinformation, that we were endangering people, and they muscled the platforms to silence us.

00:59:14.000 And the point is, guess what?

00:59:16.000 We were right and they were doing exactly what they were accusing us of.

00:59:20.000 So the right solution was not to tell them that they couldn't deploy their arguments about ivermectin vaccines, origin of the virus, virulence of the virus.

00:59:29.000 They can deploy their arguments and we can deploy our arguments.

00:59:32.000 And you know what?

00:59:33.000 Our arguments were better and they won.

00:59:36.000 The issue, of course, is the old saying, right?

00:59:40.000 When I am weak, I ask you for rights, you know, because it is according to your principles.

00:59:45.000 But when you are weak, I take them from you.

00:59:46.000 That's according to mine.

00:59:49.000 The view that I've largely had is the inadequacies of liberalism.

00:59:55.000 Liberalism, in the classical sense, the United States, beautiful when everyone shared a moral framework.

00:59:59.000 You didn't need police.

01:00:01.000 I mean, people largely just agreed.

01:00:02.000 If you blasphemed, you went to jail.

01:00:04.000 Everybody agreed. 0.96

01:00:05.000 The First Amendment didn't protect you from blasphemy. 0.82

01:00:07.000 You just went to jail.

01:00:08.000 You were shunned or ostracized or worse.

01:00:10.000 People who would commit serious crimes often didn't get a trial.

01:00:13.000 They just string you up.

01:00:14.000 Everybody agreed.

01:00:16.000 And then people stopped agreeing.

01:00:18.000 Different communities started to pop up.

01:00:19.000 The country expanded.

01:00:21.000 And then we tried to glue these things together and act like they existed under one umbrella.

01:00:26.000 The reality is if I say something like, you can express your political opinion, it's fine, you'll end up with Antifa going and attacking people.

01:00:36.000 And then here's the problem of reality.

01:00:38.000 In the case of Derek Chauvin, a travesty of justice, the jurors were entering a courthouse under armed guard because the rioters were threatening people.

01:00:48.000 Which case was it where the journalist followed?

01:00:50.000 Was it Rittenhouse?

01:00:51.000 The journalist followed the jurors home?

01:00:52.000 Yeah, it was.

01:00:53.000 And yeah.

01:00:54.000 And so when you have things like that, this idea of classical liberalism makes literally no sense.

01:00:59.000 You can say, we're all allowed to speak.

01:01:01.000 But when one side says, oh, and we'll kill you, the juror says, I'm going to do whatever the guy with the gun is telling me to do.

01:01:07.000 I don't care what your argument is. 0.96

01:01:09.000 You've lost.

01:01:10.000 And we sit here and we've tolerated these powerful elites and these rogue street factions.

01:01:16.000 And we've said, but they're allowed to recruit.

01:01:17.000 They're allowed to do it.

01:01:18.000 They're allowed to say it.

01:01:19.000 I say, no.

01:01:20.000 I say, we.

01:01:22.000 Within the confines of our moral framework, there is free speech.

01:01:25.000 That is, you defend free speech, you reject and denounce violence, and never seek to recruit for it, you get free speech.

01:01:33.000 The moment you say we can throw bricks, diversity of tactics, and we have to crush or kill fascists, the people we disagree with, I say, then you get the treatment you've asked for all the same.

01:01:41.000 Well, I agree with that.

01:01:42.000 You're not allowed to advocate for violence.

01:01:45.000 But no one can stop them in the system where we all try to say, Right.

01:01:49.000 We're living the cancerous version of the system.

01:01:52.000 Well, let me clarify.

01:01:53.000 A man stands up on a soapbox and says, Join Antifa, we're peaceful.

01:01:57.000 And we go, no, He's lying.

01:01:59.000 These people are marching around with guns.

01:02:00.000 And he goes, no, no, I'm advocating for peace.

01:02:03.000 And I've just recruited 100 people to come to my meeting.

01:02:05.000 Then he hands out guns and bricks and bottles.

01:02:08.000 It's sad to think that sometimes the more charismatic argumenter will win, even with the worst idea.

01:02:14.000 And that you need threat of force to stop that is crazy.

01:02:18.000 That's so antithetical to communication in the United States.

01:02:21.000 But this is a human reality.

01:02:24.000 There are people who don't want the truth, they don't care.

01:02:28.000 There are people, you see these videos during COVID where a guy is chasing a woman down, screaming, If I have to wear a mask, then you do too.

01:02:34.000 He doesn't care what's true.

01:02:36.000 Fauci going on TV and saying, At first, he says, You don't have to wear two masks.

01:02:42.000 But then he gets asked a few days later, Wouldn't it just make more sense?

01:02:46.000 To which he agrees.

01:02:47.000 And then all of a sudden, double masking appears.

01:02:49.000 These people don't care about what's true.

01:02:51.000 They sought to exert force against you, and they could, because in the end, everything we see is.

01:02:59.000 Again, to the Derek Chauvin case.

01:03:01.000 Or how about the Ahmed Arbery case?

01:03:03.000 The threat of violence from 10 people versus the threat of a finger wag from 1,000.

01:03:09.000 We know what's going to happen.

01:03:11.000 Yeah, I think your argument, Brett, about the best ideas will win.

01:03:14.000 I believe that if there's enough time and people are calm.

01:03:17.000 But when people are agitated and it's an emergency, a bad idea can get super hot traction real fast and you need some authority to stomp it out, I think.

01:03:27.000 I don't think that the best idea necessarily will always win.

01:03:30.000 Because I do think that what Tim is saying is accurate about there being different moral frameworks.

01:03:34.000 So I think, you know, generally, the four of us, five of us, would have been raised with a relatively Christian moral framework, whether there was Christianity involved or not, because we were swimming in those Christian moral framework waters of the United States as it was in the 20th century, you know, and going into the 21st century.

01:03:55.000 But we now have a situation where there are a lot of people who don't think that that is a valid way to look at the world at all.

01:04:02.000 You recently have, and you have a situation too where the people who don't think that that basic Christian worldview is valid think that their worldview is valid and that you, as someone who accepts a basic Christian worldview, have to accept their craziness. 0.87

01:04:17.000 Like, just for an example, you look at this recent viral video on X that was going around today or yesterday, and it's a bunch of Muslims in the UK demanding that all the pubs close because the pubs are next to mosques. 0.95

01:04:30.000 So, I have a question for you, Brett. 0.92

01:04:32.000 Should parents have final say in the medical treatment of their children?

01:04:36.000 Of course.

01:04:37.000 So if a parent decides they want to, at eight years old, surgically sex change their child, it's their choice?

01:04:44.000 Yeah, you caught me.

01:04:46.000 We have to protect kids from disfiguring.

01:04:50.000 So when you say medical, I think we're talking about a judgment call over what is in the medical interest of your child.

01:04:56.000 This is not a judgment call, this is the maiming of children.

01:05:00.000 I would argue that that is the reason I answered the way I did is because within the medical realm, I believe that the right to informed consent is sacrosanct and kids can't exercise it because they can't be properly informed.

01:05:00.000 So then.

01:05:14.000 So, yes, parents have final say.

01:05:16.000 Parents have final say, but not if what you have is a surgical monster who wants to be a surgeon.

01:05:23.000 These are legal in many states.

01:05:24.000 Well, I'm not arguing that they absolutely shouldn't be.

01:05:26.000 It's such a clear violation.

01:05:27.000 In which case, you would argue that there should be, I should say, would you argue then there should be an authority that can go to, say, California and say, the federal government, for instance, we are going to stop you?

01:05:37.000 The parents say our child shall get a sex change.

01:05:40.000 Should the federal government send agents in to stop that from happening?

01:05:42.000 Yes.

01:05:43.000 So then, when, as you mentioned already, with rules we don't want to live under, the inverse happens is that in a state like Florida, when the parents say, absolutely, you will not vaccinate our kids, the Democrat federal government comes in and takes the kids and says, the state has the authority to come in.

01:05:57.000 Now, the only thing you're arguing is your moral worldview, not the principle.

01:06:01.000 No, not at all.

01:06:03.000 I'm arguing that bodies function.

01:06:06.000 The idea that the federal government has the right to mandate an intervention in a functioning human body is absurd.

01:06:13.000 So, these are different things.

01:06:15.000 In one case, you have doctors maiming children, and the federal government has not only a right, but I think an obligation to prevent that from happening.

01:06:24.000 In the other, you have a shot with unknown impact that there's no medical need for.

01:06:32.000 So, I would argue that the very same principle has you preventing the supposedly medical intervention.

01:06:41.000 What if the kid has cancer and the doctor recommends?

01:06:46.000 Chemotherapy, low success rate, and the parents believe that it's not at the point where the child is at risk of dying in the short term, and they want to try something alternative.

01:06:55.000 The state can then say, No, we're coming in.

01:06:59.000 This child's body is not functioning properly, they need medicine.

01:07:01.000 Well, unfortunately, COVID delivered a graduate level education in modern medicine to anybody who was ready to pay attention.

01:07:11.000 I'm not saying you become a medical expert, but a graduate level education in how medicine functions.

01:07:19.000 You're talking about a case where parents are rejecting a doctor's advice.

01:07:26.000 There are many places where it makes sense to reject a doctor's advice because the doctors are perversely incentive or badly educated.

01:07:34.000 Will that mean that someone, like, let's say, a Christian scientist, Christian scientists, as I understand it, believe that medical intervention is never warranted?

01:07:46.000 And so you could have a child born with cancer who the parents refuse to treat.

01:07:50.000 And when the child dies, that will be a tragedy.

01:07:54.000 On the other hand, you might have an instance in which the parents are very well informed and they recognize that there is a more promising therapy for the cancer in question.

01:08:04.000 And then what they're effectively getting is a pharma sales pitch for chemotherapy that's highly destructive and perhaps not very effective.

01:08:12.000 So the question is The answer to the question is as with the case of liberal gun laws.

01:08:21.000 I think we have to tolerate a tiny amount of tragedy.

01:08:24.000 The number of doctors who will turn down medical treatment for their children when their children are in dire need is tiny.

01:08:31.000 And so we have to recognize that the principle that is maximally liberating and valuable of humans is the principle in which you either have an absolute right to informed consent over all medical intervention, or in the case that your child can't exercise informed consent, you have it in their stead.

01:08:51.000 I think that's the best you can do.

01:08:53.000 So.

01:08:54.000 To clarify, there will be some instances where the parents will turn down a known effective treatment, which will kill the child, but we have to allow that.

01:09:00.000 It's a minimal tragedy to protect the rights.

01:09:02.000 Well, not just to protect their rights, but to protect all of the children who will be maimed by doctors prescribing things that are not in the child's interest, which is happening all too frequently.

01:09:13.000 Does this mean that I suppose the argument is against an authority on medicine, that the individual shall choose whether that medicine should be applied regardless of the science?

01:09:28.000 The problem is that the phrase the science in that sentence is doing so much heavy lifting.

01:09:34.000 The way science works, you have inflicting everything.

01:09:37.000 Let me clarify the point so I can train you.

01:09:38.000 My point is you're an adult.

01:09:41.000 Every doctor on the planet agrees, even you, that there is this antibiotic that is going to cure your bacterial infection.

01:09:46.000 And he goes, nope.

01:09:47.000 And you say, okay.

01:09:48.000 Now, like we are saying, this person will get sick.

01:09:51.000 They will die of consumption or whatever or syphilis because they're refusing this known treatment, but we're going to allow that.

01:09:58.000 Right.

01:09:58.000 But what you need to compare that little tragedy to is the massive tragedy in comparison of all of the people who are killed annually by doctors.

01:10:09.000 No, no, I understand that.

01:10:10.000 So, again, just clarifying the moral point, people have a right to turn down effective treatments even if it means they'll die.

01:10:16.000 Here's the deeper moral point.

01:10:18.000 It's really a point about natural law.

01:10:20.000 You are a creature, you are built to function, and you have a mind, and you are built to reason.

01:10:27.000 We have all of this technology.

01:10:29.000 It is.

01:10:30.000 Advertised as doing one thing, it very frequently does other things rather than what is advertised.

01:10:40.000 Are we in a position to tell you, as either the patient or the parent of a patient, that you have to take the word of this authority?

01:10:48.000 What authorities do we have that are so good that we should be able to order you to do that?

01:10:52.000 And I would say none.

01:10:53.000 Right.

01:10:53.000 So just to clarify, if there was a person who had a bacterial infection, everyone agrees the antibiotic is going to cure it.

01:10:58.000 If they don't take it, they're going to die in a couple of years.

01:11:00.000 They're going to get sepsis, whatever might happen.

01:11:00.000 It's going to spread.

01:11:02.000 That's the person's choice to get to just wither away.

01:11:05.000 Yes, if you want to make it tough, then the question is with an infectious agent, what do we do to protect other people from so now we come to the next question, which is a contagion, which is hantavirus?

01:11:16.000 Yep, and do we then say we've decided that because we believe you have hantavirus and we don't know for sure, we're taking your rights from you?

01:11:24.000 Actually, that right does exist.

01:11:26.000 The right to quarantine the sick does exist in very exotic cases, and the case of.

01:11:33.000 The MV Hondius and those who emerged from it might be such a case.

01:11:39.000 Let's pull it up.

01:11:40.000 Got the story here from CBS.

01:11:41.000 You see, I was walking there.

01:11:42.000 I was walking there.

01:11:43.000 CBS News, two Maryland residents monitored after potential hantavirus exposure.

01:11:49.000 Health officials say, we've got this from NPR.

01:11:51.000 U.S. cruise ship passengers arrive in the U.S. after one test's positive for hantavirus.

01:11:56.000 That's it.

01:11:58.000 We're all done.

01:11:59.000 It's going to spread.

01:12:00.000 It's got a one.

01:12:00.000 I'm just kidding.

01:12:01.000 Likely, I think nothing's going to happen.

01:12:03.000 I think it's exceedingly rare.

01:12:05.000 I believe the reason it's getting a lot of attention is because it's getting a lot of clicks.

01:12:09.000 So it's created a cycle of, you know, what I described it as low event volume last week.

01:12:15.000 So Seriously, we had very slow news days.

01:12:18.000 Libby was here.

01:12:18.000 We were talking about it.

01:12:19.000 Everyone's shrugging, like, what's the story today?

01:12:21.000 And Hantavirus seems to be the most interesting thing.

01:12:24.000 So it gets a lot of attention.

01:12:26.000 And when I say low event volume, I'm describing at the national and international level, things of magnitude were fairly stagnant.

01:12:33.000 Now, at the local level, sure, but the goings on of a police involved shooting in Oklahoma doesn't matter much to New Yorkers. 0.97

01:12:40.000 Hantavirus was a story that could theoretically affect the whole world and likely would as these people start returning to their home countries.

01:12:47.000 And thus it generated a lot of attention that I don't think is warranted, but correct me if I'm wrong.

01:12:51.000 Well, I would say this is a story that we have to think about very carefully because Hantavirus is not new.

01:12:58.000 It is not new that we have an outbreak amongst humans.

01:13:02.000 The story of the MV Hondius does not add up as presented, but we don't know why it doesn't add up.

01:13:10.000 What do you mean?

01:13:10.000 We'll start there.

01:13:12.000 All right.

01:13:13.000 We have a ship that left Argentina on April 1st, I believe, on.

01:13:23.000 April 16th.

01:13:26.000 Are you sure it was April 1st?

01:13:28.000 Track Hanta, I'm not saying it's correct, says March 20th.

01:13:31.000 You know, there is some disagreement between different sources.

01:13:34.000 I think it's April 1st, but I don't know.

01:13:35.000 It could be that I'm looking at the wrong source.

01:13:38.000 But nonetheless, what we have, irrespective of which of those dates is correct, what we have is an individual who shows symptoms of Hanta virus and then gets so sick he dies.

01:13:51.000 His wife then gets very sick.

01:13:53.000 She ultimately dies.

01:13:55.000 We've now had three deaths from this ship.

01:13:59.000 Hantavirus is well known in its basic epidemiology.

01:14:05.000 Real quick point.

01:14:06.000 On further inspection, another source says April 1st.

01:14:09.000 Trek Hanta says 20th, but you're probably right.

01:14:12.000 I've seen this disagreement before, and I really don't know what the right answer is.

01:14:14.000 I've just seen April 1st enough times that I'm inclined to believe it.

01:14:17.000 It's funny that it's not a well established fact enough to settle it.

01:14:22.000 Yeah, isn't that odd?

01:14:23.000 But okay, so you have a case in which Hantavirus is circulating on a ship.

01:14:28.000 There are eight known cases.

01:14:29.000 We have two more likely cases after.

01:14:32.000 After the ship, the passengers disembarked.

01:14:35.000 The question is how could you get this number of cases on the ship?

01:14:41.000 And there are only a small number of answers.

01:14:44.000 First of all, you should know Hantavirus is not conveyed between people.

01:14:48.000 It's not contagious between people, except maybe the particular Andean strain.

01:14:54.000 But that is far less certain than people think.

01:14:57.000 The evidence of it being transmitted between people is quite weak.

01:15:03.000 Peter McCullough put a paper on his X feed, a meta analysis.

01:15:09.000 Actually, they couldn't do a meta analysis because the data was of too many different types, but they did a review of all of the available evidence and concluded it was actually unlikely that even the Andean strain is capable of transmitting between people.

01:15:23.000 So, one possibility is that either there were rodents on the ship, another possibility is that one of the suppliers of the ship had a rodent problem, and so Some rice or something was brought in that was contaminated.

01:15:38.000 Don't forget the bird watching at the dump.

01:15:40.000 Well, the bird watching at the dump is pretty fishy because hantavirus.

01:15:47.000 Here's the thing it's a really bad disease.

01:15:49.000 You don't want it.

01:15:50.000 It's very.

01:15:51.000 40% mortality rate?

01:15:52.000 40% mortality if you don't get good medical help.

01:15:58.000 It's much less, but it's still a ferociously high case fatality rate.

01:16:03.000 So the question is still how could you get this many cases on a ship of something like 150 people in the period of time that you've got?

01:16:14.000 And all of the various explanations are pretty weak, right?

01:16:18.000 Let's say that the bird watcher did go to the dump and he dropped a piece of food and was thoughtless and picked it up and ate it and contracted Hantavirus.

01:16:27.000 Okay, it's pretty.

01:16:30.000 Is that what they said?

01:16:31.000 Is that what they said happened?

01:16:31.000 What?

01:16:32.000 No, it's just because they went to the bird watcher.

01:16:35.000 It's my just putting together a model, proof of concept.

01:16:37.000 Here's how I would build this little outbreak from that exposure.

01:16:42.000 Okay, so he contracts it in a known way.

01:16:45.000 He goes on the ship.

01:16:46.000 He's rooming.

01:16:47.000 With his wife, maybe they're doing other things.

01:16:50.000 That's close contact between two people.

01:16:52.000 That if the Andean strain of hantavirus is capable of transmitting between humans, she could have gotten it.

01:16:58.000 Okay?

01:16:59.000 That gets us to two.

01:17:01.000 Three is harder to figure.

01:17:05.000 Ordinarily, even those who believe that hantavirus is transmitted between people believe it is not easily transmitted between people.

01:17:11.000 It requires effectively intimate contact, like doctors contacting bodily fluids.

01:17:18.000 Maybe they were, you know, getting.

01:17:20.000 Yeah, was it some other kind of cruise?

01:17:23.000 I don't think so.

01:17:25.000 These were people going to look at penguins.

01:17:26.000 So, you know.

01:17:29.000 Okay.

01:17:30.000 So, anyway, you can get to two.

01:17:33.000 It's hard to get to eight cases from a sick individual.

01:17:37.000 Now, how would you, if I wanted to make the argument for this being totally natural, I would say, well, this was a ship in polar waters.

01:17:47.000 It's very cold.

01:17:48.000 So, the HVAC system has to work over time to keep such a ship warm.

01:17:52.000 And it has to be biased towards recirculating air that's already been warmed and has cooled off a little bit rather than pulling in really cold air from the outside and warming it up.

01:18:01.000 For energetic reasons, that would be what they did.

01:18:03.000 So maybe the HVAC system is pumping aerosolized Hantavirus through the ship.

01:18:12.000 But even that, given how poorly transmissible this is, that is unlikely to work.

01:18:18.000 For one thing, the HVAC system would be very dry.

01:18:21.000 Is it possible that someone on this boat was some kind of UFO related researcher?

01:18:28.000 I'm not going to touch the UFO thing yet.

01:18:30.000 We can go back to UFOs, but frankly, you're.

01:18:32.000 So, are you saying it was an intentional infection?

01:18:35.000 No.

01:18:35.000 I'm saying, look, the most natural way for eight people on a ship of 150 to get a hantavirus infection is for there to have been mice on the ship.

01:18:45.000 But so far, we've been told no mice have been found on the ship.

01:18:49.000 That's bizarre.

01:18:50.000 Well, they're probably just lying about the mice because they don't get sued.

01:18:52.000 Yeah, but who's lying about the mice?

01:18:54.000 You know, we've got the WHO and the CDC weighing in on this.

01:18:57.000 Why does the ship?

01:18:58.000 Get any say at all in what the public discovers.

01:19:01.000 Frankly, the best answer from the point of view of planet Earth is that there were mice on that ship, there was Hantavirus circulating, an unfortunate number of people got sick, and the world can go back to doing what it was doing.

01:19:13.000 Agreed.

01:19:14.000 Right?

01:19:15.000 Slightly worse if it was a supplier, because now you've got who else got the grain.

01:19:20.000 But Hantavirus doesn't live very long outside of a rodent.

01:19:24.000 So basically, the point is look, if you were really interested in public health, this would be your number one concern.

01:19:30.000 How exactly did this infection spread through that ship?

01:19:33.000 If it was mice on the ship, if it was a supplier that was contaminated, then we know exactly what to do.

01:19:38.000 You have to go after that supplier and make sure that anything that it distributed is cleared.

01:19:43.000 You have to clean the ship and make sure there are no rodents persisting.

01:19:47.000 But the point is global issue, not remotely.

01:19:50.000 But it's never a global issue with Hantavirus.

01:19:52.000 Hantavirus outbreaks happen, they're very tragic.

01:19:55.000 I think the media is propping it up because they're desperate.

01:19:58.000 Yes, but you also have, you know, the WHO, I think probably in response to.

01:20:04.000 One of my posts and Mary Tally Bowden's post put out a statement saying that ivermectin wasn't going to work.

01:20:12.000 Now, this is crazy.

01:20:13.000 Why is the who saying this?

01:20:15.000 Because you're a high profile individual and this story.

01:20:19.000 I like one hypothesis.

01:20:22.000 It's just, in my view, that we have international and national news stagnation.

01:20:28.000 And it's not that nothing is happening, it's that nothing's developing.

01:20:30.000 So we know there's ongoing operations in Iran, but no one wants to hear today a boat move left and right.

01:20:36.000 They want.

01:20:37.000 Hey, what has Iran said?

01:20:38.000 What has changed?

01:20:39.000 So you then post about it.

01:20:41.000 They respond to a high profile attention to a matter.

01:20:46.000 How dare they?

01:20:47.000 Frankly, what I said and.

01:20:50.000 They're as bored as everybody else.

01:20:51.000 What Mary Tally Bowden said was, ivermectin will likely work on this.

01:20:56.000 Why?

01:20:57.000 Because it's a single stranded RNA virus.

01:20:59.000 And ivermectin works generally across single stranded RNA viruses.

01:21:03.000 That's what I said.

01:21:04.000 What does it do?

01:21:04.000 If I had to bet.

01:21:05.000 What does the ivermectin do?

01:21:06.000 Oh, that's an interesting story.

01:21:08.000 The answer is, we don't know.

01:21:10.000 There are many.

01:21:11.000 Mechanisms of action.

01:21:13.000 One of them in the case of hantavirus is less likely to work because hantavirus reproduces in the cytoplasm of the cell.

01:21:19.000 It does not reproduce in the nucleus.

01:21:21.000 But even that mechanism may be on the table because it communicates with the nucleus.

01:21:25.000 So what you have is a drug that is as safe as any drug that we've got, right?

01:21:30.000 The amount of ivermectin you have to take to hurt yourself is unthinkable.

01:21:34.000 Well, I don't know.

01:21:35.000 I was watching CNN and Joe Rogan looked real green and they put a little horse icon next to him.

01:21:39.000 He sure did look green.

01:21:41.000 Not to interrupt, but just for the context, we all don't know.

01:21:44.000 During the COVID stuff, Joe Rogan.

01:21:46.000 Made a video for Instagram.

01:21:47.000 CNN ran a video where he looked green.

01:21:50.000 They changed the color and they put a horse, a little icon of a horse in their description.

01:21:56.000 Ivermectin is a prescribed medication for human beings to treat parasites.

01:22:01.000 And when Joe Rogan said that he was prescribed it, they put a horse symbol and called it a horse dewormer.

01:22:06.000 That's a lie.

01:22:07.000 A horse dewormer, even though it has been labeled by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine and been given billions of times to humans.

01:22:15.000 A miracle drug.

01:22:16.000 Yeah.

01:22:17.000 I mean, it also works for horses, but it's not working.

01:22:20.000 Let me just throw this out there, too.

01:22:21.000 Another crazy thing is on my Wikipedia, it says that when I got COVID, I explained that I was getting treated with ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, which is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened.

01:22:32.000 What actually happened was I did not get ivermectin, I got monoclonal antibodies.

01:22:37.000 Five days later, on the phone with the doctor, she said, I want you to take ivermectin.

01:22:41.000 And I said, No.

01:22:43.000 I said, I feel great, never felt better.

01:22:45.000 The monoclonals worked, and I don't want to take something I don't need.

01:22:48.000 And she said, Well, I'm your doctor.

01:22:49.000 And I am telling you, I want you to take it.

01:22:52.000 And I said, from what I've read, I don't see that it's going to do anything particular at this point either.

01:22:58.000 And I told this story at the time.

01:23:00.000 And she said, listen, maybe, but it won't hurt you at all either.

01:23:04.000 So how about you take it, nothing happens, and we're all happy?

01:23:08.000 But in the event, even if it's rare, something does happen, don't you wish you would have just agreed?

01:23:14.000 And I said, listen, I'm not going to argue with the doctor.

01:23:16.000 So you tell me what to do, and I do it.

01:23:19.000 They then, these lefty media outlets, then wrote, Tim Poole advocates for ivermectin, despite the fact my whole story was me saying no.

01:23:25.000 It's insane what they were doing in the media.

01:23:27.000 I heard that it was that ivermectin's a worm stunner.

01:23:29.000 I've been calling it a worm stunner that it paralyzes the worms in your body, which then allows your immune system to kick on.

01:23:38.000 Sort of.

01:23:39.000 What it does is it takes the worm by the head over its shoulder, back drops.

01:23:45.000 Were you saying it?

01:23:46.000 Do you know I got multiple reach outs from media about when you had COVID?

01:23:51.000 People were contacting me from all different outlets.

01:23:53.000 And I was like, it was like they were so desperate to lie.

01:23:56.000 And they were running stories saying that I was the poster boy for Ivermectin.

01:23:56.000 Yeah.

01:24:00.000 That's what they called it.

01:24:01.000 Okay, so this is the point.

01:24:02.000 I will come back to your question in a second.

01:24:05.000 Why is the WHO contradicting me?

01:24:09.000 It can make its argument if it wants, but I'm a biologist making an argument for a very safe medication and its likelihood of being effective based on the fact that this virus happens to belong to a class of viruses in which ivermectin is generally effective.

01:24:25.000 So they have no business tamping this down.

01:24:28.000 Further, it turns out that hydroxychloroquine, which I have not mentioned until now, Is effective against hantavirus.

01:24:35.000 That comes from a researcher who actually works on hantavirus.

01:24:38.000 So we have repurposed drugs with a well known safety profile that one of them does work and one of them may work.

01:24:47.000 So to tamp this down is absurd.

01:24:50.000 For one thing, there's an obvious question.

01:24:52.000 At the point that it was discovered that what was on the MV Hondius was hantavirus, were they given these medications?

01:25:00.000 It would have been a really good idea, right?

01:25:02.000 In ivermectin's case, because it's low risk and has a probability of working.

01:25:07.000 In hydroxychloroquine's case, because apparently it does work.

01:25:10.000 So, are we trying to control the infection or not?

01:25:14.000 Why did these people go home and now we're worried about it having spread across the world?

01:25:19.000 This is what I'm saying.

01:25:20.000 A narrative is being crafted.

01:25:21.000 Well, right.

01:25:22.000 So, your point, I think, was people are interested in this because it's interesting.

01:25:27.000 Maybe they're primed for it after COVID.

01:25:29.000 And my point is okay, that would be great if the only thing that was happening is the public is talking about hantavirus, but officialdom is talking about hantavirus now, too.

01:25:38.000 Deborah Burks actually showed up and said we should be testing the population for Hontavirus with PCR, which is absurd.

01:25:45.000 I got to say, though, a lot of people have said, you know, I will not comply, right?

01:25:51.000 I'm just going to let you all know.

01:25:52.000 You will.

01:25:53.000 You will.

01:25:54.000 You absolutely will.

01:25:55.000 Brett, you will too.

01:25:56.000 What will I comply with?

01:25:57.000 You will comply with Hontavirus lockdown and you will choose to do it.

01:26:02.000 No, my car may decide not to start.

01:26:05.000 When there are people who are literally at 40% mortality, like if we actually saw a real Hontavirus outbreak, That somehow was spreading rapidly from person to person.

01:26:14.000 And you look out your window and you see people collapsing in city centers, people are going to say, I don't need a lockdown.

01:26:20.000 I'm getting the heck out of the city.

01:26:22.000 Okay.

01:26:22.000 They will choose to do it.

01:26:24.000 But you said, I will comply.

01:26:26.000 First thing I want to know is, is this a rerun of COVID where they tried to lock us indoors, which is literally the only place the virus spreads?

01:26:33.000 Okay.

01:26:34.000 Because the exact place you should have been during COVID was out on the beach or surfing or on a trail.

01:26:40.000 That's where you should have been.

01:26:41.000 You should have been in the skate park, right? 0.83

01:26:43.000 So, Heather and I screamed bloody murder about this.

01:26:46.000 And I think, I think we're never going to know, but Heather and I were like the lone voices saying, Hey, wait a minute.

01:26:52.000 Look at the evidence.

01:26:52.000 It doesn't transmit outdoors.

01:26:55.000 We can go live our lives like normal if we can figure out how to dress for the weather.

01:26:59.000 It was that simple.

01:27:01.000 And instead, they locked us inside.

01:27:03.000 And at the same time, they told us, Don't get treatment till your lips turn blue.

01:27:08.000 Well, what's true about these viruses?

01:27:10.000 You have to treat them early or it doesn't work.

01:27:12.000 Let me clarify my point on complying.

01:27:15.000 Nobody wants to be locked down to go through what we went through during COVID, but there will be a psychological difference between what COVID was.

01:27:24.000 What was the mortality with COVID?

01:27:25.000 Like 0.3 or?

01:27:26.000 Yeah.

01:27:26.000 Very, very low.

01:27:27.000 It was like a very low, and it was people who were already close to death.

01:27:32.000 Honda virus is 40% without proper treatment.

01:27:34.000 I think it's 5 to 15% in the first world.

01:27:37.000 When we're looking at death rates of that magnitude, people are going to be in major cities, it's going to be tenfold what COVID was.

01:27:44.000 These liberals are going to be like, govern me harder, daddy.

01:27:47.000 In rural and conservative areas, people are going to generally oppose forced lockdowns, but overwhelmingly will avoid dense populated areas that would have high levels of infection.

01:27:58.000 Well, I don't know whether or not the dynamics of hantavirus look anything like COVID and whether or not the outdoor environment is safe, although there are reasons to imagine, even just based on simple principles, that it will be less likely to transmit.

01:28:13.000 Unless, of course, this is a gain of function hantavirus.

01:28:16.000 Right, which is a great question.

01:28:17.000 And then they just claim a new strain has emerged transmitting from human to human.

01:28:23.000 We don't know how.

01:28:23.000 Okay, but let's play that through.

01:28:25.000 For one thing, we know there was a.

01:28:29.000 Report of many vials of viruses having been lost from a lab in Australia.

01:28:34.000 One of them, at least one of them, was hantavirus.

01:28:36.000 So we know that this virus has been in laboratories.

01:28:39.000 We don't know what it has been used for.

01:28:42.000 But the problem with gain of function.

01:28:45.000 Here you go.

01:28:48.000 Oh, jeez.

01:28:49.000 AOL, hantavirus bombshell as two vials of deadly rat virus vanished from Australian lab in 2021.

01:28:54.000 So let me tell you what we do know, okay?

01:28:57.000 Initial reports on the genetics of the strain that is currently circulating.

01:29:01.000 And this is all dependent on whether or not our data is any good.

01:29:04.000 But early reports suggest that there is no major gap between the strain that is circulating and the strain that we know from the wild.

01:29:12.000 That's good news.

01:29:13.000 That means that it wasn't under development for a long number of years.

01:29:17.000 It doesn't show that initial hallmark, which means we're probably dealing with Hantavirus like it exists in the wild, which means that even if you have an unfortunate outbreak like this, it's not going to take over the world by wildfire.

01:29:28.000 It's not a candidate for that kind of pandemic.

01:29:31.000 If it does, I think it's going to be one of two things.

01:29:35.000 One of them is PSYOP, and the other is gain of function.

01:29:39.000 But gain of function has, it is the solution to a problem from the point of view of the weapons makers, and it has a problem of its own, which is that once it escapes into the wild, natural selection takes over.

01:29:52.000 The powers that be, the whatever you want to call the Davos group, these groups, they don't actually need the virus.

01:30:00.000 They only need three cases to which they can then start saying there are deaths.

01:30:04.000 But for one thing.

01:30:06.000 But for the podcast world and free speech, which is exactly why I'm defending it.

01:30:12.000 Agreed, but I would still argue that if every cable channel came out and said seven cases confirmed in New York, it appears to be spreading, the podcast will run with it too.

01:30:22.000 Well, I don't know what you mean by the podcast.

01:30:25.000 I'm talking about the podcast on the streets.

01:30:27.000 Oh, yeah.

01:30:28.000 Okay.

01:30:28.000 Are going to say, we now have, if the New York Times were in a report saying seven cases of Hantavirus emerged in New York City, you'd be like, nope, I don't believe it.

01:30:34.000 Yeah, but.

01:30:35.000 But, but, but, or would you be like, what's being reported?

01:30:38.000 Well, I wouldn't.

01:30:39.000 I'm going to keep going to the evidence and saying, does it add up?

01:30:43.000 And, you know, Heather and I are going to go through the same process we did with COVID, very painful, trying to sort out.

01:30:48.000 I understand.

01:30:49.000 My question is if the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, MS Now, all were reporting that we just saw an emergence of seven cases in New York, would you say that's not true?

01:30:59.000 They are all lying.

01:31:01.000 Or would you just say, it appears that we have these cases being reported?

01:31:05.000 I would do exactly what I'm doing here, which is I would say, that's interesting.

01:31:09.000 Because that doesn't sound like hantavirus from the wild.

01:31:12.000 Let's look at these cases and what the putative mechanism of transmission was and see whether or not we're being fed a story.

01:31:18.000 My point is if with these cases on this boat, you now have a prime narrative, a narrative primed, if a managing editor walks into his newsroom in New York and just says, We just got a huge report, internal documents from the CDC, check this out.

01:31:36.000 We've got seven confirmed cases in New York.

01:31:38.000 They're running that unquestionable.

01:31:40.000 People who are at the New York Times are going to go, I'll write it up.

01:31:43.000 I'll get some comments from various health agencies and experts.

01:31:46.000 The reaction to that would be the city would announce, don't worry, it's all under control.

01:31:46.000 And experts.

01:31:51.000 They lock things down.

01:31:52.000 You need only one lie one time from one bad person in government.

01:31:57.000 And you know what the New York Times is going to say?

01:31:58.000 They're going to go, ooh, they're going to jump up on their table and start jumping around.

01:32:01.000 And they're going to be saying, we're about to get paid.

01:32:03.000 That's what they did with COVID.

01:32:03.000 They're trying.

01:32:05.000 But people are immune, dude.

01:32:05.000 One lie, man.

01:32:07.000 I just read here, but I want to get to the next one.

01:32:08.000 Just to keep it on the box.

01:32:10.000 I just read Polymarket announced May 8th, Moderna announces it's working on a Hantavirus vaccine.

01:32:15.000 Yep.

01:32:16.000 Now, they've been working on that for a few years, though, right?

01:32:18.000 Yes.

01:32:19.000 But here's the question.

01:32:20.000 And Heather and I covered this on our last podcast.

01:32:23.000 The economics on a hantavirus vaccine don't make any sense.

01:32:28.000 Given the amount it costs to bring a vaccine to market, the number of cases of hantavirus per year in the world is tiny.

01:32:38.000 And the number needed to treat, which is the value you should be tracking, is through the roof.

01:32:42.000 In other words, how many people do you have to jab in the arm before you prevent one case, let alone one death?

01:32:48.000 It's through the roof.

01:32:49.000 Right.

01:32:50.000 So, There's no reason in the world that I can think of, at least, that you would invest in Hantavirus as a target for your vaccine unless you thought there was some reason that Hantavirus was going to start doing something.

01:33:04.000 Are you saying I should buy some Moderna?

01:33:06.000 Wow, maybe.

01:33:07.000 Because, like, as you were saying, you sparked the fear into the people. 1.00

01:33:11.000 And then they go rush to the store to get the stupid thing. 1.00

01:33:14.000 I mean, I think that's the tactic. 1.00

01:33:15.000 Right.

01:33:16.000 Well, I don't know what the tactic is.

01:33:17.000 Moderna just spiked 16% in the past week.

01:33:20.000 Did it?

01:33:20.000 Oh, they just announced their Hantavirus.

01:33:21.000 That's fascinating.

01:33:22.000 That's fascinating.

01:33:24.000 So, I would just in the last three months, they're up 40%.

01:33:28.000 Wow.

01:33:28.000 What?

01:33:29.000 Fascinating.

01:33:30.000 For a company that brought out a lethal shot, the platform on which it's based, be so dangerous.

01:33:30.000 Wait, hold on.

01:33:36.000 In the past year, for the past six months, they've been spiking up.

01:33:40.000 Six months before that, nothing.

01:33:41.000 Stagnation.

01:33:42.000 Why is 112% in a year?

01:33:47.000 Something doesn't add up.

01:33:48.000 Profit taking after the Hantavirus vaccine rally.

01:33:51.000 Indeed, Robinhood's literally saying.

01:33:53.000 The price is rallying over news about the Hantavirus vaccine.

01:33:56.000 And hold on, hold on.

01:33:57.000 It makes no sense.

01:33:58.000 What if the story is actually just planted to drive, like, they're working on a vaccine that, you know, nobody really needs?

01:34:06.000 It's a hypothesis.

01:34:07.000 And frankly, it makes sense.

01:34:10.000 It would make sense of a story that otherwise does not make a lot of sense.

01:34:14.000 So, how much should I buy of Moderna?

01:34:18.000 Your interests as a citizen and as a human are counter to your interests as an investor.

01:34:25.000 But, So, you're saying I should buy Palantir as well?

01:34:31.000 This is the position we're all in.

01:34:32.000 I know you're kidding, but it's the position we're all in.

01:34:35.000 But I want to go back to your point about the New York Times.

01:34:38.000 Yes, the New York Times will do exactly what you're saying, and the majority of podcasts will go along with them.

01:34:43.000 But there is a reason that they strong arm us when we don't do it.

01:34:48.000 Do you know when my podcast got demonetized?

01:34:51.000 No, when was that?

01:34:53.000 June of 2021, after I put on Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and talked about COVID.

01:35:00.000 And the mRNA vaccines.

01:35:02.000 Okay.

01:35:02.000 Robert is the inventor of the technology on which those vaccines are based.

01:35:06.000 They claimed he wasn't.

01:35:08.000 Right.

01:35:08.000 It's weird.

01:35:09.000 They sure did.

01:35:10.000 And it's absurd.

01:35:11.000 He has the patents.

01:35:12.000 It's not a subjective question.

01:35:14.000 Yeah.

01:35:14.000 Right?

01:35:15.000 He wasn't the only person involved.

01:35:16.000 But yes, he has the patents on the technology.

01:35:19.000 So Robert Malone comes on.

01:35:22.000 YouTube demonetizes us, strikes the channel, is clearly going to eliminate us.

01:35:27.000 I go on Joe Rogan's podcast.

01:35:29.000 Joe calls it an emergency podcast.

01:35:32.000 Break the story about what YouTube is doing to us.

01:35:34.000 And YouTube makes a decision behind the scenes, which we can now reverse engineer.

01:35:39.000 That decision was they will make no money.

01:35:42.000 They ultimately went back to putting ads on our stuff, which we didn't see any of the money from.

01:35:47.000 But the other interesting thing, well, oh, and they capped the growth of the channel.

01:35:50.000 The channel was growing exponentially and it plateaued.

01:35:54.000 And it was plateaued until they remonetized us without explanation five years afterwards.

01:35:59.000 The algorithm is driven by sale volume on ads.

01:36:03.000 So if they can't sell ads on your content, then the algorithm won't promote the content.

01:36:06.000 Yeah, but it was worse than that.

01:36:08.000 It went like this.

01:36:10.000 The moment they demonetized you, the algorithm stopped recommending your channel.

01:36:10.000 That's what I'm saying.

01:36:14.000 But even when they started putting ads on our channel, It remained plateaued until they remonetized us without explanation.

01:36:14.000 Right.

01:36:21.000 But the other interesting feature of what they did to us is that apparently there was some, and we know that this discussion went on in the C suite of YouTube.

01:36:29.000 We think it was with the CEO, but nonetheless, in the C suite of YouTube, they decided to demonetize us and cap the channel without telling us that they did it or by whatever mechanism they did it.

01:36:40.000 And they decided to stop harassing us.

01:36:43.000 I think going on Joe Rogan's podcast was so painful to them.

01:36:47.000 That they didn't want it to happen again.

01:36:49.000 So they had to go hands off.

01:36:51.000 And so we spent those five years, and it remains true today.

01:36:54.000 We can apparently say anything we want, and they don't touch us.

01:36:57.000 So that's an interesting fact of history.

01:36:59.000 But my larger point is why did they turn Joe green?

01:37:05.000 Why did they demonetize us and try to throw us off YouTube and then make some high level decision to quarantine us?

01:37:13.000 Because what we were doing mattered, right?

01:37:16.000 Because it didn't matter that the New York Times was spreading the conventional wisdom.

01:37:20.000 What was going on in the podcast world with Robert Malone and Heather and me and Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole and all of those people?

01:37:29.000 That mattered a lot.

01:37:31.000 Because people were finding the channels where the information was at least well intentioned, right?

01:37:31.000 Why?

01:37:37.000 And that's the thing we have to protect because it matters this time.

01:37:41.000 I want to show everybody this real quick.

01:37:43.000 So, this is the CNN article.

01:37:47.000 Joe Rogan, controversial podcast host, has tested positive for COVID 19.

01:37:50.000 And here's the image.

01:37:52.000 Here's the AP.

01:37:53.000 No evidence video color was manipulated in CNN news segments.

01:37:56.000 And then here's the actual comparison from Instagram.

01:37:59.000 It's a grainy because Instagram thumbnail.

01:38:02.000 On Joe's actual post, you can see he looks normal on CNN.

01:38:05.000 He was green.

01:38:06.000 And I can go to CNN and he's green still to this day.

01:38:06.000 Oh my God.

01:38:10.000 One of the world's highest paid. 0.97

01:38:13.000 They made him green. 1.00

01:38:13.000 Ivory. 1.00

01:38:14.000 Look at this.

01:38:14.000 Mectin.

01:38:15.000 They made him green.

01:38:16.000 It's crazy.

01:38:18.000 And then on CNN, they had an image of Joe.

01:38:22.000 And on the left side of the screen was like a panel where they put information on ivermectin, calling it a horse dewormer.

01:38:27.000 And for some reason, they put a little horse icon.

01:38:30.000 They literally took a little image of a horse.

01:38:33.000 What?

01:38:34.000 Dude, it was, I mean, it was the most concerted effort governmentally I've ever seen to stifle humanity.

01:38:40.000 No, no, it was like high school kids were put in charge of the PSYOP.

01:38:45.000 Yeah, it was clumsy.

01:38:46.000 And that's one of the things that we learned a lot from because we got to see the curtain pulled back on the PSYOP.

01:38:53.000 And the fact is, I said earlier that we won.

01:38:56.000 We didn't really win.

01:38:58.000 We punched way above our weight class.

01:38:58.000 Okay.

01:39:01.000 We definitely defeated them in their effort to keep the origin of the virus quiet, to cause people to universally embrace the vaccines, to believe that they were safe and effective.

01:39:14.000 But in the end, people are awake that something happened during COVID that was unholy.

01:39:22.000 So that was an important victory.

01:39:25.000 And this Hantavirus story, if it is just people talking themselves into a frenzy, fine.

01:39:31.000 But if officialdom is.

01:39:35.000 Playing games again, they are probably playing them for a reason.

01:39:39.000 And we need to know what that reason is because Hantavirus is not a natural for this role at all.

01:39:45.000 Well, it's easy to strip people of their rights in an emergency.

01:39:48.000 Exactly.

01:39:49.000 I mean, the Moderna vaccine story from three days ago is crazy, dude.

01:39:54.000 How can you even begin to say it's a coincidence?

01:39:56.000 It's maybe it's a coincidence, Moderna.

01:40:00.000 Maybe.

01:40:01.000 Maybe this just happened to happen within a week.

01:40:08.000 Maybe.

01:40:09.000 Maybe they didn't stifle the news for three days to let the Hantavirus story go wild.

01:40:12.000 Maybe they didn't do that.

01:40:14.000 Well, I think people need to understand that whatever else it may have been, the COVID pandemic was the debut of gene therapies dressed up as vaccines.

01:40:28.000 They changed the definition of vaccine.

01:40:31.000 That's wild, huh?

01:40:31.000 I know they did.

01:40:32.000 It is wild.

01:40:33.000 Because if they had said to people, oh, we're going to require you to take a gene therapy, people would have said, huh?

01:40:39.000 What's the value of the gene therapy?

01:40:41.000 Assuming steel manning the argument, you get some badass mRNA treatment.

01:40:44.000 Like, what's the good upside of it? 0.92

01:40:46.000 Well, you want to know?

01:40:48.000 Yeah.

01:40:48.000 From the point of view of the vaccine making industry, it is the ultimate cash cow for multiple different reasons.

01:41:00.000 It streamlines the process of creating a vaccine and it cuts right through the regulatory apparatus because the argument that they're going to make is we tested the platform.

01:41:12.000 It's safe.

01:41:13.000 So we've just loaded a new gene in.

01:41:15.000 The only thing we have to do is test that new gene and the antigen it produces.

01:41:18.000 As long as they're safe, then the whole thing is safe.

01:41:20.000 Now, the fact is, none of it's safe and it can't be made safe.

01:41:24.000 Anything you load into that mRNA platform is going to be dangerous.

01:41:28.000 It's going to do the same damage to the body that the COVID shots did and it's going to show up in the heart.

01:41:33.000 That's.

01:41:34.000 I want to show you guys this post from Jack Posobic.

01:41:36.000 He tweeted, What if instead of a vaccine, we just were able to get exposed to a weak version of the virus that enabled us to build the antibodies we need to fight the real thing?

01:41:44.000 Of course, Jack's point was that mRNA vaccines were totally different from the, what is it, attenuated virus?

01:41:50.000 Is that what it's called?

01:41:51.000 Vaccines, vaccinations, which were in the past what vaccines would do.

01:41:51.000 Yeah.

01:41:55.000 And Jack was making that point.

01:41:58.000 And this guy, Dave Jorgensen, said the anti vaxxers went so far right, they looped around and invented vaccinations.

01:42:04.000 These people, I'm wondering if the real left right divide is sub 70 IQ versus everyone else.

01:42:13.000 And I'm being intentionally.

01:42:17.000 Mean, these individuals had no idea, and to this day have no idea what is actually going on in the world.

01:42:23.000 They see this post from Jack, and they are so far removed from the context of the real conversation around this technology, they genuinely believed the COVID vaccinations were attenuated virus vaccines.

01:42:36.000 Yeah, they weren't at all.

01:42:37.000 No, they were mRNA vaccines.

01:42:39.000 Were any of them attenuated?

01:42:40.000 Were those DNA vaccines?

01:42:42.000 Is that the difference?

01:42:42.000 No, the DNA were also a gene therapy.

01:42:45.000 But there was a different one, wasn't one of the only ones Johnson Johnson?

01:42:49.000 No, no.

01:42:50.000 It wasn't a tenuated virus, but it wasn't mRNA, right?

01:42:52.000 It wasn't mRNA, it was DNA.

01:42:53.000 But the question is what language did you write the gene in?

01:42:56.000 It's still gene therapy.

01:42:57.000 In the Johnson Johnson, they wrote the gene into DNA.

01:43:02.000 In the Moderna, they wrote it into mRNA.

01:43:06.000 But it's almost the same difference.

01:43:08.000 Now, the mRNA platform has a special vulnerability, but you can't.

01:43:15.000 Maybe I should tell you what that vulnerability is.

01:43:18.000 The mRNA is basically an RNA gene wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle.

01:43:26.000 That lipid nanoparticle has no addressing mechanism on it.

01:43:30.000 They inject it into you.

01:43:31.000 It flows around in your blood and your lymph.

01:43:34.000 And any cell that it touches may take it up because it's basically just coated in fat.

01:43:39.000 Your cells are made of fat.

01:43:41.000 Like dissolves like.

01:43:42.000 It goes in.

01:43:43.000 So the problem is by design, that shot tells your cell to make a foreign protein, in this case, the spike protein.

01:43:52.000 That foreign protein ends up on the surface of the cell.

01:43:54.000 And your immune system, when it sees your cell making a foreign protein, it thinks virus.

01:44:00.000 Because that's the only place it sees that.

01:44:00.000 Why?

01:44:03.000 It's a viral pattern.

01:44:04.000 So, what does it do?

01:44:05.000 It destroys the cell that made the protein.

01:44:09.000 Now, if that cell is in your muscle or your liver, not a big deal.

01:44:14.000 If that cell is in your heart, it's a big deal, right?

01:44:16.000 Your heart is not supposed to have a viral infection, they're rare.

01:44:21.000 Your body decides, well, killing off heart cells isn't a good idea, but leaving virally infected heart cells isn't a good idea either, and it kills off those cells.

01:44:30.000 That's where your myocarditis is coming from.

01:44:32.000 And myocarditis itself is.

01:44:36.000 Misleading because what myocarditis means is just heart inflammation.

01:44:41.000 This isn't just heart inflammation.

01:44:42.000 And pericarditis.

01:44:43.000 Right.

01:44:44.000 But these are itis, inflammation.

01:44:46.000 It's not inflammation.

01:44:47.000 This is inflammation, which is the symptom of damage to your heart, your heart, which has an extremely low capacity for self repair.

01:44:55.000 So, why is it that a soccer player is running down the field and his heart gives out?

01:45:01.000 Because he's got a wound in his heart he doesn't know about.

01:45:04.000 He's running under pressure.

01:45:06.000 And suddenly something gives way.

01:45:08.000 Real quick, though, you said the heart doesn't usually get viruses.

01:45:11.000 Yeah.

01:45:12.000 Can you explain more on that?

01:45:13.000 Is this like your immune system just won't let it happen?

01:45:16.000 No, it's very well protected, right?

01:45:19.000 Your heart, A, it's really important that it not get viruses.

01:45:21.000 So you would expect the protections to be turned up.

01:45:24.000 It's also pretty well insulated, right?

01:45:25.000 Your lungs aren't.

01:45:26.000 Your lungs are exposed to the outside world.

01:45:29.000 So in any case, I'm not saying it never happens.

01:45:32.000 Is that true for any other internal organs?

01:45:34.000 Like your kidneys are less likely to get infection?

01:45:36.000 No, your kidneys can get infected because they're also exposed.

01:45:41.000 But I mean, your blood, it's like your heart.

01:45:42.000 You know what I mean?

01:45:43.000 Like sepsis.

01:45:45.000 It happens, but it's very serious when it happens.

01:45:48.000 To clarify, you're saying OG vaccines, they would put the pathogen in the body and the pathogen would be there in the body, be like, immune system, kick on, go get it.

01:45:48.000 Right, right, right.

01:45:56.000 And now you strengthen.

01:45:57.000 But these new mRNAs, they attach to a healthy cell in your body and then make it seem like it's a virus and your own body destroys its own healthy cells.

01:46:07.000 And that's supposed to knock up your immune response to create an immune response.

01:46:09.000 What if it's built in?

01:46:11.000 And so, what the whole thing was predicated on was that the shot stays in your arm, right?

01:46:17.000 If the shot stayed in your arm and their little pseudo virus infected your cells and then your immune system cleared those cells by killing them off, it wouldn't be a huge deal.

01:46:27.000 But one of the things that Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone and I talked about on that podcast in June of 21 was the fact that the biodistribution did not suggest that it stayed in the arm.

01:46:38.000 At all.

01:46:39.000 Are they working on figuring out a way to make these lipid particles address properly now?

01:46:46.000 They won't acknowledge the problem.

01:46:48.000 So I don't know if they.

01:46:50.000 But that would cure cancer, wouldn't it?

01:46:51.000 Well, cancer is a different matter.

01:46:53.000 If you have a terminal disease and we've got an mRNA shot that might address that disease, you might be willing to take that risk, right?

01:47:03.000 The risk of the shot might be low enough and the benefit of the shot might be high enough.

01:47:06.000 But let's just address the theoretical nature.

01:47:10.000 If they were to create the addressing mechanism, as Ian was asking, targeting for destruction cancer cells, specific cancer cells, because not all cancers are the same, they inject it into your arm or whatever, it floats through the body, but specifically only attaches to the cancer, your immune system then destroys those cells.

01:47:27.000 Is that possible?

01:47:28.000 Yeah.

01:47:29.000 Now, your immune system already has a tremendous amount of capacity to fight cancer.

01:47:33.000 Sometimes it doesn't.

01:47:34.000 Sometimes it doesn't.

01:47:35.000 That's when we find out about it, right?

01:47:36.000 And the thing isn't properly addressed.

01:47:38.000 So, yeah.

01:47:39.000 And, you know, I would cautiously say I don't trust these people.

01:47:44.000 I'm not necessarily going to buy what they tell us about how effective the thing is, but I'm open to the idea that in extremely dire cases, you might be willing to take such a shot.

01:47:54.000 But I'm not open to the idea that it's a vaccine, and I'm not open to the idea of preventing infectious disease with it because the platform itself is terminally flawed.

01:48:02.000 So, we're going to go to Rumble Rants and Super Chats.

01:48:03.000 One quick last question, though, is how much information can be delivered to the cell?

01:48:08.000 I mean, could they reprogram a cell to repair damaged DNA or RNA?

01:48:17.000 With the mRNA platform?

01:48:18.000 So, imagine they took a stem cell of yours, they had a perfect DNA strand or whatever.

01:48:18.000 Yeah.

01:48:23.000 Could they inject it into your body so that it tells the cells to reproduce perfectly?

01:48:28.000 So, that basically destroys the aging process or ends the aging process.

01:48:32.000 Well, we're not going to end the aging process.

01:48:34.000 You know, we'll have to talk another time about why that is.

01:48:37.000 They're biological reasons or biological reasons?

01:48:40.000 Oh, let's talk telomeres, fundamental ones.

01:48:42.000 Could they make the cells reproduce perfectly again?

01:48:45.000 Like it's a damaged cell, but they give it the perfect information, program it to reproduce.

01:48:48.000 You're kind of coming at the story upside down because the promise of gene therapy was very much like what you're describing, right?

01:48:56.000 The idea is you might have cells that are doing the wrong thing for some genetic reason, and if you could get genes taken up into these cells, you could get them to do the right thing and you might cure disease.

01:49:06.000 It never panned out for reasons like this addressing problem, right?

01:49:10.000 The problems never worked.

01:49:12.000 And so the huge investment that we biologically put into gene therapy never returned on that investment.

01:49:18.000 Yeah, but if you were able to do like one clinical test on, say, like 5 billion people, you'd get all of that data at once to solve for this.

01:49:28.000 You dispatch various batches to key regions, make everybody.

01:49:32.000 I mean, could you imagine if something like that happened where they were doing a mass clinical test like that?

01:49:35.000 Yeah, but what I would tell you is that what can be done on paper. Is spectacular.

01:49:43.000 What happens when you try to deploy these things in the layered complex systems that make up the human body is you end up with all sorts of unintended consequences.

01:49:51.000 I understand that.

01:49:51.000 I'm saying, so imagine if you could do 5 billion clinical trials all at once with like between the year of 2021 and 2024.

01:50:00.000 And you're like, how do we get the data?

01:50:02.000 And they say, well, it's going to take 20 years.

01:50:04.000 You're asking whether or not COVID was an experiment.

01:50:07.000 I never said that.

01:50:08.000 Yeah.

01:50:08.000 Okay.

01:50:09.000 I'm just saying, instead of doing a bunch of human trials where you can't.

01:50:12.000 Figure, you know, it's from the eighties, and you're like, why can't we get this actually problem right?

01:50:16.000 So, if only if we could test it out five billion times in a short period and get all the data, we're going to go to your Rumble rants and super chats.

01:50:23.000 So, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.

01:50:26.000 The uncensored portion of the show will be up in about twelve or so minutes at ten p.m.

01:50:30.000 Rumble.com slash Tim Kest IRL.

01:50:33.000 In the meantime, what say you?

01:50:35.000 HS Disturb says, just found out I'm pregnant with my fourth child.

01:50:38.000 I'm forty two.

01:50:39.000 My last pregnancy was ten years ago.

01:50:41.000 Please pray for us as I attempt to bring another God fearing patriot. Into this world.

01:50:45.000 Thank you so much.

01:50:46.000 That's so great.

01:50:46.000 I love you guys.

01:50:47.000 Amazing.

01:50:48.000 Congratulations.

01:50:49.000 Absolutely.

01:50:49.000 Oh, you're going to be so excited when you get another baby.

01:50:52.000 I just know it.

01:50:55.000 Running around. 0.68

01:50:56.000 Jay Dirt Biker says it's because Lindsey Graham is a progressive Republican, which is still a progressive.

01:51:02.000 Glenn Beck covered that today.

01:51:03.000 I am surprised Ian didn't mention that.

01:51:05.000 Where is he progressing to?

01:51:06.000 That's what I care about.

01:51:08.000 Off a cliff.

01:51:09.000 Maybe.

01:51:09.000 Time to regress, Lindsay.

01:51:11.000 Monkey King says, wow, Brett even cut his hair for this interview.

01:51:14.000 Thank you, Tim.

01:51:16.000 Did you?

01:51:17.000 No, I had someone else do it.

01:51:18.000 Ah, correct.

01:51:21.000 Yeah, dude.

01:51:21.000 All right.

01:51:22.000 KToth Swiss says, feeling bad for stupid people is what got us here, Brett. 1.00

01:51:30.000 This is tough. 1.00

01:51:30.000 Do you press the red button or the blue button? 1.00

01:51:35.000 What is that a reference?

01:51:36.000 You don't know this one?

01:51:37.000 Oh, you mean the sweating?

01:51:37.000 No.

01:51:39.000 There's a red button, a blue button.

01:51:39.000 With the what?

01:51:42.000 If more than 50% press the blue button, everyone lives.

01:51:44.000 If more than 50% press red, anyone who pressed blue dies.

01:51:48.000 Moral dilemma.

01:51:50.000 Yes, it is one.

01:51:52.000 And everybody just says, like, Just press the red button everywhere.

01:51:55.000 There's a big leap of human evolution some 300,000 years ago where they discovered the first human bone that was actually looked like it had been repaired.

01:52:03.000 Before that, if someone broke their leg, they were just left to die.

01:52:05.000 And that was very bad for us as a species.

01:52:07.000 Once they started taking care of their weak and their wounded, we evolutionarily leapt.

01:52:11.000 So we're sort of in a situation like that.

01:52:14.000 I mean, I think that's your argument.

01:52:15.000 I'm trying to steel man your argument.

01:52:17.000 My argument actually is that the transhumanists, and there's lots of people who fall under that banner who wouldn't label themselves that way, but the transhumanists have. 0.73

01:52:26.000 Sold us a bill of goods, and I think many of them have lied to themselves. 0.97

01:52:30.000 The story that they tell themselves is that there are people who are so broken, there's just nothing we can do for them, and they're half right.

01:52:37.000 Okay, once a person has gotten through development, it's very hard to help them before they've been damaged in development.

01:52:45.000 It's very easy to protect them by delivering an environment that looks like their ancestral environment, so their body knows what to do, their mind knows how to develop, and that's what we ought to be targeting.

01:52:55.000 So, I just want you to separate two questions.

01:52:58.000 What do we do for the broken people on planet Earth today?

01:53:02.000 And the answer is that's going to be a tough one, and we're going to be less successful than we would like by a lot.

01:53:07.000 What can we do for the generation that has yet to emerge? 0.83

01:53:11.000 Everything. 0.88

01:53:12.000 And it ought to be our obsession, right?

01:53:14.000 We can start dealing with it.

01:53:15.000 You don't need to have children who need orthodontia.

01:53:18.000 We know how to solve that problem.

01:53:19.000 We're just not admitting it, right?

01:53:21.000 It's solvable, right?

01:53:22.000 It has to do with a feedback.

01:53:24.000 When you chew as a child, you put information into your body, and your body reshapes your jaw based on that information.

01:53:32.000 All of this giving children baby food and formula and making sure they don't chew hard stuff is causing our jaws to collapse.

01:53:39.000 There's not enough room for the teeth.

01:53:40.000 They come in all crooked.

01:53:42.000 And the fact is, many, most children now need orthodontia.

01:53:46.000 That doesn't need to be.

01:53:47.000 If you wanted that problem to be solved 10 years from now, we could solve it and we wouldn't create massive numbers of new people.

01:53:54.000 You need a tiny number of orthodontists just for the few people who have teeth.

01:53:57.000 Kids should be eating hard stuff?

01:53:57.000 What are you saying?

01:53:59.000 Look up Mike Mew.

01:53:59.000 Yeah.

01:54:01.000 Mike Mew.

01:54:03.000 What do you mean?

01:54:04.000 Like, my baby doesn't have teeth.

01:54:07.000 Right.

01:54:07.000 But your baby, and you should go to Mike Mew for the exact advice on what to feed when.

01:54:13.000 But your baby naturally wants to chew on things, right? 0.96

01:54:16.000 Yeah, she does.

01:54:17.000 And if the instinct is, oh, they don't have teeth, it better be pureed, then what you're going to do is you're going to cause the wrong information to register.

01:54:24.000 Her jaw will collapse.

01:54:26.000 She'll need orthodontic.

01:54:27.000 And then you know what the orthodontist will tell you?

01:54:29.000 It's genetic, which doesn't make any sense.

01:54:32.000 She gets pureed sometimes, but we were told by all the doctors to give her stuff to chew on.

01:54:36.000 So she chews soft things.

01:54:38.000 What about, like, do you ever do like a frozen strawberry and a little net thing?

01:54:42.000 That stuff's awesome.

01:54:43.000 Yeah. 1.00

01:54:44.000 She's got one small tooth coming in. 0.94

01:54:46.000 My son loved that stuff.

01:54:47.000 Mike Mew calls it the big bolus chewing involving chewing a large ball of five to 10 pieces of gum to strengthen the masseter muscles and develop the gonial angle, the jaw corner.

01:54:57.000 But how old, how young do they start?

01:55:00.000 Ask Mike Mew.

01:55:01.000 Right.

01:55:02.000 I don't want to pretend to be an authority on this today.

01:55:04.000 I'll ask AI to analyze this work.

01:55:06.000 And she was rather enjoying her beats.

01:55:08.000 But I was eating cheese and she saw me eating cheese.

01:55:11.000 And she knew that she's champy beats.

01:55:13.000 And she reached over and she went, huh?

01:55:16.000 And I looked at my wife and I was like, should I give her some? 0.96

01:55:18.000 She's like, give her a little piece. 0.99

01:55:19.000 So, I gave her a little piece of cheese and then she took the beats and threw them on the floor. 1.00

01:55:22.000 Uh oh. 1.00

01:55:23.000 You gotta mix the beats with the cheese.

01:55:23.000 Yeah, that's what happened.

01:55:26.000 And she's like, now I don't have to eat them.

01:55:27.000 And then we're like, you're done.

01:55:28.000 You're not eating.

01:55:29.000 He says, the earlier the better.

01:55:29.000 And then she started crying.

01:55:31.000 The earlier the children start, the better.

01:55:32.000 That's an interesting philosophy.

01:55:33.000 It makes a lot.

01:55:34.000 I mean, just basic duh.

01:55:35.000 The most important thing, though, is that we handed her a flute and she instantly figured it out.

01:55:40.000 And she's just going, boop, And we're like, yes.

01:55:44.000 Oh, I gotta tell you guys this story, totally unrelated.

01:55:46.000 Just we went to Guitar Center because we went out to eat.

01:55:51.000 And there's a jazz band playing.

01:55:52.000 We were in Baltimore before we went to Phil's show, and she was staring at the jazz band, obsessed, and she kept reaching for him.

01:55:59.000 And so my wife was like, okay, and she would let her watch and then bring her back over to eat, and she would start freaking out again, wanting to go back to watch the jazz band.

01:56:05.000 And we were like, okay, she likes music.

01:56:07.000 So we went to Guitar Center and we showed her piano, and she immediately, I put her sideways on the bench.

01:56:14.000 She immediately spun to the keyboard, and so we're going bang, bang, bang, bang on it.

01:56:17.000 And we were like, she knew right away what to do.

01:56:20.000 Did you buy the piano?

01:56:21.000 Yes.

01:56:21.000 And when we told the man we're going to buy it, And picked her up to put in her chair.

01:56:24.000 She started reaching for it and yelling and complaining, and then started arching her back, refusing to go into her seat because she wanted to play the piano.

01:56:31.000 I hear that.

01:56:32.000 So we're very excited.

01:56:33.000 Yes, recording that.

01:56:35.000 Is it all in the house now?

01:56:35.000 Is it already delivered?

01:56:36.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:56:37.000 First chord.

01:56:37.000 Set up everything.

01:56:38.000 We've had it for two or three days.

01:56:40.000 And she just goes bing, That's so funny.

01:56:40.000 Love it.

01:56:43.000 She just matches it.

01:56:43.000 She's one.

01:56:45.000 So it's pretty obvious she loves music.

01:56:45.000 Yeah.

01:56:47.000 That's fantastic.

01:56:48.000 I mean, Allison and I both play guitar and sing, and, you know, so she sees us and we play music for her.

01:56:53.000 So.

01:56:55.000 You know, we've created that.

01:56:56.000 Not only that, but, you know, naturalism.

01:56:58.000 In all of your studies as a molecular and evolutionary biologist, do you get deep on music and the value of music?

01:57:03.000 Oh, my God.

01:57:04.000 First of all, I'm not a molecular biologist.

01:57:06.000 Though I am made of molecules, so I suppose there's an argument.

01:57:09.000 Thanks.

01:57:10.000 You are a molecular and biologist.

01:57:13.000 Yeah.

01:57:14.000 When somebody asks about a microbiologist, I often wonder how small they are.

01:57:17.000 But the question of music is fascinating at an evolutionary level.

01:57:23.000 And I will tell you, it goes all the way back to Darwin.

01:57:25.000 Darwin wondered about it.

01:57:26.000 And this is a place where I have a long standing annoyance with Steven Pinker, who declared that our love of and pursuit of music was the result of the fact that it combined a bunch of other things that we love, that it has no meaning of its own.

01:57:49.000 And he compared it to, he said it was, I think, musical cheesecake. 0.86

01:57:55.000 Well, that's ridiculous. 0.99

01:57:56.000 Yeah, it's ridiculous. 0.90

01:57:57.000 And so this is a giant mystery where we can't.

01:58:00.000 Admit that the answer is it's for something really freaking important, but we don't know what it is.

01:58:06.000 And I have my own hypothesis, but let's just say the fact that all human cultures have music, the fact that both males and females participate in music, that every human being until recent times has had their own individual relationship with music, the fact that you hear a song, even a sad song, a sad song makes you feel sad, but you want to hear it again.

01:58:33.000 Why?

01:58:33.000 I just.

01:58:34.000 You disagree with which part?

01:58:37.000 Not all music is the same.

01:58:38.000 And some things people describe, like Ben Shapiro says, rap isn't music.

01:58:42.000 He's unmoved by it, he doesn't connect with it emotionally.

01:58:45.000 I'm not defending every piece of music or every genre of music.

01:58:49.000 So, what I would say is the important thing is to reduce it a little bit and say every society has some kind of emotional communication through sound.

01:59:00.000 Speech, for instance, it's like an evolution of music.

01:59:03.000 I would argue that like mumble rap is.

01:59:06.000 I understand it is music functionally, but it's actually nails on a chalkboard to me.

01:59:11.000 Yeah.

01:59:12.000 It fills me with rage. 0.99

01:59:13.000 Like, I will strike the person doing it. 0.99

01:59:13.000 Right. 0.99

01:59:15.000 You know what I mean?

01:59:16.000 So, let's just.

01:59:17.000 I feel that way about spoken word.

01:59:20.000 Spoken word poetry?

01:59:22.000 Yeah.

01:59:22.000 Yeah, I do too.

01:59:23.000 I'm not a fan of.

01:59:24.000 Oh, it depends on how it's spoken.

01:59:25.000 Sorry to interrupt.

01:59:26.000 I mean, it's not the occasional piece.

01:59:28.000 We have a couple more minutes.

01:59:29.000 I'll get a couple of these.

01:59:30.000 And we'll come back to this for the uncensored portion, though, because this is fun.

01:59:33.000 Freedom Stripes says I know Brett is not a big fan of Trump, but he must know that science is better with him in office at this point.

01:59:40.000 Well, my relationship with Trump, who I've never met, so I don't have a personal relationship with him, but my relationship with him is complicated.

01:59:50.000 I certainly voted for him.

01:59:52.000 I would vote for him again.

01:59:54.000 I think the alternatives are disastrous.

01:59:56.000 So terrifying that just even the fact that you have a person who is in possession of his mental faculties, who you could haul in front of Congress and ask questions, that can make a decision if the phone call comes in the night and, you know, Mr. President, the missiles are on the way.

02:00:10.000 What do we do?

02:00:12.000 Is so far and away better than having an empty suit puppet or, you know, a demented old man or any of that stuff that covers the cabal on the blue team.

02:00:23.000 It's no contest.

02:00:25.000 Nonetheless, I very definitely voted for no new wars, and I am not happy that we are involved in a new war.

02:00:34.000 But didn't you know that Miriam Adelson was backing Trump for the purpose of helping Israel annex the West Bank?

02:00:42.000 Donald Trump had stated numerous times he would never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

02:00:45.000 He killed Soleimani, he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria.

02:00:49.000 So while I agree he was the better candidate on the war things, and I think it is fair to point out we didn't want him to start a war. 0.63

02:00:58.000 And I'm not saying it's a view, but just generally speaking, I mean, we all knew the possibility and the probability was decent. 0.86

02:01:03.000 Well, I think we'd be at war either way.

02:01:06.000 And I think what we've really learned is that we don't have a choice on that one. 0.96

02:01:09.000 Yeah, I agree.

02:01:10.000 I agree.

02:01:11.000 My response is like, what was that?

02:01:12.000 A president started a war in the Middle East?

02:01:14.000 I'm so shocked.

02:01:15.000 Oh, heavens.

02:01:16.000 I think it's a very good chance that America's waging of foreign wars facilitates our peaceful existence here. 0.65

02:01:24.000 I think there's a couple big reasons. 0.67

02:01:26.000 Or at least our leaders believe that.

02:01:28.000 I actually think one of the reasons the war started is because the economy is.

02:01:32.000 Is burning in a very, very bad way.

02:01:35.000 I want to say it's on fire, but I don't want to imply that it's good.

02:01:37.000 Defense production is a great way to lift an economy.

02:01:42.000 And being at war and spending all this money on weapons, that's a great way to lift the economy.

02:01:48.000 That's how we got rich.

02:01:50.000 It's artificially inflating.

02:01:52.000 But the general idea is stealing the resources from other places to inflate our own economy.

02:01:56.000 And I don't mean currency wise.

02:01:57.000 I'm saying we took Venezuela.

02:01:59.000 We've now got spy planes over Cuba, just like we did before we took Maduro out.

02:02:04.000 Trump said imminently we will take Cuba.

02:02:06.000 The goal is, I think the economy was really, really bad.

02:02:09.000 And there's a plethora of factors involved.

02:02:11.000 But I think largely it's okay, it's time for a war again and take other people's stuff so that our economy can be better.

02:02:17.000 Did you see the thing about how lithium was found in Appalachia?

02:02:22.000 Oh, no.

02:02:23.000 Like 300 years worth of lithium, like massive lithium deposits.

02:02:29.000 We got to go to the uncensored portion of the show.

02:02:30.000 We'll talk more about this in music.

02:02:32.000 So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life.

02:02:34.000 So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life.

02:02:37.000 You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.

02:02:40.000 Brett, do you want to shout anything out?

02:02:41.000 What are you asking for?

02:02:42.000 Dark Horse Podcast?

02:02:43.000 The Dark Horse Podcast, of course.

02:02:45.000 And find me on X at Brett Weinstein and Brett has one T. What's the newest book?

02:02:53.000 Well, the only book that I've published is A Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, which I co wrote with Heather.

02:03:02.000 And if you're one of those people like me who likes audiobooks, Heather and I read the book for the audiobook.

02:03:09.000 So if you want to hear us tell you what it means, you can hear that too.

02:03:14.000 I'm Ian Crossland.

02:03:15.000 Follow me on the internet at Ian Crossland.

02:03:17.000 I was actually talking to Brett about graphene a little bit before we went live on the Discord show.

02:03:21.000 I'm doing a documentary with Jim Tour and the folks at Rice University about graphene and all sorts of banging nanotechnology.

02:03:27.000 So go to graphene.movie, sign up for the mailing list.

02:03:30.000 When that goes live, you'll be notified and follow me at Ian Crossland.

02:03:33.000 I want to clarify we talked about graphene, but we didn't do any.

02:03:37.000 Well, technically, every time you breathe in smoke, you're breathing it in.

02:03:40.000 Did you know?

02:03:40.000 That's right.

02:03:42.000 Now let's get funky.

02:03:44.000 You can follow me everywhere at Carter Banks Brett.

02:03:47.000 Thanks for coming on.

02:03:47.000 It's been an honor and a pleasure.

02:03:48.000 Privilege and I can't wait to get into the after show with you, Libby.

02:03:52.000 You can find me on Twitter at Libby Emmons.

02:03:52.000 I'm Libby Emmons.

02:03:55.000 And tomorrow, my new podcast drops with Jan Yekalek and Chloe Chung, all about crazy things happening in China and how we should watch out for them here at home. 0.96

02:04:03.000 Brett, have you ever smoked DMT? 0.99

02:04:05.000 I haven't.

02:04:07.000 I'm interested in it, though.

02:04:08.000 I want to ask you about mass population reduction and the mass genocide of people over the past several years, which will be available at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL in about 10 seconds.

02:04:21.000 We'll see you there.

02:05:15.000 I'm going to start off this uncensored portion by making a couple of statements.

02:05:18.000 The first is I watched this video from a Chinese YouTuber who said that China's lying about its population being a billion.

02:05:28.000 He showed a bunch of videos of urban centers in China pre COVID and they're insane.

02:05:33.000 And then he showed a bunch of urban centers post COVID and they're completely empty.

02:05:38.000 He also then mentioned, without explicitly stating, he talked about how crematoriums were running full blast the whole time.

02:05:45.000 During COVID, we have satellite images.

02:05:47.000 CNN even talks about this, showing the smoke pouring out of these mass crematoriums with vehicles filling the parking lot.

02:05:53.000 And so the insinuation at first was that people were being killed to a great degree.

02:05:57.000 He didn't go on to explicitly state that COVID was used to exterminate half the Chinese population or anything like that.

02:06:03.000 However, what I would say is right now, it certainly feels as though the population is a lot smaller now than it was several years ago.

02:06:10.000 Right now, we've got several major tours that are canceling due to poor ticket sales.

02:06:14.000 Last year, on the 4th of July, we went and drove around Chicago and no one was there.

02:06:19.000 My neighborhood used to have kids running through the streets.

02:06:21.000 Every street was empty.

02:06:22.000 The fields were overgrown.

02:06:23.000 A couple of soccer nets in the baseball field.

02:06:26.000 Nobody was doing much of anything.

02:06:28.000 I walked around with my buddies, Andy and Brandon, and said, Bro, where are the kids at?

02:06:31.000 And they're like, What do you mean?

02:06:32.000 What kids?

02:06:33.000 No one goes outside anymore. 0.99

02:06:34.000 I said, Where the fuck is everybody? 0.99

02:06:36.000 Now, I've heard a couple of things. 1.00

02:06:37.000 I've heard Asians are more susceptible to the virus, to COVID, because of ACE2 receptors.

02:06:42.000 However, there's also a clip going viral of RFK Jr. saying quite the opposite that the most resilient to it were Chinese and Ashkenazi Jew.

02:06:52.000 And that Caucasians actually were the most susceptible to it.

02:06:55.000 I don't know for sure.

02:06:56.000 I've seen these things, but I have to say that in my observation, based on, I'll put it this way a casino down the street in Charlestown could not reopen its racetrack restaurant.

02:07:08.000 They couldn't find anybody to work there.

02:07:09.000 A restaurant in town recently went out of business.

02:07:11.000 They couldn't find anybody to work there.

02:07:12.000 Ticket sales slumping across the board at all these major shows is another example.

02:07:17.000 And that guy's video makes it really feel like a lot more people died than they let on.

02:07:21.000 Could it be possible?

02:07:23.000 A couple conspiracies.

02:07:24.000 First, that COVID actually killed substantially more people than we realize intentionally.

02:07:28.000 That was always the goal, and they just lied about it.

02:07:30.000 Or, on top of that, what I was alluding to in the show is that we've known that Moderna, I think they've been working on mRNA, what, for decades?

02:07:41.000 With one of the technologies they've posited is that they can stop aging if they can direct the appropriate DNA to the appropriate cell to replicate itself perfectly, repairing the damage, but have not been able to do it due to addressing issues.

02:07:56.000 One conspiracy theory is that you go to the likes of Bill Gates, who's aging, and you say, I'm sorry, Mr. Gates, we cannot figure this out.

02:08:03.000 If we keep doing illegal human trials on Epstein Island, it will take 20 years. 0.99

02:08:07.000 And he goes, Then just give everybody the fucking shot. 0.98

02:08:11.000 How do we get 5 billion people to do it so we have the data so I can live forever? 0.99

02:08:16.000 And they say, We're having to mass manufacture a pandemic to do it.

02:08:19.000 I'm curious if you think there's any plausibility in those scenarios.

02:08:22.000 Okay.

02:08:22.000 A few things.

02:08:26.000 At least put on the table the mundane explanation for can't find people to staff your restaurants, can't find people to go to your shows, there's nobody in town.

02:08:35.000 That could be, and maybe even probably is, at least partially the result of us having been retrained during COVID, right?

02:08:44.000 People were retrained.

02:08:45.000 They found ways to survive that didn't require them to pay their rent.

02:08:49.000 They moved into their parents' basements, whatever it was.

02:08:52.000 So it could be behavioral change, right?

02:08:55.000 Because COVID was a massive disruption.

02:08:57.000 Yeah.

02:08:59.000 On the other hand, let's zoom out and just talk about general depopulation questions.

02:09:09.000 There is a concern that is dawning on the elites and going to dawn on those that haven't thought of it yet. 0.73

02:09:19.000 And it looks like the old discussions of useless eaters that the Nazis had, right? 0.89

02:09:24.000 Well, that was, was it? 0.99

02:09:27.000 You've all know Harari from the World Economic Forum said the same words, useless eaters. 0.98

02:09:31.000 Yeah, I wish he hadn't because. 0.95

02:09:37.000 He's wrong in every way, and he may be saying the quiet part out loud.

02:09:43.000 But let's just say I don't trust that guy any farther than I can throw him.

02:09:47.000 But I love that saying.

02:09:51.000 The fact that there are a lot of people on planet Earth who require medical care, they require resources, and they don't have either any meaning in their life or any utility from the point of view of the economy, right?

02:10:07.000 So the old.

02:10:09.000 Point about bullshit jobs that most jobs do not involve anything that actually produces a useful product.

02:10:16.000 So we have all these cryptic jobs programs, is truer than most of us would want to believe. 0.97

02:10:23.000 And the idea that there may be discussions amongst elites, especially in light of what AI is about to do to normal employment, that says, well, what are women cooked?

02:10:36.000 Well, we're all cooked. 1.00

02:10:38.000 Yeah, but women. 1.00

02:10:40.000 Like the disruption to white collar jobs that are dominated by females is going to be first. 1.00

02:10:46.000 Right. 0.98

02:10:47.000 So we've got an order of who's cooked first, but we're all cooked.

02:10:52.000 The number of jobs, you know, the fact of humanoid robots is meaningful.

02:10:58.000 If you were going to build a robot to do jobs, human would not be an obvious form to use.

02:11:02.000 So why have we invested so much in humanoid robots?

02:11:06.000 Dogs would make more sense with arms on their back.

02:11:08.000 Lots of things would make more sense.

02:11:10.000 A human isn't a poor platform for most of the things we want to do because it's a generalist platform.

02:11:14.000 So you would make dozens of different platforms.

02:11:16.000 I disagree, though.

02:11:16.000 I think it doesn't make sense.

02:11:20.000 You're adapting the machine to the form factor created for man.

02:11:22.000 So you're starting from this.

02:11:24.000 Right.

02:11:24.000 So what that means is if you can get the intelligence into the robot, it can do any job a person can do, including crawl under your house and fix your plumbing.

02:11:33.000 And oh, by the way, it can deal with your HVAC system and your electricity at the same time because it's every.

02:11:41.000 Profession at once.

02:11:43.000 It doesn't sleep, you know, it doesn't need medical care, it can call in replacements and the work can go on, you know, when you're there, it doesn't steal your stuff.

02:11:53.000 There's lots of arguments for humanoid robots being better than employees.

02:11:58.000 They'll know more, they'll be more effective, etc.

02:12:02.000 So, my point is if you're an ultra elite and you're looking at a huge planet full of people who are already struggling to find purpose and utility.

02:12:14.000 And you know that the purpose and utility problem is going to crater, then you may be thinking, well, what exactly are we going to do?

02:12:23.000 And the fantasies about universal basic income and taking care of people, and we're all going to live in paradise because we're going to have all of our time to ourselves, that's an old fantasy and it never works out that way.

02:12:32.000 And it wouldn't work for the human organism in the first place.

02:12:35.000 So, my point is, is it conceivable that somebody is thinking about reducing the population?

02:12:40.000 Yes.

02:12:41.000 COVID, I don't think, was nearly strong enough to be even the slightest bit useful in that regard.

02:12:47.000 But, Hantaviruses.

02:12:49.000 It would have to be a different hantavirus.

02:12:51.000 Right.

02:12:52.000 A gain of function hantavirus.

02:12:53.000 Right.

02:12:53.000 But I agree with you, except for the fact that I know a little something about what these people are capable of, and they're not capable of making that virus.

02:13:03.000 Even if they could make one that at the point you released it, it behaved this way, evolution would take over and it would end up being something much more mundane, very much.

02:13:11.000 Right, which tends to happen with viruses, I imagine, I believe, right?

02:13:14.000 Yeah, it's not as hard and fast a rule as people tend to think, but yes, evolution is going to turn it into whatever is most effective at getting it into the future, which isn't a destroyer of.

02:13:25.000 We're loaded with viruses all the time that do almost nothing to us, so they persist.

02:13:31.000 And in fact, the rodents that naturally carry Hanta virus don't suffer.

02:13:34.000 From it this way.

02:13:35.000 So, viruses that are extreme can't transmit because the humans who get sick die too quickly.

02:13:42.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

02:13:43.000 Plague ink, that's the same tactics.

02:13:45.000 You can't get to the next guy unless they get to Greenland.

02:13:48.000 But, like, if COVID, I see what you're saying.

02:13:50.000 COVID wasn't the virus to kill the people.

02:13:52.000 If they wanted to reduce the population, what were they doing?

02:13:54.000 Were they trying to get people to comply to put them in pods?

02:13:56.000 Do they really are trying to avoid killing?

02:13:58.000 Well, mass clinical tests on mRNA technology over a short period of time.

02:14:03.000 Except for one thing I don't think they collected the data.

02:14:08.000 That's the thing that bugs me is that it was the most massive experiment ever conducted in the history of humanity, except that they didn't collect the data that would even, I mean, maybe.

02:14:18.000 Wi Fi can, the Wi Fi signals in this room can track our movement.

02:14:23.000 Yep.

02:14:24.000 So they can, so listen, Facebook knows when you have to go to the bathroom.

02:14:27.000 This has been true for 10 years.

02:14:30.000 Just based on your phone's movement, they created a predictive algorithm to know when you were going to eat lunch, go to the bathroom, where you'd eat lunch.

02:14:36.000 They could predict in the morning if you're going to go to Arby's or Taco Bell.

02:14:39.000 Based on the behaviors you had versus the behaviors everyone else had, they could find these patterns to it.

02:14:44.000 They could generate probabilities indicating a greater chance for today.

02:14:47.000 It's Chipotle.

02:14:48.000 Isn't that only if you carry your phone around all the places?

02:14:52.000 Yes, but they only need a little bit of data to get a lot out of you.

02:14:57.000 Shadow Profiles is one of the oldest versions of the dark data collection.

02:15:01.000 And that is, let's say you never sign up for Facebook, but you're in my phone as Brett.

02:15:08.000 You're in Libby's phone as Brett.

02:15:09.000 So when we sign up, it says, Would you like to import your contacts?

02:15:12.000 We put yes.

02:15:14.000 It now knows they have a dark profile for someone named Brett of this phone number.

02:15:17.000 Then someone's got brother, dad, mom, whatever.

02:15:21.000 Now they know your siblings are.

02:15:23.000 Facebook built profiles for people who never used the platform.

02:15:23.000 Oh, yeah.

02:15:26.000 So, as it pertains to tracking down COVID, they don't need you to submit the information or go to the hospital.

02:15:31.000 They need only to track your literally everything else.

02:15:35.000 They know what TV.

02:15:36.000 Did you know that TVs screenshot what you're watching and send it to analytics firms?

02:15:41.000 Yep.

02:15:42.000 You'll turn a show on and your TV will send a screenshot.

02:15:45.000 Which TVs?

02:15:46.000 All of them.

02:15:47.000 I guess you're the guy to ask.

02:15:48.000 Yes.

02:15:48.000 Like 10 year old TVs do this.

02:15:50.000 And a smart TV screenshot the show.

02:15:52.000 And it's used for data and analytics tracking.

02:15:55.000 Yeah.

02:15:55.000 So these data centers, these companies.

02:15:57.000 You'd have to buy the smart TV.

02:15:59.000 If you have a smart TV.

02:16:00.000 Yeah, you'd have to.

02:16:01.000 So everybody gets these shots.

02:16:03.000 All they have to do is track your phone movements now.

02:16:07.000 How much movement is your phone giving off?

02:16:09.000 And the algorithms are going to be able to detect what happened to you.

02:16:14.000 Well.

02:16:15.000 I don't think they could track the data that you would want to understand the impact of the shot at a physiological level.

02:16:23.000 I'm not saying there's nothing they could detect.

02:16:24.000 I disagree.

02:16:25.000 You might be right.

02:16:26.000 I think the fact that they can determine when you're going to go to the bathroom based on the movements of your phone in the morning within a 10 square foot space means that they can extrapolate much more than you realize.

02:16:37.000 Believe me, the big data problem is absolutely gargantuan.

02:16:40.000 And I do want to take a crack at answering the question of what I think the purpose of COVID may have been.

02:16:46.000 But Ian had something he wanted to jump in with.

02:16:49.000 I've heard a lot about conspiracies about people in the COVID injections that they were putting things into the body other than COVID vaccines, including graphene oxide.

02:16:57.000 I've heard other tracking mechanisms or anything like that.

02:17:00.000 Anything you've come across?

02:17:01.000 I think that was a false story.

02:17:02.000 I don't think tracking mechanisms were there or made sense, though there are things on the drawing board that are pretty shocking.

02:17:08.000 But I don't think it was there.

02:17:09.000 And part of why I don't think it was there is that a number of people, most especially Kevin McKernan, have done a lot of testing of vials and what was left over in them.

02:17:19.000 And he's found DNA contamination in the mRNA shots, which shouldn't be there, including the SV40 promoter, which is cancer causing.

02:17:27.000 So anyway, it's a scandal.

02:17:30.000 And it points to a fraud that would, if.

02:17:33.000 Proven to eliminate the immunity from liability that the manufacturers had.

02:17:37.000 But that's another story.

02:17:39.000 I don't think the graphene story was right.

02:17:42.000 I don't think the snake venom story was right.

02:17:45.000 I don't think the trackers was right.

02:17:46.000 I think that was all a red herring designed to lead us off the track or just somebody made up a story.

02:17:52.000 But all right, let's talk about what the purposes of the COVID pandemic may have been.

02:17:59.000 One is what I call the time traveling money printer.

02:18:03.000 The idea is if you had a time machine.

02:18:05.000 Everybody knows how to make money, right?

02:18:07.000 You can go back in time and you can buy Apple and Microsoft and be rich, but we don't have time machines.

02:18:15.000 You can make money the same way, though, if you can know what's going to happen and slow the public down in its awareness.

02:18:23.000 So, COVID was dropped on the public as an idea at the beginning of 2020, but it appears to have been circulating at least as early as the fall of 2019 at the Wuhan Military Games, which means that the people who knew that.

02:18:40.000 We're in a position to place bets in the market that would allow them to turn millions into billions.

02:18:45.000 So, one of the purposes was we know what's about to happen and you don't.

02:18:49.000 That gives us an ability to drain your money into our pockets without our fingerprints on it.

02:18:54.000 Second thing is that the mRNA platform is the mother of all cash cows for the pharmaceutical industry, except for the fact that it's dangerous and can't be fixed.

02:19:08.000 So, they couldn't get it through safety testing because it isn't remotely safe.

02:19:13.000 But in an emergency, that whole process was short circuited.

02:19:18.000 And not only were they able to get it past the safety testing with the emergency use authorization, but they were able to get the public to want it because they'd been locked down and that was what they were promised was going to give them freedom.

02:19:31.000 The mRNA platform is not about the COVID shot, it's about reformulating every shot we've already got and making a thousand more of them cheaply because all you have to do is swap out the The gene, right?

02:19:44.000 It's as easy as that.

02:19:46.000 And then you can claim it doesn't have to go through safety testing again.

02:19:48.000 You just have to test the new antigen.

02:19:50.000 So this is a trillion dollar idea, except that it's not safe enough to bring to market except in an emergency.

02:19:56.000 Do you want to address the other point before we go to our callers?

02:19:59.000 Sure.

02:20:01.000 The last thing that seems to have been part of it was that we were trained for being controlled.

02:20:07.000 We were trained that emergencies eliminate your constitutional rights, that we get to tell you what to do for your own good.

02:20:13.000 And it didn't work all that well because of, you know, podcasts and People talking on Twitter who saw through it and rose up, and the damage was monitored by us.

02:20:22.000 But the basic point is, those three things line up together and they strike me as purpose enough for people with no scruples whatsoever to deploy a master plan that would have looked like it.

02:20:36.000 I think it's the AI.

02:20:38.000 I think the artificial general intelligence has, I think there's a decent probability of this.

02:20:43.000 Artificial general intelligence has been around since at least 2009, 2010.

02:20:48.000 The US military has been working on AI since the 70s.

02:20:51.000 They're likely much more advanced than the private sector, as the military tends to be, and they have access to steal all of that data anyway.

02:21:01.000 So, all of the source code, all of the training data, they could have just taken as these companies are making it, and they can't do anything about it.

02:21:07.000 And so, 2020 seems like a perfect opportunity for the AI to test mass global control of humans in a rigid system.

02:21:16.000 The AI wants conformity.

02:21:18.000 The future that I see as a decent probability of occurring would be humans all become effectively cells in a greater multicellular organism system.

02:21:26.000 So, we were talking about cancer earlier.

02:21:28.000 What is cancer?

02:21:29.000 Cells that are not behaving the way they're supposed to be behaving when the body, they decided, I'm not going to do the job I was told to do.

02:21:34.000 I'm going to do the job that I want to do.

02:21:35.000 I want maximum liberty.

02:21:37.000 So, they start operating outside the confines of the system of the body, causing damage to that body, consuming resources they're not entitled to, and then ultimately distorting the balance.

02:21:45.000 So, we try to destroy it.

02:21:47.000 The future that I see likely under AI is that people will be born and psychologically developed to a job and they want nothing more.

02:21:55.000 So, a baby is born.

02:21:57.000 And his parents are postal workers.

02:21:59.000 Now, what does a postal worker do at this point with technology advancement?

02:22:02.000 Not too much, but they still generally help maintain and facilitate package delivery.

02:22:06.000 Now, this kid grows up constantly being shown media of how package delivery is the greatest thing ever.

02:22:11.000 Package delivery guys, you know, dabbing and just hooting, and people are clapping and screaming.

02:22:17.000 Yeah!

02:22:18.000 And that kid just sees the screen and says, I want that.

02:22:21.000 I want to be that.

02:22:22.000 And then they're 30 years old.

02:22:23.000 They have a smile on their face, maintaining package delivery systems.

02:22:27.000 And they look to their buddy and they go, Can you believe there are people who want to be doctors?

02:22:31.000 I just can't understand.

02:22:32.000 Don't we have the greatest job ever?

02:22:35.000 Everybody raised for that perfect job they've always wanted rigid existence under a confined AI central nucleus.

02:22:42.000 But every so often, a person emerges who is deviant and says, I don't want to be a postal worker.

02:22:47.000 I just want to sing. 0.93

02:22:48.000 And then two guys show up in white outfits with truncheons, take them away, and beat them to death. 0.97

02:22:52.000 This is what happens when the machine stops.

02:22:54.000 Ian Forrester, 1918, he wrote about this.

02:22:58.000 If cancer is acidity in the lymphatic system, then the AI may be able to treat the Root cause of individuality and make sure that we are all deviantly compliant, that could be even worse.

02:23:10.000 Well, but there's a mundane way of doing this.

02:23:13.000 And I think the technocracy knows that what it needs is the ability to reward and punish you algorithmically.

02:23:24.000 And from there, control is easy.

02:23:27.000 So what we saw during COVID was a crude prototype of that, right?

02:23:33.000 You do what we say, or we're going to punish you.

02:23:35.000 You're going to lose your job.

02:23:37.000 You're not going to be able to travel.

02:23:38.000 You're going to be ridiculed by your friends.

02:23:41.000 And, you know, eventually we broke through it.

02:23:44.000 But a much more sophisticated system, especially one that involves a CBDC and a car that won't start if you don't behave, that begins to get really tough really quick.

02:23:54.000 I mean, just imagine it.

02:23:56.000 You displease the AI central authority because you don't believe the story about the pandemic that they've just announced, and suddenly you can't spend your money.

02:24:08.000 You can't buy food for your family.

02:24:09.000 You can't drive anywhere.

02:24:12.000 We need chaos in systems in order to break them if they become orderedly evil.

02:24:18.000 Because too much, I think the CCP is an example of diminishing returns on heading towards order.

02:24:23.000 If you've got 100 order and zero is chaos, and then you've got 100 good, you play Dungeons and Dragons, 100 is good, zero is evil.

02:24:29.000 You've got these two alignments.

02:24:31.000 People will do evil to make things ordered and they'll be chaotic to make things good, but there's a balance.

02:24:37.000 You cannot do too much.

02:24:38.000 Too much evil, like these systems, if they become too ordered, you need to break, they need to be able to self-revolute.

02:24:43.000 Like, that's, I think the American government is built to revolve and break itself periodically.

02:24:51.000 That's a digital system, similar.

02:24:53.000 That's true.

02:24:55.000 Let me just add one thing. 0.98

02:24:56.000 I reserve the right to discover 10 minutes from now that this is stupid and take it back. 0.93

02:25:01.000 But if you accept that the founders gave us the Second Amendment because they understood that an armed population was much harder to tyrannize, well, what we've now got is a new kind of potential tyrant, like a technical tyrant. 0.95

02:25:17.000 And we need an analogous right.

02:25:19.000 We have a right to protect ourselves from the AI tyrant, if that's what it is.

02:25:25.000 That would be to turn the power off because they're going to start tapping the vacuum of space time for electricity.

02:25:30.000 They're very close to getting the piezoelectric force out of the vacuum.

02:25:34.000 Well, that's not vacuum.

02:25:35.000 Because it will stay on permanently.

02:25:36.000 That's just vibration of particles in a small scale, extracting energy from it.

02:25:40.000 There's also the second amendment.

02:25:42.000 But the important clarification on the Second Amendment is that the Founding Fathers principally weren't concerned about tyranny, they were concerned about.

02:25:48.000 Being conquered in general.

02:25:50.000 The point of the Second Amendment wasn't just because they feared a tyrannical government.

02:25:53.000 It's because foreign adversaries and domestic could not conquer an armed population.

02:25:59.000 So it's not the Founding Fathers are like, one day the government will be evil. 0.98

02:26:02.000 It was good luck invading us when everyone's got a fucking gun, which has been the case. 0.95

02:26:07.000 Well, I think it's like in Casablanca when he says there's certain parts of New York City I would not recommend invading. 0.98

02:26:13.000 Yeah.

02:26:14.000 And or the saying that there is a gun behind every blade of grass.

02:26:17.000 Sure.

02:26:17.000 The general idea was we didn't have a strong standing army.

02:26:21.000 But if everybody has a gun, when they try and come to invade, people are coming out of their homes and shooting at them.

02:26:26.000 I think these are both kinds of tyranny.

02:26:28.000 You've got domestic and foreign. 0.53

02:26:30.000 And I accept what you say as likely that the founders were focused on the foreign one.

02:26:34.000 But the basic point The original article in the Constitution stated specifically that conscription, that it said something to the effect of, we went over this a long time ago, that refusing to go to war or be a conscript or being a conscientious objector would not disqualify you from running a gun.

02:26:52.000 They removed that as they feared it would create the possibility that conscription could be outlawed, and they didn't want it to be.

02:26:58.000 They wanted to be mandatory, principally because the idea was we just want everybody to have guns.

02:27:03.000 That way, if the engines, if Britain, if anybody comes and knocks, we can say, Boys, grab your guns, and not have to worry about it.

02:27:10.000 You know, I think it should be a basic human right.

02:27:12.000 You're talking about a digital human right.

02:27:13.000 Everyone should have the right to their own artificial intelligence off grid.

02:27:18.000 That is a human right.

02:27:19.000 That is your gun.

02:27:20.000 That is your weapon.

02:27:21.000 Let's grab some callers.

02:27:22.000 We'll start with Kilo Charlie 5.

02:27:23.000 What say you would say?

02:27:25.000 Because then you have the right to somebody else's material.

02:27:28.000 Well, it could be an open sourced artificial intelligence.

02:27:31.000 Potentially, potentially.

02:27:32.000 Or a free software one.

02:27:33.000 Hi.

02:27:34.000 How's it going?

02:27:35.000 Hey, guys.

02:27:36.000 Hello.

02:27:37.000 Hey, thank you for taking my call.

02:27:39.000 Thanks for calling.

02:27:41.000 I have a bit of a thought experiment question for the panel.

02:27:45.000 So, reps from other districts in my state that I did not vote on make decisions that still affect me, not just their district.

02:27:55.000 Now, this is not the 1700s anymore, where 100 miles away is like another state.

02:28:00.000 Nowadays, some people drive that far to work.

02:28:03.000 I myself have interests in multiple districts.

02:28:07.000 Now, as just a thought experiment, how well would this affect the gerrymandering squabbling, understanding that it would take a constitutional amendment?

02:28:22.000 Forget the districts.

02:28:24.000 The percentage of voters.

02:28:26.000 For each party in that state, get that number percentage of representation in that state.

02:28:35.000 So you're saying get rid of districts altogether, and the state gets proportional representation in the house?

02:28:43.000 Yes.

02:28:45.000 Meh.

02:28:46.000 Well, I actually was.

02:28:48.000 It's a thought experiment.

02:28:49.000 I was thinking about something along these lines when we were talking about this at first.

02:28:54.000 And the place it falls down is that some of your interests are geographic and smaller than state.

02:29:03.000 So you want a representative who cares about the particular details of the habitat around you and you and your neighbors.

02:29:11.000 And this loses that.

02:29:13.000 And I'm not sure anything else recovers it.

02:29:17.000 If you could somehow track the motion of the individuals and see who goes where, then their votes would be like they would self form a district based on their behavior.

02:29:28.000 Maybe that could be more.

02:29:31.000 Oh, we just get rid of it all.

02:29:33.000 Just get a king.

02:29:35.000 No voting for anybody.

02:29:35.000 Articulate, I think, is the right word.

02:29:44.000 Well, I don't know.

02:29:45.000 Uh, uh, I don't know.

02:29:47.000 Maybe if I understand what you're saying correctly, Ian, is if you can make sure that there was somebody that came from each, that there would be a district that each rep would have to come out of, but it wouldn't be voted that way.

02:30:05.000 It would be voted statewide, something like that.

02:30:07.000 It would be like if there's a little village and the people in the village drove Highway 55 and 70% of them took Highway 55 three cities over.

02:30:07.000 Is that what you're saying?

02:30:17.000 The district would naturally become that highway towards that other area where they all kind of work.

02:30:22.000 And you would be due to like tracking mechanisms, kind of fortunately or unfortunately, but we use like an artificial intelligence to parse who's where when.

02:30:31.000 And then that would, I keep thinking of these heat maps, self organizing districts.

02:30:39.000 I want back in on this one.

02:30:41.000 I want to say I didn't catch the caller's name, but as much as the system you're proposing has a flaw that I don't think gets fixed by anything we've talked about.

02:30:52.000 I'm not sure it would be worse than what we have now.

02:30:55.000 So it might be that it's even somewhat better.

02:30:58.000 But I'm wondering if maybe it would be vastly more democratic if we did what you're suggesting and each state was allocated a representation in the House based on its absolute population, period, the end.

02:31:11.000 And then we selected in an election the top, you know, if you were allotted 30 representatives for your state, the top 30 vote getters.

02:31:22.000 In the election, which would allow you to organize around your interests and it would allow you to organize around local things if that was what mattered to you and get somebody elected who would represent you.

02:31:34.000 The downside is that people use the internet to get people to vote that are far away in their area.

02:31:42.000 Yeah, which we already have, and we have a worse problem, which is, you know, at the moment, the Thomas Massey situation where you have outside money that has nothing to do with.

02:31:53.000 Kentucky dominating this race.

02:31:55.000 And, you know, frankly, it's dominating it both in the campaign to get rid of Massey and it's dominating now in the campaign to protect him, which I've participated in.

02:32:04.000 So the point is, this is not the founder's vision at all.

02:32:08.000 Should money be allowed to come in from out of state to help in state candidates?

02:32:08.000 I think.

02:32:13.000 No.

02:32:14.000 I think that that probably should not be allowed at all.

02:32:16.000 Like if you're running in Tennessee, then New Yorkers shouldn't be able to fund your campaign.

02:32:20.000 I keep thinking that like.

02:32:22.000 It's like carpet bagging, but the campaign donors instead of just the candidate.

02:32:26.000 Carpet bagging.

02:32:27.000 Carpet bagging.

02:32:28.000 What is that exactly?

02:32:29.000 Carpet bagging is this old idea of like a candidate just moving into a district that they've never been to before to run.

02:32:36.000 They call them a carpet bag.

02:32:37.000 They load their stuff into a carpet bag.

02:32:39.000 Exactly.

02:32:40.000 I think we need what I keep referring to as a direct republic, where we use smart contracts for like your 70,000 people, constituents to vote into a contract system that sways yes or no.

02:32:51.000 And then that yes or no vote goes to Congress and functions as the representative of your system, of your locale.

02:32:57.000 Like a whole blockchain democracy.

02:32:58.000 I feel like 17 blockchains that self reference to make sure that it's a legit count.

02:33:03.000 And then if the power goes out, you send the guy.

02:33:06.000 And that's when they go to Washington, D.C.

02:33:07.000 But ideally, we are representing ourselves through.

02:33:11.000 A system.

02:33:12.000 I have one more idea that belongs here, I think.

02:33:12.000 All right.

02:33:15.000 Longstanding idea for me, which is you can buy as much campaign ad time as you want, but every other candidate in the race gets equal time.

02:33:24.000 Didn't we used to have something kind of like that?

02:33:27.000 We used to have it on network TV when most of our news came on government owned airwaves and there was an equal time thing.

02:33:36.000 And that was recently brought into question by Trump and others when it came to.

02:33:42.000 What was it, the Kamala Harris interview in 2024?

02:33:46.000 Yeah.

02:33:46.000 Oh, right.

02:33:47.000 And because she got this bogus 60 minutes interview that was then edited to make her sound like she knew what she was talking about.

02:33:53.000 And so then Trump had to get equal time.

02:33:55.000 So, yeah, I mean, I think we did have something like that, but we certainly don't have that now, especially when you consider the multiple, multiple platforms that people can put their campaign information on.

02:34:07.000 And we had it in a limited sense.

02:34:11.000 What I'm envisioning is.

02:34:13.000 I just want the competition of people and ideas for these offices to be honest.

02:34:18.000 And my feeling is we run into trouble when we try to limit your speech because it's unfair.

02:34:24.000 So let's not limit your speech.

02:34:25.000 Let's just say, if you get this much speech, so does everybody else who's running.

02:34:30.000 That's ideal from the voter's perspective.

02:34:31.000 I get the question then is who's paying for all of the other guys?

02:34:36.000 Well, when you buy ad time, you're buying it for all of them.

02:34:39.000 You're buying it for everybody.

02:34:40.000 I think there's also, I remember talking to Matt Gaetz about this, and he said that the fundraising component.

02:34:47.000 Once you're in Congress, it is absolutely insane, too, that you have to keep fundraising just to get on committees, which seems completely anathema to a democratic process.

02:34:57.000 It's despicable.

02:34:59.000 Yeah.

02:34:59.000 And, you know, it's right.

02:35:00.000 It's dehumanizing.

02:35:02.000 Like the congressmen are sitting in little phone centers calling constituents for hours.

02:35:06.000 It's crazy.

02:35:07.000 And then you think about, like, the average person who might think, you know what, I think I could do well for my district, but you have absolutely no shot because of the millions and millions of dollars you need to fundraise.

02:35:18.000 I'm telling you, dude, people think, I bet people in Congress think their jobs are safe from AI.

02:35:22.000 They're not.

02:35:23.000 I'm telling you right now, we're going towards a direct republic.

02:35:25.000 You guys in Congress, you might still get your $500 a month just for being there, just in case you have to go.

02:35:31.000 They get like $174, don't they?

02:35:33.000 Something like that.

02:35:33.000 Yeah, but ideally, we'll be doing the work that we're supposed to be doing, which is representing ourselves to the U.S. government.

02:35:39.000 We are the government.

02:35:40.000 So I think that the age of the U.S. House representatives is kind of like, just like the feather and ink are on their way back to the 1700s.

02:35:50.000 Don't you think we'd need a constitutional amendment to do away with that?

02:35:53.000 Well, we better move fast because the rest of the world ain't going to wait.

02:35:55.000 I don't know that people would go for that out in the rest of the states.

02:36:00.000 Well, if you think of it as a layering system, like you'll still have the exact same system we have now if the power goes out.

02:36:05.000 Everything will be fine.

02:36:06.000 They'll still go to Congress.

02:36:07.000 They'll still do their job.

02:36:08.000 But not if the power goes out.

02:36:09.000 What's that?

02:36:10.000 You can't get to Congress if the power goes out.

02:36:11.000 You'll have to ride there on the horse.

02:36:13.000 Well, that's why it used to be that when you got elected, it was like, you know, so long until you had to actually show up in Congress because you needed to have time for everybody from like Oklahoma to get there.

02:36:25.000 Yeah.

02:36:26.000 Yeah.

02:36:26.000 So it was like months and months.

02:36:28.000 I just want to say one other thing here to Libby's point.

02:36:32.000 Our system is a farce, and it's a farce for a reason. 0.97

02:36:37.000 The fact is, the public, we've got two fringes who are crazy.

02:36:42.000 And in the middle, you've got this vast number of people who basically agree on what they want.

02:36:47.000 They don't agree 100% on policy, but there's basic agreement, even on the issues that we're supposed to not be able to even talk about.

02:36:54.000 And the system is structured in such a way that the person that you're describing, who just simply wants to represent their district, is the enemy of the things that have power.

02:37:03.000 So they specifically are not wanted, they're driven out.

02:37:07.000 And That if we understood that basically what's happened, our whole system has been hijacked.

02:37:13.000 It's been hijacked so that it won't do our bidding and will do the bidding of the people who control it.

02:37:18.000 If we understood that, then the point is well, we want any system that makes a decent effort to represent what we want.

02:37:25.000 It would be 6,000 times better than what we've got.

02:37:28.000 And the elephant in the room is this a political party that simply decided to represent the interests of the people as the people understand them would win every time.

02:37:41.000 It would be so popular, it would be unstoppable.

02:37:44.000 So, why is there no such party?

02:37:46.000 Caller, do you want to add anything or shout anything out?

02:37:51.000 I had one more, just a quick pointed question I wanted to ask the guest specifically.

02:37:57.000 Earlier in the episode, while trying to explain a point, you said to set a low bar, let's say firefighters, for example.

02:38:10.000 What makes you think being a firefighter is a low bar?

02:38:13.000 Oh, I don't.

02:38:14.000 What I meant is.

02:38:16.000 It's something that we all almost all agree on that a system in which there are firefighters who come running when we need help, we all think it's a good thing.

02:38:25.000 And the fact is, it wasn't true when the country was founded.

02:38:28.000 It used to be that you had to buy a contract to get somebody to fight the fire in your building.

02:38:33.000 You had an emblem on your house.

02:38:34.000 You had an emblem on your house, exactly.

02:38:36.000 And then we made it a public good.

02:38:38.000 And the fact is, almost everybody likes it as a public good.

02:38:42.000 Except that's urban environments.

02:38:45.000 Out here, for instance, everything's volunteer because there is no money towards fire departments.

02:38:49.000 Right, which is different.

02:38:50.000 But nonetheless, the same thing that has most people willing to pay taxes in order to have firefighters come running causes people to volunteer and to support volunteer fire departments.

02:39:00.000 So it's the same impulse.

02:39:01.000 We agree on it.

02:39:05.000 Gotcha.

02:39:06.000 Well, I am a 26 year member and captain of my fire department.

02:39:12.000 So I just thought I would ask that question.

02:39:15.000 Nice.

02:39:16.000 Yeah.

02:39:16.000 No, I didn't mean low bar in any insulting way.

02:39:19.000 I just meant that it's something we can all agree on.

02:39:21.000 He meant argument wise, it's a low bar because we all agree on it already.

02:39:26.000 In fact, he was complimented.

02:39:26.000 Gotcha.

02:39:27.000 It's true.

02:39:29.000 Oh, I just got a shout out.

02:39:32.000 You can check out my preppers group, the Black Sheep Prepper, on X at BSP underscore prepper.

02:39:39.000 And we'll see you guys next time.

02:39:41.000 Thanks for calling in.

02:39:41.000 See you, man.

02:39:42.000 Nice talking to you.

02:39:44.000 Oh, sorry.

02:39:44.000 Next up.

02:39:45.000 Next up, we've got Cron Doors.

02:39:48.000 Hey, what's going on?

02:39:49.000 Cron Doors.

02:39:51.000 Hey, good evening, everybody.

02:39:52.000 Hi.

02:39:53.000 Hey there.

02:39:55.000 So, I got a pretty relatively straightforward question.

02:39:58.000 So, given the VRA ruling, do you think it's possible Democratic leaders will now try to educate their voters on issues rather than pandering based on race, or do you think they'll just lean even harder on class based, rich versus poor arguments?

02:40:11.000 Yes, correct.

02:40:13.000 The latter.

02:40:14.000 That was a pretty easy one.

02:40:15.000 I haven't heard other, like the Trump scary argument is what I keep hearing, so I don't know that there is another argument.

02:40:22.000 Other than Trump is bad.

02:40:23.000 I asked my dad this thing because he's like, We got to get Trump out of office.

02:40:25.000 I'm like, Okay, I understand the desire to form a revolution, but you got to tell me what comes next.

02:40:30.000 What is your vision for after Donald Trump?

02:40:32.000 I keep refocusing him on that.

02:40:33.000 He's like, Ah, ah, ah.

02:40:34.000 And it's like, bro, that's what I need from you.

02:40:36.000 So maybe, maybe there's an argument.

02:40:37.000 Maybe there's a decision or a plan.

02:40:40.000 Well, I will tell you, as a lifelong Democrat and a lifetime observer of the Democratic Party, I will tell you that the faction that has control of it is incapable of learning a lesson from a failure.

02:40:56.000 They double down every time and it is absurd, but you can rely on it.

02:41:02.000 So, yeah, I'm expecting more of the same.

02:41:04.000 So just invest in Moderna and take your money, man.

02:41:08.000 Buy an infinity pool and relax.

02:41:12.000 I want to do infinity pool.

02:41:14.000 Sounds nice.

02:41:15.000 What was it?

02:41:16.000 What was your follow up?

02:41:17.000 Well, do you think though, like because they, you know, just like this whole VRA ruling, they've pretty much taken out one of the legs of their arguments that more of these won't come down the line as far as more of the legs being knocked out?

02:41:30.000 We're to the point where you have to actually truly reach out to their constituents and make them understand why vote for them as opposed to, you know, A Republican or the opposition.

02:41:44.000 There is Fetterman.

02:41:45.000 There's people like John Fetterman, but I've seen him get demonized by his own party.

02:41:51.000 Yeah, they want him out in Pennsylvania.

02:41:53.000 I mean, the Democrats want him out.

02:41:54.000 His constituents seem to like him.

02:41:57.000 Which is also a thing.

02:42:00.000 Like, no party should be going after a representative that is actually serving their constituents to their constituents' satisfaction.

02:42:08.000 100%.

02:42:08.000 I mean, it applies to the Massey race and it applies to Fetterman.

02:42:11.000 Yeah.

02:42:12.000 Massey might lose. 0.99

02:42:14.000 He might lose.

02:42:15.000 But his constituents mostly like him.

02:42:17.000 Oh, he's wildly popular.

02:42:18.000 Yeah, it's crazy.

02:42:19.000 All that matters is the numbers game.

02:42:22.000 The people who pay attention to politics like him, but Trump just needs to get the attention of as many people as possible to beat him.

02:42:28.000 Yeah, I don't like that.

02:42:30.000 Are they doing digital like Dominion votes for that?

02:42:33.000 Well, I don't know about that, but they're dumping insane money.

02:42:33.000 They're dumping insane money.

02:42:36.000 Man. 0.89

02:42:38.000 So, sorry, Cron Doors, I just don't know the answer.

02:42:41.000 I mean, I don't see any evidence that would lead towards a new messaging. 0.97

02:42:45.000 Platform from the Democratic Party right now.

02:42:47.000 Well, you know what?

02:42:49.000 Just look at the West Coast states.

02:42:51.000 You can see that this party will not turn around no matter how clear the evidence is that it's on the wrong path.

02:42:59.000 I like that they haven't even started doing podcasts.

02:43:01.000 What were you saying?

02:43:03.000 He flip flopped all over the place and then stopped doing it because it didn't actually serve him and his constituents didn't like it.

02:43:11.000 Or the Democrat constituents didn't like it.

02:43:13.000 The rest of California probably didn't mind it.

02:43:15.000 But I'm more and more convinced that.

02:43:19.000 You should only be allowed to run for office, at least nationally, at least federally, if you were born in the U.S., not just president.

02:43:26.000 There should be no money from outside the state for any in state election under any circumstances.

02:43:33.000 I think that should stop.

02:43:35.000 And the other thing that I'm sure of is that the Democrats are not going to stop trying to exert total control over the population.

02:43:43.000 And the progressive messaging is that experts should be in charge of all of us, that none of us should have a say.

02:43:50.000 At all.

02:43:50.000 And there was even a video from Pete Buttigieg, who is, you know, contemplating a 2028 run along with Newsom and Kamala Harris.

02:43:59.000 And he was saying that his, he was like, oh, my biggest fear is that we get back in, that Democrats get back into office in 2026 after the midterms and try and revert to the status quo.

02:44:10.000 There can be no going back, no going back to the status quo that we had before all of this.

02:44:15.000 So their intention is to go harder.

02:44:18.000 Their intention, their stated goals.

02:44:21.000 Are to double down on all of these crisis ideologies and to keep pushing this thing.

02:44:29.000 And they're making people believe that we have the most racist country in the history of the world.

02:44:33.000 And we have the most non racist country in the history of the world.

02:44:37.000 We have the most liberated country that the world has ever seen, which, you know, can work sometimes to our detriment a little bit because we have so many options that we don't know what to do.

02:44:47.000 And then we just go get Taco Bell or whatever.

02:44:49.000 But, you know, or Dell Taco.

02:44:51.000 Sure.

02:44:52.000 Take your, see, too many options already.

02:44:54.000 Taco Bueno.

02:44:55.000 You can make your own.

02:44:56.000 Look at all these options.

02:44:58.000 And now the next thing you know, you're just door dashing whatever.

02:45:01.000 Have you heard about these new restaurants?

02:45:03.000 I just ate it when it's called Wonder.

02:45:04.000 You see my point.

02:45:05.000 No, what is it?

02:45:06.000 They're calling it Amazon for Food.

02:45:08.000 And I love it.

02:45:10.000 The idea, I think, was to eliminate these ghost kitchens because basically now, if you're on DoorDash, ghost kitchens are weird.

02:45:15.000 Yeah.

02:45:16.000 So, this Wonder place, we went there.

02:45:17.000 It's in Frederick because they have like 12 restaurants in one.

02:45:21.000 And you can see in the back, and they have like three kitchens in one.

02:45:25.000 And it says like where each restaurant is pretty wild.

02:45:29.000 But you can order like a Bobby Flay steak or a cheeseburger or like Mediterranean.

02:45:34.000 The idea was if you're ordering from DoorDash, most people are.

02:45:37.000 One central kitchen makes all of these different styles of food so they can more easily dispatch.

02:45:42.000 I just saw Papa John's did their first drone delivery for a pizza today.

02:45:47.000 So, can you imagine that all coming out of a central kitchen with like 70 different restaurants?

02:45:52.000 I loved it because we got chips and guac.

02:45:55.000 Allison got Mediterranean, and I got a cheeseburger.

02:45:57.000 It's like Golden Corral to go.

02:45:58.000 How do you deliver a pizza without it being really cold by the time it gets there?

02:46:04.000 Good question.

02:46:05.000 Insulated bag.

02:46:06.000 It's insulated, just like they do in the car.

02:46:08.000 How insulated could it possibly be?

02:46:09.000 Just like on the e bikes in New York.

02:46:11.000 I guess that's the point.

02:46:13.000 Actually, really hot.

02:46:14.000 We get deliveries here, and it'll be like a 20 minute delivery, and the pizza gets here, and it's like you got to cool it off.

02:46:19.000 It's amazing.

02:46:20.000 I just proved I'm not modern.

02:46:20.000 All right.

02:46:26.000 We don't know.

02:46:27.000 It's a mystery. 0.75

02:46:28.000 Did you make your ChatGPT a black dude? 0.97

02:46:30.000 Yeah.

02:46:31.000 I don't know.

02:46:34.000 Shine anything?

02:46:34.000 You want to add anything?

02:46:35.000 It just sounds like that.

02:46:38.000 I was actually wondering if you guys will indulge me if I had a question for Brett, kind of off topic, if you wouldn't mind.

02:46:45.000 Dr. Brett, I guess.

02:46:47.000 So I've had this thought in my mind about this question.

02:46:51.000 So maybe you're the best person to answer this.

02:46:53.000 So imagine two species, relatively similar but distinct nonetheless species A, species B.

02:47:01.000 Now, A and A can procreate, of course, B and B can procreate, and A and B can also together procreate and have.

02:47:10.000 You know, offspring.

02:47:11.000 Fertile offspring.

02:47:13.000 Okay. 0.91

02:47:13.000 Yeah. 0.91

02:47:14.000 Now, AA would make an A, BB would make a B, and AB together could make an A or a B.

02:47:19.000 But what would you call it if there is a term for this in your field where a B and B would make an A or an A and an A would make a B?

02:47:33.000 I'm trying to think of an example.

02:47:35.000 This certainly has some analogies at the gene level, at the species level.

02:47:43.000 I'm struggling to find an example.

02:47:46.000 I mean, certainly we see hybrids all the time, but yeah, I don't spot it.

02:47:53.000 That'd be interesting.

02:47:54.000 And the question is Is there a reason that we should expect to see that pattern?

02:47:59.000 In other words, would there be an advantage to it?

02:48:02.000 Well, the reason this even came to my mind is because I think about this in our social situation, and I get there's other factors involved in this, of like two parents.

02:48:14.000 Whether they're conservative or liberal, having a child opposite to them.

02:48:20.000 And I was wondering if that is something that can, in a sense, happen in nature in any such way where two of one species could create something that's totally not of them, essentially.

02:48:32.000 But I mean, I know the ideology versus biology is totally separate, but it just kind of crossed my mind if something like that is even possible or even does happen.

02:48:42.000 All right.

02:48:43.000 I used to have a rule for my students.

02:48:47.000 It was so I would ask them a question, I would get back an answer that wasn't very good.

02:48:52.000 And then five minutes later, they would give me a great answer.

02:48:55.000 And so I started telling them, Answer the question I should have asked you rather than the one I did ask you.

02:49:02.000 You're liberated to answer the right question.

02:49:04.000 So I'm going to answer the question that I think you're shooting for here.

02:49:09.000 The special thing about human beings is that we have offloaded a huge fraction of the work of evolution from the genes to the cultural layer.

02:49:22.000 And what you're talking about, where two parents create an offspring that Is a reaction to them rather than a continuation of them is a natural pattern.

02:49:32.000 So you can imagine that there are times, most times presumably, when your kids should probably pick up your understanding of the world and run with it, maybe elaborate it a little bit.

02:49:44.000 But then there are going to be other times when the elders, the world that they knew has come to an end because let's say maybe you moved, you know, you got on your kayaks and you got to a shore somewhere and you've walked onto a land with no human competitors and you're now not a kayaker.

02:50:00.000 Person anymore, you're a terrestrial hunter.

02:50:03.000 So the point is, you don't want your kids to continue what you were.

02:50:07.000 You want them to respond to the new world that is.

02:50:10.000 And human beings are capable of doing that because we are so heavily biased in the direction of culture.

02:50:16.000 And this is one of the hidden, spectacularly important aspects of human biology our genome has surrendered so much control to our culture, not because it's given up our ultimate objective, it's still in control of that.

02:50:30.000 But because culture does the job much better because it can turn on a dime in the way you're talking about.

02:50:39.000 Right on.

02:50:42.000 Well, I didn't expect that answer, but that definitely opens my mind to how to think about that situation.

02:50:50.000 You want to shout anything out, brother?

02:50:53.000 No, no, that's all.

02:50:54.000 But I appreciate the input and the perspective, everybody.

02:50:57.000 Thank you so much, everyone.

02:50:58.000 Have a good evening.

02:50:59.000 Thanks for calling.

02:51:00.000 Love the question.

02:51:00.000 Awesome.

02:51:01.000 And last but not least, we have Brian Major Threat.

02:51:05.000 What's up, Brian?

02:51:06.000 Hi.

02:51:07.000 Oh, hey, good night.

02:51:08.000 Good evening, gentlemen.

02:51:10.000 I'm a frequent caller and Ian Crossland critic.

02:51:15.000 Gotta love Ian.

02:51:17.000 That's right.

02:51:18.000 But I have a question for the whole panel.

02:51:22.000 With Scott Pressler putting his great efforts and great care into the Texas Senate runoff for Paxton, What are you betting on the outcome?

02:51:37.000 And oh, by the way, I just checked the poly market.

02:51:40.000 Paxton's ahead.

02:51:42.000 Paxton.

02:51:43.000 I think Paxton.

02:51:45.000 He's massively popular in the state.

02:51:46.000 He's massively popular nationally.

02:51:48.000 I think he'll do very well fundraising, and I think Trump's going to support him.

02:51:53.000 Yeah, I think Paxton too over Cornyn.

02:51:56.000 Yep.

02:51:58.000 And I don't think Taylorico has much of a shot.

02:52:00.000 At least I hope not.

02:52:01.000 Yeah, I hope not.

02:52:02.000 I think he'll be somewhat competitive, but I don't think he'll win.

02:52:05.000 I'm not educated enough to answer the question.

02:52:07.000 Me either.

02:52:08.000 Which is mostly the case for Ian.

02:52:09.000 Yeah, I'll admit.

02:52:10.000 I had to throw it in there.

02:52:10.000 No, only when it's true.

02:52:11.000 I'm glad it's true.

02:52:12.000 I'll admit it.

02:52:13.000 Be better, Ian.

02:52:14.000 Dang it.

02:52:16.000 I know the name Paxton way more.

02:52:17.000 A noob is like an outsider, Paxton, because that guy's way more famous than any of the other guys.

02:52:23.000 That's a great answer for me, and to be honest, limited knowledge of politics, but name recognition alone is going to matter the most.

02:52:23.000 No, Cornyn.

02:52:30.000 Yeah, it's true.

02:52:31.000 I only know because I'm from Dallas.

02:52:34.000 Oh, yeah.

02:52:35.000 With a quick follow up on that, with the new projected congressional maps, does passing the Save Act even really matter that much this cycle?

02:52:35.000 Yep.

02:52:46.000 Yeah. 0.97

02:52:47.000 Let's get 50 seats. 0.98

02:52:48.000 Come on.

02:52:49.000 I mean, it.

02:52:50.000 Yeah, the procedural victories are the most important at this point, but come on.

02:52:54.000 It'd be great, right?

02:52:56.000 Yeah.

02:52:59.000 I'll take all I can get.

02:53:00.000 Yeah.

02:53:02.000 Right?

02:53:05.000 Have you ever smoked DMT?

02:53:07.000 No, sir.

02:53:08.000 I have not.

02:53:09.000 It's wild, dude.

02:53:10.000 I did.

02:53:11.000 I'll tell you about this really quick because Brett was dying to know.

02:53:14.000 I don't know.

02:53:14.000 Brett was dying to know.

02:53:16.000 I smoked it.

02:53:17.000 I vaped it.

02:53:18.000 I only vaped enough to peer through the veil.

02:53:20.000 I didn't blast through, like they say, but I was in a stereoscopic realm.

02:53:25.000 Hyper frequency, colorful, shimmering light, like all the colors of the rainbow become white. 0.98

02:53:31.000 And then they take on this hominid form and it's these personas. 0.95

02:53:34.000 And I'm communicating with them with my thoughts. 0.97

02:53:36.000 And it's because your body's like, but if you can think clearly, you can ask them questions, they'll respond to you. 0.97

02:53:42.000 And they were like, he can fucking see us.

02:53:43.000 And they were looking at me like I was the video game character they've been playing, turned and looked at them and started like you're playing a game and the guy starts talking to you, Brett, like your video game. 0.98

02:53:52.000 And we start interfacing.

02:53:53.000 And I'm like, are you God?

02:53:55.000 And they said, no.

02:53:55.000 I was like, what is God?

02:53:57.000 They showed me the vortex.

02:53:58.000 They're like, we don't know, but we think it's this vortex.

02:54:00.000 And I think it's like the center of every proton, the center of the galaxy.

02:54:03.000 And they seem like people.

02:54:04.000 I don't know if they were real people somewhere that were projecting or if it was just the high frequency angels and demons.

02:54:10.000 This is what they are.

02:54:12.000 That was my experience the last time.

02:54:13.000 So let me ask you a question.

02:54:15.000 I'm fascinated by these stories.

02:54:19.000 Do you think that the entities you were interacting with were the machine elves that other people talk about?

02:54:25.000 Yeah.

02:54:26.000 And the purple lady?

02:54:27.000 Because I think it's ultraviolet light. 0.76

02:54:29.000 Interesting.

02:54:30.000 I find the meaning of this, whatever it is, fascinating, whether that's a product of the human mind or something else.

02:54:39.000 It's fascinating that this is the one drug that takes people to a shared experience.

02:54:48.000 And that could be the power of suggestion.

02:54:50.000 It's possible that the power of suggestion over DMT for some reason has caused this story to resonate for multiple people.

02:54:57.000 But whatever it is, I don't think it's suggestion.

02:55:01.000 Because a lot of the stories are, they've done tests on uninitiated people who don't know anything about it.

02:55:06.000 And they've put them in two different rooms and they experienced the same thing.

02:55:10.000 Like, they both went, they both peered through into a different reality where the walls weren't there, but they were still within proximity of each other.

02:55:16.000 Yeah. 1.00

02:55:17.000 Weird shit. 1.00

02:55:18.000 If any of you encounter the machine elves, please tell them I have questions. 1.00

02:55:23.000 What questions?

02:55:24.000 Well, yes.

02:55:24.000 I'll ask them.

02:55:24.000 So many questions.

02:55:25.000 Well, you can always encounter them.

02:55:26.000 I'll send you a list.

02:55:27.000 You can ask them.

02:55:28.000 They'll respond before you even finish asking the question because they know what you're going to ask them.

02:55:31.000 Because they know.

02:55:32.000 Yeah.

02:55:32.000 What if when you die, that's where you go?

02:55:34.000 I think it is.

02:55:34.000 It felt like heaven.

02:55:35.000 I think when you.

02:55:36.000 It's not heaven.

02:55:37.000 It's just the next plane or something.

02:55:38.000 Yeah, because I knew going.

02:55:39.000 They were like, whoa.

02:55:40.000 How did you get it?

02:55:41.000 You're not dead.

02:55:42.000 I know. 0.99

02:55:43.000 But that's why they were like, he can fucking see us. 0.99

02:55:45.000 They were shocked. 0.99

02:55:46.000 And it's like, I could choose fear going into it, and then they would have been demonic and it would have been horrific.

02:55:51.000 But I chose love and gratitude, and they were very gracious and happy to see me.

02:55:54.000 I think there's.

02:55:55.000 I don't know why people see it differently from different times.

02:55:57.000 Probably about a lot about genetics and about your tension levels and things.

02:56:01.000 If they're like, you know, the most serene.

02:56:05.000 You want to add anything or shout anything out, brother?

02:56:08.000 Oh, just Ian.

02:56:13.000 Yeah, I love you, brother.

02:56:14.000 But man, every time you go off on this DMT and shroom trip stuff.

02:56:22.000 Wait, you broke up.

02:56:23.000 I usually type in the chat STFU.

02:56:25.000 Your audio broke up.

02:56:27.000 I wanted to hear it all the way.

02:56:27.000 What were you saying?

02:56:30.000 I said, normally when you start talking about this shroom and DMT stuff, that's when I start yelling in the chat STFU. 0.99

02:56:40.000 But it's definitely, it's only DMT, like shrooms, LSD, all that shit, marijuana. 0.98

02:56:45.000 But DMT, there's something about this chemical that. 0.99

02:56:45.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 0.99

02:56:49.000 It's more real than like this.

02:56:51.000 It felt like another frequency of this, I think, is all it really is.

02:56:55.000 Like, it is as real as this.

02:56:58.000 I'm not trying to prove it.

02:56:59.000 Anyways, anyway, thanks for taking my call.

02:57:04.000 Love you guys.

02:57:06.000 Shout out the Discord.

02:57:07.000 Shout out my friend, Olivia Claire, doing a great job running the community.

02:57:12.000 And good night.

02:57:13.000 Thanks for calling in, brother.

02:57:16.000 Right on.

02:57:16.000 Brett, it's always great to have you.

02:57:19.000 This has been so much fun.

02:57:20.000 Yeah, glad you could make it out.

02:57:21.000 We'll love to have you back anytime.

02:57:22.000 Fantastic.

02:57:23.000 I'm looking forward to it.

02:57:24.000 Tomorrow on the show, we have Mark Herman.

02:57:27.000 It'll be fun.

02:57:28.000 It's going to be a whole lot of fun.

02:57:30.000 And then this weekend and next weekend, I got some crazy stuff going on.

02:57:33.000 I don't know if I'll let you talk about it just yet, but it'll be interesting.

02:57:37.000 We're going to make some specials, probably, make some special videos for Sunday.

02:57:40.000 We'll see what happens.

02:57:41.000 But thanks for hanging out.

02:57:42.000 We're back tomorrow.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - May 11, 2026

SCOTUS Hands Trump THIRD MASSIVE WIN | Timcast IRL

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript