Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - Timcast IRL - New Documents Prove Fauci Lied To Congress, Committing Perjury w-Zaid Jilani

00:00:00.000 New reporting by The Intercept.

00:00:21.000 shows that Anthony Fauci lied.

00:00:24.000 And I think we knew that because there was a study that came out in 2017, Dr. Rand Paul actually held, I think he quoted it, when he was questioning Fauci.

00:00:34.000 And in this scientific study, they say they received funding from the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance, and that in this study, they actually made chimeric viruses, which is basically gain-of-function, but Dr. Fauci pushed back saying, up and down the chain, it was determined this was not gain-of-function research.

00:00:50.000 Well, as much as most people believe that he was... Well, I shouldn't say most, but a lot of people believe that he was lying.

00:00:55.000 We now have this report from The Intercept, which also published 900 pages.

00:01:00.000 And we now have a professor from Rutgers saying, outright, this shows they were doing what is defined by the federal government as gain-of-function research.

00:01:07.000 There's the grant application, there's the progress reports.

00:01:10.000 This was gain-of-function research.

00:01:13.000 And Dr. Anthony Fauci lied.

00:01:15.000 Or I should say, to quote the professor, he was being untruthful.

00:01:18.000 Well, I'll be a little bit more bold than that.

00:01:20.000 Now Rand Paul is saying, see?

00:01:21.000 Told you.

00:01:21.000 He lied.

00:01:22.000 He lied again.

00:01:22.000 Now Rand Paul has called for criminal action in the past.

00:01:26.000 I really don't think anything is going to happen.

00:01:28.000 So we'll talk about this.

00:01:28.000 We've got a bunch of other news.

00:01:30.000 I've talked about a lot of this stuff earlier today, but we're going to break it all down, get into the conversation around it.

00:01:35.000 We have that Rachel Maddow story.

00:01:36.000 You may have seen Rachel Maddow tweeted fake news about Ivermectin and Oklahoma hospitals being overrun.

00:01:42.000 Didn't happen.

00:01:43.000 But apparently she's still pushing the story, I guess, and people are criticizing her.

00:01:47.000 So we'll get into all that, as well as potentially some Afghanistan stuff.

00:01:50.000 And we are being joined by journalist Zed Jilani.

00:01:53.000 How's it going, man?

00:01:55.000 It's good to be here.

00:01:55.000 It's great.

00:01:56.000 Do you want to just give a quick introduction to who you are?

00:01:58.000 Yeah, so I am a... right now I'm a freelance journalist.

00:02:02.000 I keep a sub stack with my friend Sean Misrobian at inquiremore.com.

00:02:06.000 But I've spent probably a dozen years in journalism.

00:02:09.000 I was a staff reporter at The Intercept.

00:02:11.000 I was a reporter for Alternet.

00:02:13.000 I was a reporter back at ThinkProgress back when it still existed at Center for American Progress.

00:02:17.000 And I contribute to a range of publications, The Washington Examiner, Tablet Magazine.

00:02:23.000 Basically, if you read it, I've probably written something at some point there, written in The Atlantic recently, did a mini-documentary for Fox News over the summer.

00:02:31.000 So, yeah, in a way I'm prolific, I guess, but I just kind of, you know, I want to go out there and explain the world, I want to figure things out together.

00:02:38.000 That's interesting that you worked for ThinkProgress, Alternate, The Intercept, all particularly left or establishment publications, and then you're like, I also did something for Fox News over the summer.

00:02:38.000 Right on.

00:02:47.000 You know, I think back in the day, you could, and it wasn't really that big of a deal.

00:02:52.000 But in this past decade, it's been getting worse and worse to where it's like you're on one side or the other.

00:02:58.000 But I do think it's interesting that you having worked at those places, I'm sure many of our viewers are not fans of, but Glenn Greenwald is, you know, citing you on Twitter saying, you're a journalist, Rachel Maddow's a crackpot.

00:03:08.000 And I think, you know, that speaks, that says a lot.

00:03:11.000 So it'll be interesting to talk about this report from The Intercept and the history of these organizations, I think, or at least the recent history.

00:03:17.000 And we'll get into like this shift in culture.

00:03:20.000 You know, we have another story from the ACLU.

00:03:23.000 The ACLU, what, only a couple years ago was it?

00:03:25.000 it? They were saying vaccine passports are bad and wrong.

00:03:28.000 We can't do it.

00:03:29.000 Yeah, they had put out a report.

00:03:31.000 I think it was in 2008 or 2009, basically saying that in

00:03:34.000 pandemics, government shouldn't be violating civil liberties.

00:03:37.000 Right. They need to focus on education, on public health.

00:03:39.000 They don't need to focus on criminalization or, you know,

00:03:42.000 measures that we would at that time anyway, consider

00:03:44.000 authoritarian. But yeah, they've done a total about face basically

00:03:48.000 in the past year where they've embraced both mask mandates in

00:03:50.000 schools and also vaccine mandates in other contexts.

00:03:53.000 One of the articles that I think Glenn posted is from 2020, where

00:03:57.000 they were like, PACs passports Now they have an op-ed in the New York Times saying, yes, passports are good and not a violation of your civil liberties.

00:04:04.000 These organizations have lost the plot.

00:04:06.000 But I really want to talk about a lot of that stuff.

00:04:07.000 We'll start with the news.

00:04:08.000 We also got Ian Hanger.

00:04:09.000 Oh, yeah.

00:04:09.000 Ian Crossland.

00:04:10.000 What's up, everybody?

00:04:11.000 Happy to be here.

00:04:12.000 Good to see you, Tim, after the long weekend.

00:04:14.000 That's right.

00:04:14.000 Long weekend.

00:04:15.000 We got Lydia hanging out.

00:04:16.000 Yeah, I'm also in the corner.

00:04:17.000 Very excited to be here as well.

00:04:18.000 I'm excited to talk about the polarization, how all this has shifted strangely to the left.

00:04:22.000 And I would say that we could probably just follow all the money to see what's really going on.

00:04:26.000 And before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.

00:04:29.000 Become a member.

00:04:30.000 Support our fierce and independent journalism.

00:04:32.000 We got a bunch of great reporters.

00:04:33.000 We're hiring more by the day.

00:04:35.000 Well, that's not true.

00:04:36.000 We're hiring as many as we can as fast as we can, but it's not easy to vet people and make sure that, you know, they're going to do good work.

00:04:43.000 But we are actually in the process of formalizing our nonprofit as well, which is going to do fact checking for us and many other organizations.

00:04:50.000 And we're also going to issue ratings.

00:04:53.000 But generally, you know, If you're a member, you will support our journalism.

00:04:53.000 It's a big thing.

00:04:57.000 You'll get access to members-only segments, but we're also going to be launching a fact-checking outlet that's going to provide ratings to other news outlets based on a random sampling of recent articles they publish and whether or not they violate any journalistic ethics, and then you'll get a score of, like, x out of 100 articles were considered ethical by SPJ standards.

00:05:15.000 And then we'll break down our reasoning, link to the stories.

00:05:17.000 It's going to be fantastic.

00:05:19.000 With your support, we can do more stuff like that.

00:05:21.000 So, like this video, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.

00:05:25.000 Let's talk about this first big story because this is really, really fascinating.

00:05:28.000 We've got from TimCast.com, over 900 pages of coronavirus research info at Chinese Lab released following a FOIA lawsuit.

00:05:36.000 Documents regarding the work of the Wuhan Institute of Virology are now public.

00:05:40.000 The 900 pages of documents were obtained by The Intercept through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation against the National Institutes of Health.

00:05:47.000 The collection includes specific information regarding EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based health organization, and its use of federal funding to research bat coronaviruses.

00:05:57.000 The outlet also received two grant proposals funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

00:06:04.000 Gary Ruskin, Executive Director of the U.S.

00:06:06.000 Right to Know, said this is a roadmap to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic.

00:06:12.000 But instead of taking it from TimPS.com, or, I mean, with all due respect, this is information coming from The Intercept, who did the work on this one, my respect, we have this statement.

00:06:21.000 from Richard H. Ebright, verified on Twitter, so you know he's legit,

00:06:25.000 board of governors, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers. He cites the articles

00:06:31.000 and then some quotes from the article and then says, the materials show the 2014 and 2019 NIH

00:06:37.000 grants to eco-health with subcontracts to the Wuhan Institute of Virology funded gain-of-function

00:06:43.000 research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014 and 2017 and potential pandemic pathogen

00:06:50.000 enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017 to present.

00:06:55.000 He says, this has been evident previously from published research papers that credited the 2014 grant and from the publicly available summary of the 2019 grant, but this now can be stated definitively from progress reports of the 2014 grant and full proposals of the 2017 grant.

00:07:13.000 And he ends by saying this, because we don't get to read through everything, but it is particularly damning.

00:07:18.000 The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at the Wuhan Institute of Virology are untruthful.

00:07:34.000 To put it very simply, he is saying Fauci lied, Francis Collins lied, and now, I think most of us realized this, but, uh, well, now we have the documents.

00:07:44.000 What I think is particularly fascinating is the intercept of all places that published this.

00:07:49.000 And so, for what it's worth, we'll kick it off with something I saw from Glenn Greenwald.

00:07:54.000 He said, if he was going to make a bet, it was that they were trying to actually defend Fauci.

00:08:00.000 And they may have accidentally just proven he lied.

00:08:04.000 I don't know what your thoughts on this matter, Zed.

00:08:09.000 Yeah, I mean, I can only speculate about why they did it, because I wasn't in touch with any of these reporters.

00:08:14.000 I still know some people over there, but I wasn't in touch with any of the reporters who did this story.

00:08:18.000 I do think, though, that if that's what they were trying to do, you know, it speaks well to them that they would publish anyway.

00:08:22.000 I think we need more of that in journalism, is that you have a certain worldview, or you have a certain hypothesis about the world.

00:08:28.000 You go out there, you look for evidence, and maybe what you find disproves that, but you publish it anyway.

00:08:31.000 I mean, that's what they do in science.

00:08:33.000 It's what scientists are supposed to do.

00:08:34.000 It's what the peer review process and the journal process is all about.

00:08:37.000 And so I think if that is what Glenn is saying is true, it would actually speak well of the

00:08:41.000 Intercept, that they decided to publish something that goes against their worldview, which unfortunately

00:08:44.000 I think is something that you see less and less of in a lot of these outlets these days.

00:08:48.000 You mean like real journalism?

00:08:50.000 Yeah, I mean it's literally journalism is about, you know, journalism comes from the

00:08:54.000 word journaling, meaning that you're describing or you're narrating the world as it is in

00:08:58.000 front of you.

00:08:59.000 you.

00:09:00.000 You don't really do that when you start leaving out facts, when you start skewing things towards a particular perspective.

00:09:05.000 There is a place for that.

00:09:06.000 It's called advocacy, right?

00:09:07.000 It's called activism.

00:09:07.000 It's what politicians do.

00:09:08.000 People who are lobbyists do, people in the non-profit world often do, and that's fine.

00:09:08.000 It's what people do.

00:09:13.000 And it's even, I would say, I would even argue it's fine to have journalists who have that particular perspective and are going to go at it from that point of view, but it becomes a real problem when so much of the journalistic world has converted itself into activism because you're not getting people who are just calling balls and strikes, and you're not getting people who are willing, who have the resources and the prestige and credibility to go out and find the facts, who will actually be able to report them even if they go against those preconceived notions or worldviews.

00:09:35.000 It's kind of a damning... It's kind of a condemnation of activism.

00:09:40.000 The idea that activists who are supposedly fighting for something good are lying to you.

00:09:45.000 I mean, that's just reality, right?

00:09:46.000 Maybe propaganda is a better word for it.

00:09:48.000 You know, I'd like to imagine that as an activist, if you come across information that disproves what you're trying to push, you'd be like, oh, I was wrong about that.

00:09:56.000 I once did fundraising for an environmental non-profit.

00:09:59.000 They gave us information on Deepwater Horizon.

00:10:02.000 They sent us out to the streets to go ask people for money because they're like, we want to raise awareness, like literally on the ground telling people there's an oil spill.

00:10:08.000 And then I was reading what they had given us in terms of, you know, their script and everything.

00:10:13.000 And then some guy stops and said, you're lying.

00:10:14.000 That's not what happened.

00:10:15.000 Here's what happened.

00:10:15.000 Here's the news.

00:10:16.000 And I was like, for real?

00:10:17.000 Like, when I called my bosses and said, hey, this is not true.

00:10:21.000 They said, oh, just keep reading it anyway.

00:10:22.000 And I was like, what?

00:10:22.000 You're fine.

00:10:24.000 If we're not out here to tell the truth, to tell people there's a problem and we're misinforming them, why would I do this?

00:10:29.000 And so I was like, nah, sorry, I'm out.

00:10:32.000 Yeah, I mean, I think that when you have activists, you have advocates, yeah, generally speaking, it would be frowned upon just be outright making things up or lying.

00:10:40.000 But I do think they tend to just by the nature of their job, they tend to skew the truth or they tend to arrange facts in a certain way.

00:10:46.000 I mean, I wouldn't expect like the NRA to start saying, OK, well, here's all the flaws with having liberal gun policy or like letting everybody own a gun.

00:10:53.000 And I wouldn't expect the Brady control to be saying, here's 10 reasons why you might want to

00:10:56.000 own a gun for self-defense, right? Like we all anticipate that. But what happens when you start

00:11:00.000 seeing like CNN or the Associated Press taking more strident ideological or partisan positions

00:11:06.000 and they start being the ones who won't be telling you both sides of the story? I think that is when

00:11:09.000 it really gets dangerous for a democracy. Absolutely. Yeah.

00:11:13.000 And let's throw it back to these fact checks on this reporting.

00:11:16.000 When Rand Paul was clashing with Dr. Fauci, the craziest thing to me is that Rand is literally like, here's a study.

00:11:22.000 It says something like, rich gene pool, bat coronavirus or whatever.

00:11:25.000 And he's like, it says in the study that you were making chimeric viruses, you were increasing infectivity, and this was funded by you.

00:11:32.000 It says NIH.

00:11:34.000 And then Fauci's like, no, that wasn't gain of function.

00:11:36.000 And the way I describe it is like, imagine if a guy was on trial for theft.

00:11:39.000 And he says, Your Honor, I didn't steal that piggy bank from that man's house.

00:11:43.000 I simply walked into his house without permission, took the piggy bank, and walked out with it.

00:11:47.000 That's not theft.

00:11:49.000 Like, you literally just defined theft, right?

00:11:52.000 But what do we end up seeing?

00:11:54.000 A bunch of fact-checking outlets.

00:11:56.000 Misrepresenting what Rand Paul said.

00:11:58.000 Many left or liberal establishment outlets started saying, Fauci owns Rand Paul.

00:12:03.000 And they were highlighting a lot of things like Fauci saying, you have no idea what you're talking about, instead of actually the merit of this research study.

00:12:11.000 The craziest thing was how Reddit, which is like, just bots basically.

00:12:15.000 Reddit is a bunch of bots who just pump stories to push propaganda.

00:12:18.000 And there were still people breaking through being like, I'm confused why we're mad at Rand Paul here.

00:12:23.000 He's right.

00:12:23.000 The study says, you know, that this happened.

00:12:26.000 So this is what's crazy to me.

00:12:29.000 It's good The Intercept published this.

00:12:30.000 Like you said, it actually reflects well upon them if they were actually doing this to prove Rand Paul wrong.

00:12:35.000 They decided to publish anyway.

00:12:36.000 BuzzFeed's done similar things where they publish good stories.

00:12:40.000 But what do we say about all these outlets that dismiss the story as fake news, as they've been doing with basically everything, like Hunter Biden's son?

00:12:47.000 What does that say about journalism today?

00:12:49.000 Yeah, and I think this is a big theme of a lot of our recent posts at inquiremore.com, which is a sub stack that we run, which is that I think that a lot of journalists now, they're having to choose between two missions.

00:13:02.000 One mission is basically the traditional journalism, going out, discovering things about the world, describing it as the facts as they see them.

00:13:11.000 The other one is to promote a certain worldview, to promote a certain set of values, right?

00:13:15.000 And so I think that if something like a virus has become politicized, which it has been in the United States, there's actually like a red position, a blue position, a Democratic position, a Republican position, everything COVID-related now, unfortunately, more so here in this country than anywhere else in the world, I'd say also, which is an unfortunate aspect of it.

00:13:31.000 Now that you have journalists who kind of adopted this sort of post-journalism mindset, which is basically an advocacy or activist mindset, I think they see their goal and their role as basically debunking or disproving whatever this quote-unquote Republican position on coronavirus is.

00:13:46.000 We saw this earlier in the pandemic when they were all making fun of the idea that a lab leak may have been responsible for the pandemic.

00:13:52.000 Now, we don't know where coronavirus or COVID-19 came from.

00:13:55.000 Strictly speaking, we don't know.

00:13:56.000 We don't have the evidence for it.

00:13:58.000 But they were so quick to dismiss this theory and now you know even the by the ministration's keeping an

00:14:06.000 open mind about even they have, have not reached a firm conclusion on whether or not that's true with the might of

00:14:17.000 adopt hard positions Rather than keeping an open mind, rather than being curious and actually working to discover the world and report out the facts, you do get things like a Rand Paul being mocked and made fun of because they made up their minds before that hearing ever happened.

00:14:17.000 you know I have more than a dozen intelligence agencies looking at it so I think that when you have journalists

00:14:28.000 They were going to take Fauci's side.

00:14:30.000 They were going to be against Rand Paul.

00:14:31.000 They were going to poke holes in Rand Paul's argument.

00:14:33.000 They weren't going to do it in Fauci's arguments.

00:14:36.000 And that prevents them from actually being able to do what was done in this case with the hundreds of pages of documents that were obtained through the FOIA by the Intercept was to actually go and look at the facts and see what happened.

00:14:47.000 Literally see what happened and tell people what happened and don't have an opinion about it.

00:14:50.000 Don't tell people how they should feel, but literally give them the information that any reasonable person would need to know how to think about this problem or how to think about the actual origins of this virus.

00:15:00.000 There is still a challenge with this report, and that's who was chosen by the outlet as an expert.

00:15:06.000 And so we're sitting here being like, wow, you know, this professor at Rutgers has said these things that are untruthful.

00:15:14.000 And of course, there's confirmation bias there.

00:15:16.000 There have been several instances where we have seen experts chosen because their expert opinion might fit a specific narrative.

00:15:23.000 Now, this one's interesting because The Intercept had no reason to choose a professor who would actually say, you know, Fauci lied.

00:15:28.000 So, in fact, I have reason to believe this is likely the case, likely true.

00:15:32.000 If you've, like, you see this all the time, where they'll be like, you know, a feminist professor agrees with us that feminism is good, and I'm like, yeah, okay, well, that's obvious, isn't it?

00:15:42.000 Or, you know, this critical race theorist proponent is considered an expert on this release of documents, and they're gonna say something positive.

00:15:49.000 But when you see a left or right-wing outlet Actually saying, hey, the other side's actually right on this one, or here's evidence to suggest.

00:15:56.000 I'm like, that's probably when it's true.

00:15:58.000 Like, it's so glaringly true, this story, that even the intercept had to be like...

00:16:03.000 Yeah, Fauci lied.

00:16:05.000 I mean, but here's the best part.

00:16:07.000 The Intercept doesn't mention Fauci.

00:16:09.000 They don't mention he lied.

00:16:10.000 They just say, hey, here's some information.

00:16:13.000 And then when you read it, you're like, wait a minute.

00:16:16.000 Sounds like Fauci lied.

00:16:18.000 Is the guy going to get arrested, charged?

00:16:20.000 Probably not.

00:16:21.000 Because I guess we don't have accountability in this country.

00:16:24.000 But I will say, you know, when you're talking about journalism, I don't know what happened, but maybe journalists didn't do enough to inspire the true tenets of journalism in the younger generation, or the activists got in the colleges and turned J-school into activism indoctrination camp or something.

00:16:44.000 Look, I think part of this wasn't, you know, I was working at ThinkProgress, which was like a left-leaning blog in 2009, which is part of a left-leaning think tank, and I think a big part of it was that we had a frustration always that we felt like the news would be reporting two sides.

00:16:59.000 You know, if side A says something, side B says something.

00:17:01.000 I know side B totally lied, but the news didn't really call them on it.

00:17:04.000 The news just kind of weighed them equally and, you know, they call that false equivalence and so on and so forth.

00:17:08.000 And there were times, I think, when news outlets were doing that and they were getting stories very wrong just because they weren't actually investigating what was true, because they were trying to provide balance to the story.

00:17:17.000 But I think they overcorrected for a lot of that by basically saying that we're basically now offering a justification for being openly biased.

00:17:25.000 One side is clearly wrong.

00:17:25.000 Right?

00:17:27.000 There's no point to go to them and get comment from them.

00:17:29.000 There's no point to go and even investigate whether what they said is true.

00:17:32.000 They're clearly wrong, just as most of the press said that it was clearly wrong that there was a lab leak that resulted in COVID-19, which is a conclusion now that even the intelligence community says is actually possible.

00:17:42.000 They don't have a firm conviction on it.

00:17:44.000 So I think that, one, there was an overcorrection, and two, I think that it's just a reality that A lot of the younger generation tends to be left-leaning, and I think that those are the sorts of people that tend to go into these industries or these fields.

00:17:57.000 If you go to your average publication, even if it's something very mainstream like ABC News or CNN, I will tell you like 9 out of 10 people who work there vote for Democrats, you know, or they're left-leaning or they're liberals.

00:18:07.000 And I think that just having that level of, like, you know, cloistered communities of people makes it much easier to just become very biased and not have anyone call you on it, not have anyone push back, and not have anyone at least provide a dissenting opinion.

00:18:21.000 Even if, like, I would say 60% of journalists were left-leaning or liberals, it'd probably still be okay because you'd still have enough, like, conservative-leaning people around or people who have an open mind towards that point of view to say, hey, you need to consider X, Y, or Z, or we need to go and interview one additional person here to provide that alternative point of view.

00:18:37.000 But I think when it's so overwhelming in a lot of these institutions and institutions that feed journalism, you know, for instance, I wrote a report actually for The Intercept a few years ago about how the majority of editors and reporters at The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal both came from a small sliver of elite colleges.

00:18:54.000 Like, and we're talking about, I don't know, how many colleges, it was probably under 30 or something, like, They come from a very tiny slice, a tiny educational and cultural segment of the United States, and I think when you're so close, when you're so segregated from the rest of the country, it becomes much easier to develop groupthink, it becomes much easier to avoid any kind of dissenting opinion, or at least one person in the room is going to stand up and say, hey, we need to consider this other side of this, we need to report the other side of it, because otherwise we're not telling the whole story, because

00:19:21.000 I think a lot of these journalists honestly do think they're telling the entire story.

00:19:24.000 They think what they're saying is completely uncontroversial, and you have to be kind of nuts to disagree.

00:19:28.000 That's honestly what they think.

00:19:29.000 I don't think it's a conspiracy.

00:19:31.000 It's just like a confluence of these kind of influences and these kind of cultures.

00:19:35.000 I don't know.

00:19:35.000 I think a lot of them have gone off.

00:19:38.000 Like, I think a lot of them are evil, right?

00:19:40.000 And I'll break that down because evil is not a light word to throw around.

00:19:43.000 I mean, they actively understand they're omitting information.

00:19:47.000 like the daily beast for instance like the daily beast is just notorious there's no way some of these articles that come out you're going to tell me this guy believes he's telling the truth because some of these things that are said are so absurd on their face you're like how is that even no but they'll write it they'll publish it because their lawyers tell them like yeah you'll be safe on that one when you see when you see these publications Putting out things that are just so over-the-top, you're like, how could that possibly be true?

00:20:15.000 I don't think they think they're telling the truth.

00:20:15.000 But they don't care.

00:20:19.000 Well, I think that there's probably two things happening simultaneously.

00:20:22.000 One, I think a lot of these news outlets have shifted to basically subscriber kind of You know, this is a subscriber business model because the advertising business model was being basically dominated by a few digital firms like Google and Facebook, and so they wanted subscribers.

00:20:35.000 New York Times shifted heavily towards subscribers after Trump was elected.

00:20:38.000 So one, they have a financial incentive to cater to a certain worldview and a certain type of person.

00:20:44.000 That person is not going to complain that much if they get stories wrong, as long as those stories have the right sort of like, you know, oh, you smeared a Republican?

00:20:49.000 Who cares? 0.98

00:20:50.000 The Republicans are all evil anyway. 0.99

00:20:51.000 They had it coming, right? 1.00

00:20:51.000 They probably deserve it. 1.00

00:20:53.000 So that's happening, and at the same time, they're hiring up people who legitimately believe a lot of these things, right?

00:20:57.000 Who really deeply, firmly believe that even if their story isn't 100% fair, it overall is going in the right direction.

00:21:04.000 So I'll give you an example.

00:21:05.000 You know, ivermectin, which is this drug.

00:21:08.000 Some people are using it for COVID-19.

00:21:10.000 It's being called a horse dewormer or a horse drug in a lot of like major press and major mainstream media.

00:21:15.000 I criticize this.

00:21:16.000 And there were journalists who were very defensive and say, OK, maybe it's not exactly right.

00:21:20.000 It's just a horse drug.

00:21:21.000 OK, maybe it's used for humans sometimes and it's prescribed for parasitic diseases.

00:21:24.000 But the other side is just thinking, you know, the other side is just crazy. 0.90

00:21:27.000 They're all conspiracy nuts.

00:21:28.000 So, like, they see themselves as part of an ideological battle.

00:21:30.000 And as long as they're on the right side of that, even if they're not being 100 percent fair, honest journalists, they still see themselves as morally justified.

00:21:37.000 I think that's why they don't see themselves as evil, right?

00:21:40.000 So here's where I fall with the whole ivermectin thing.

00:21:43.000 There's conflicting studies, data's inconclusive, FDA has not authorized or approved its use pertaining to COVID.

00:21:50.000 But the World Health Organization says that it's an essential medicine, that it's used for treating river blindness, that it's basically eradicating this one parasite.

00:21:57.000 And there are people who are doing... I think people who are eating horse based are absolutely wrong to do it.

00:22:03.000 And you know what?

00:22:03.000 We know they're doing it because we had Dr. Chris Martinson come on this show and say that people were going to Tractor Supply and doing it.

00:22:08.000 And I'm like, you shouldn't do that.

00:22:10.000 There's a lot of reasons why you shouldn't do that.

00:22:11.000 But, to then go out and say, Joe Rogan announced he's taking a horse dewormer.

00:22:16.000 It's like, no he didn't!

00:22:18.000 Because there's Tractor Supply's horse dewormer, and then there's going to Walgreens to pick up your prescription your doctor told you to get.

00:22:24.000 Now it's getting so over the top that there's apparently reports that certain pharmacies won't even fill prescriptions.

00:22:29.000 Like, yo, pharmacist, you don't know what the prescription's for.

00:22:32.000 If a doctor prescribes it, just say okay, you're not the doctor.

00:22:36.000 But that's the problem of hyperpolarization that we're seeing.

00:22:39.000 But we'll jump to this story because we have an actual pretty good example.

00:22:43.000 Oh, I'm so happy to be using this source.

00:22:46.000 From Gawker.com!

00:22:48.000 I love it.

00:22:49.000 Gawker, as you may know, is back!

00:22:51.000 For, like, the second time, I think?

00:22:52.000 Like, you know, it's... Hey, Hulk Hogan, Peter Thiel, lawsuit, Gawker collapses, it tries to relaunch, it fails, it relaunches again!

00:23:01.000 Gawker, of course, is mostly not great journalism, but I want to use this source because I find it to be just so, um, funny.

00:23:11.000 Gawker says, Rachel Maddow wards off disinfo with disinforming tweet.

00:23:17.000 Glenn Greenwald is right about this one.

00:23:19.000 I love that they're insulting Glenn Greenwald in this.

00:23:21.000 They say, something has happened.

00:23:23.000 A rare thing that used to happen all the time, but now arrives roughly every 18 months, like a solar eclipse.

00:23:28.000 Glenn Greenwald has posted something factually correct and only minimally annoying.

00:23:33.000 Specifically, yesterday he tweeted about the Rachel Maddow show.

00:23:36.000 Rachel Maddow tweeted, quote, Patients overdosing on Ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals' ambulances, quote.

00:23:43.000 The scariest one I've heard of and seen is people coming in with vision loss, he said.

00:23:49.000 Glenn Greenwald says Rolling Stone has now issued a second update that effectively retracts its false story that gunshot victims are waiting in ER rooms in Oklahoma due to overflow from Ivermectin poisoning.

00:24:02.000 Yet Maddow still has her tweet up from four days ago promoting it, With no subsequent note.

00:24:08.000 Last week, the MSNBC pundit boosted a hoax story on ivermectin overdoses, joining a slew of liberal media outlets in mindlessly digesting the disputed news in another stern missive about COVID-related disinformation.

00:24:20.000 In her rush to warn viewers of the dangers of misinformation, she did not have time to fact-check.

00:24:25.000 Oh, that's a bit generous.

00:24:27.000 Like she ever does.

00:24:28.000 Come on.

00:24:29.000 Unlike several other outlets, Maddow still hasn't deleted, updated, or clarified the error.

00:24:35.000 The original story came from a local NBC affiliate.

00:24:37.000 Alright, so let's break this one down really quickly.

00:24:40.000 A doctor says he was misquoted.

00:24:42.000 He wasn't saying that all of these hospitals were overflowing the beds, he's saying there were some times that there were some congestion, and some of it was because one guy may have taken too much Ivermectin.

00:24:52.000 They ended up issuing the Northeastern Health System, Sequoia, ended up issuing a statement saying the guy doesn't work for us.

00:24:58.000 We have not treated anybody for Ivermectin.

00:25:00.000 The story is fake news!

00:25:02.000 And yet, Rachel Maddow still has it up.

00:25:05.000 Now, here's what I love.

00:25:06.000 Hey, good job, Gawker.

00:25:08.000 I don't know why they're insulting Glenn Greenwald.

00:25:10.000 He's right.

00:25:10.000 You don't gotta... Sure, I guess they're trying to be edgy.

00:25:13.000 But I'll tell you this.

00:25:15.000 If Gawker can come back and insult people they don't like and whatever, but still be correct, I welcome it entirely.

00:25:25.000 By all means, they can call Glenn Greenwald every name in the book.

00:25:28.000 That's wonderful, if the facts are true and correct.

00:25:31.000 Now, what I'll say about this is, my friends, I have seen stories and heard anecdotes of people eating this horse face stuff. 0.99

00:25:39.000 Don't do that.

00:25:40.000 Because what people, here's the problem.

00:25:43.000 The stuff from the store that people don't understand, this tube is for a 1,250 pound horse.

00:25:50.000 What they're saying, what this doctor is saying is not that, you know, all Ivermectin is horse dewormer like the media is doing.

00:25:57.000 They're saying some people went to Tractor Supply, bought this stuff, ate a whole tube that was meant for a 1,250 pound horse.

00:26:04.000 That's insane, right?

00:26:05.000 And then they get sick because of it.

00:26:07.000 Now, I don't know exactly what's happening after the fact.

00:26:09.000 They're saying people get vision loss, and there's some crazy stories, but I gotta tell you, it's really hard to believe some of the over-the-top stories because of how much the media's lied, how much we've heard from, like, lying nurses.

00:26:18.000 There was one nurse who was like, someone came in, held my hand, and said, I wish I had been vaccinated before they passed, and had to tell his family, and then someone looked up that there was, like, no one in these age groups who had died in these hospitals.

00:26:30.000 Like, a lot of these stories are completely exaggerated.

00:26:33.000 The problem is, we got two things going on.

00:26:36.000 The media is going completely over the top calling all Ivermectin horse dewormer, like when Joe Rogan says he's taking it, clearly it came from a doctor.

00:26:43.000 And they're conflating that with people eating horse paste.

00:26:46.000 So then you get people on one side who are like, I tell you this, there are people who just adamantly believe Ivermectin is, is, is a gift, that it's great, and it, and there's, there's, we have, we don't really have great conclusive, we don't have good conclusive data on this right now.

00:26:59.000 We've got some studies, some promising studies, some inconclusive studies, and a whole lot of me being like, yo, if I'm gonna be honest with you, I honestly don't know.

00:27:06.000 Brad Weinstein can say one thing that's fine, but we just don't know.

00:27:10.000 And so ultimately what ends up happening is you've got something that's not FDA approved, not FDA authorized.

00:27:16.000 And there's a lot of arguments about why that is or isn't, but ultimately I just I defer to the slew of studies that have conflicting information.

00:27:22.000 And then you get the culture war in this.

00:27:25.000 Saying people who believe in Ivermectin saying the media is lying, therefore it must be true.

00:27:28.000 People on the left saying Ivermectin is horse dewormer and mocking everybody, ignoring the actual nuance of the whole situation.

00:27:37.000 And then YouTube banning people who dare talk about it.

00:27:39.000 So at this point, I'm just basically like, yo, I don't even care anymore.

00:27:42.000 Like YouTube has gone so off the rails.

00:27:44.000 They gave Crowder a strike for citing the CDC.

00:27:48.000 I don't know how we navigate this other than just talking about it and just saying what, you know, what we think.

00:27:52.000 I mean, this Oklahoma story in particular, because we just wrote a post about that at the Substack on Enquirer, and...

00:27:58.000 You know, when you just get the details of the story, like if you read the five-sentence summary of it, it doesn't sound believable, right?

00:28:07.000 Rural Oklahoma is being overwhelmed with gunshot victims, and those victims cannot get into the hospitals because so many people are taking this ivermectin, which is a drug that honestly most people probably have never even heard of.

00:28:19.000 I mean, unless you're really plugged in and following all this, you've probably never heard of it.

00:28:23.000 And yet this story, not only did it get tweeted by Rachel Maddow, it got featured on Joy Reid's MSNBC show, The Rolling Stone, Insider.

00:28:30.000 It was all over the place, like it was all over the world.

00:28:32.000 It was viral.

00:28:33.000 If you go to that hospital's website now, they have a huge splash page up that says, hey look, we're taking people, we're not overwhelmed.

00:28:39.000 Don't worry about being turned away, which is very important because rural hospitals

00:28:43.000 are a real asset to those communities.

00:28:45.000 You might have to drive five hours to get to another hospital because there aren't that

00:28:47.000 many hospitals in these rural communities and rural areas.

00:28:49.000 So actually it's kind of a dangerous thing for people to believe that you can't get to

00:28:53.000 the hospital.

00:28:54.000 So what I did, what I did is I just called and I sent an email to the local police and

00:28:58.000 the sheriff and I asked them like, dude, what's this story all about?

00:29:01.000 Are you guys having a bunch of gunshot victims?

00:29:02.000 What's up? 0.98

00:29:03.000 And the sheriff in Sequoia County in Oklahoma told me, no, it's a ridiculous story.

00:29:08.000 We've only had, we've had one shooting victim who died this year and we had one other gunshot victim who went to the hospital and he's treated and he's fine.

00:29:14.000 So literally, you know, there's two people who are shot this entire year in this county.

00:29:18.000 They're not overflowing gunshot victims.

00:29:20.000 And yet, why was the media running this story?

00:29:22.000 Because it confirmed a bunch of biases.

00:29:24.000 You know, you got the yokel, the rednecks all shooting each other with their guns, with their guns. 1.00

00:29:29.000 And they're all eating horse face because they're really stupid. 1.00

00:29:33.000 So, of course it's true. 1.00

00:29:34.000 We don't have to call a hospital.

00:29:35.000 We don't have to call the sheriff.

00:29:36.000 I'm just asking whether it's true.

00:29:37.000 So, Zed, this must have been an extremely rigorous investigation.

00:29:43.000 You must have put a $200,000 budget behind this.

00:29:46.000 I mean, how much time did it take you to pick up your phone and press a few digits?

00:29:50.000 It probably took me, you know, between all the emails and calls, probably took me half an hour to figure this out, right?

00:29:56.000 As a freelancer writing on my sub stack with one other friend who kind of looks over my stuff, right?

00:30:00.000 I don't have the resources of MSNBC or Rolling Stone or Insider or all the places that ran this story.

00:30:06.000 But what I do have is this idea that journalists should tell the truth and get the facts.

00:30:10.000 And that even if people shouldn't be taking ivermectin unless it's prescribed by their doctor, and it's going to be prescribed for things besides COVID because it hasn't been approved for COVID, we shouldn't lie about what ivermectin is and what it's doing.

00:30:20.000 You know, you should never lie.

00:30:21.000 I think our top, our utmost, look, I think there's a lot of journalists who think if tomorrow they told people that you would explode if you took ivermectin, they would do it.

00:30:33.000 They're doing it.

00:30:34.000 They're now putting out a story that says 85% of people in Nigeria who took ivermectin were sterilized, and that is not true.

00:30:44.000 True.

00:30:45.000 But you have to understand why they think this is justified.

00:30:48.000 They think because they have this overall activist goal of not having people take this drug, because overall they think the drug is harmful for you.

00:30:54.000 So because of that, fudging facts are not quite getting it right.

00:30:57.000 It morally pales in comparison, you know, to what might actually happen in their minds if people take the drug.

00:31:03.000 So to them, the telos, or the goal of truth, has been supplanted by this larger moral goal of taking the correct position on COVID, taking the correct position on Ivermectin and this exact bug of post journalism is

00:31:15.000 narrative journalism has infected so many different parts of the media industry right now to

00:31:20.000 Where I think we're gonna continue to see stories like this over and over and over

00:31:23.000 Because again a lot of journalists they don't care about telling the whole truth about something

00:31:28.000 They just want to tell you enough information to achieve whatever goal there

00:31:31.000 There they want and that's not very different from what the NRA or the Brady campaign do when they're arguing about gun

00:31:36.000 control or any other type of activism

00:31:38.000 Let me pull up this tweet. I was just digging around for So this guy tweets today. I learned Ivermectin apparently

00:31:46.000 Sterilizes the majority 85% of men that take it Now this guy's not a journalist, he's an activist.

00:31:51.000 And there are a bunch of activists pushing this out, and I don't see journalists pushing this narrative out.

00:31:57.000 But it goes to show you the gradient between activist and journalist and how news organizations have become activists, but they still won't go too far.

00:32:06.000 So there is a study that I think looked at 385 people in Nigeria and then they reduced it down to like 37 people and then tracked their sperm counts.

00:32:19.000 It turns out that nine of those people, I guess, or whatever the number was, were unaffected or something.

00:32:24.000 So the overwhelming majority—or maybe—I don't—nine is maybe the wrong number.

00:32:27.000 I don't know.

00:32:28.000 All you need to know is it's a study.

00:32:31.000 It is a tiny sample.

00:32:33.000 It is inconclusive.

00:32:35.000 Activists are sharing it clearly to smear this medication. 0.94

00:32:37.000 Here's what you need to understand about how deep this lie cuts.

00:32:42.000 These tweets are going viral.

00:32:43.000 This tweet has 7,500 retweets from this guy.

00:32:48.000 It is insane to state this.

00:32:50.000 You want to know why it's insane?

00:32:52.000 The lie that they are pushing is not about ivermectin and sterilizing people.

00:32:59.000 If what they're claiming is true, It would mean that the World Health Organization has been administering millions of doses of a drug sterilizing black men in Africa.

00:33:10.000 Now that is an insane proposition, which I think is over the top.

00:33:14.000 The World Health Organization has ivermectin on its list of essential medications for curing river blindness.

00:33:21.000 99%, because I looked this up, I went to the World Health Organization, 99% of river, it's Ancoker, how do you, Ancoker, I can't say it.

00:33:30.000 River blindness.

00:33:31.000 There you go!

00:33:31.000 River blindness!

00:33:33.000 Onchoceriasis or something?

00:33:34.000 Anyway, 99% are in impoverished African communities.

00:33:40.000 That's where they're saying we need to be giving ivermectin specifically for this parasite.

00:33:43.000 Now, if it was true that there was a study showing it was sterilizing these people, what do you think these people would start doing?

00:33:50.000 I mean, I'm sorry, if it was true, I mean, it's a horrifying prospect about what these people think the World Health Organization is doing, which they're not doing.

00:33:58.000 Tons of people were like, rest assured, these people are having healthy families and babies, this is a lie.

00:34:04.000 But now look at the fake news.

00:34:06.000 Imagine somebody's living in Africa, and they know somebody with river blindness.

00:34:10.000 And these activists are putting out lies to thousands upon thousands of retweets.

00:34:15.000 And these people have the internet.

00:34:17.000 And what happens when someone says, look, look, look, look, it's, it's, it's, it's going to hurt you. 0.88

00:34:21.000 The, the, the, the, the white people are coming and they're going to hurt you. 0.99

00:34:24.000 And they stopped taking it. 0.81

00:34:25.000 Because when Ebola, when Ebola broke out, there were, so I know journalists who went and covered Ebola.

00:34:32.000 They, they went on the ground in some of these villages.

00:34:35.000 And people would break out of quarantine because they thought the doctors coming to treat them were actually hurting them.

00:34:41.000 And they were all superstitious, and they believed that you could transfer the curse and things like that.

00:34:46.000 If you have impoverished and uneducated villages, and we are desperately trying to help cure their ailments and educate them and teach them, what happens when these activists start pumping out insane lies?

00:34:57.000 Rachel Maddow's lies.

00:34:58.000 When they're saying that ivermectin's a horse dewormer, all of those lies from the media are going to be scaring people who are already worried about being manipulated.

00:35:08.000 You've already got Joe Biden talking about the Tuskegee experiments, branded Tuskegee Airmen, You know, but you get the point.

00:35:15.000 And by the way, like the New York Times had an article about the percentage of young African Americans in New York City who have been vaccinated.

00:35:22.000 I think it's something like 27 percent or something when they wrote it.

00:35:24.000 It's probably gotten higher since then.

00:35:26.000 But they interviewed some people and some people were saying, you know, why am I scared of code?

00:35:29.000 I'm way more scared of getting shot by the police.

00:35:32.000 It's like, oh.

00:35:33.000 You know, the news media spent, you know, 18 months or so, or I don't know how long, but around that, probably longer if you count back out to 2014 or Ferguson, telling people to be scared to death of getting shot by the cops, particularly if you're African-American.

00:35:46.000 Now you have people going around and just random people every interview on the street saying, no, I'm way more scared of being shot by the cops than I am by COVID.

00:35:51.000 You know, like 700,000 people in the United States have been killed by COVID-19, right?

00:35:56.000 Around a thousand people a year are shot and killed by police officers.

00:35:59.000 I mean, it's very easy math to say that COVID is much, much bigger risk.

00:36:03.000 But I think if you went back to these journalists who promoted a lot of the police shooting stories and asked them, well, why didn't you at least put some statistical context in there?

00:36:10.000 Why don't you do this?

00:36:10.000 Why don't you do that?

00:36:11.000 They'd probably say, are you minimizing the shooting of black men by police officers?

00:36:15.000 I'm like, no, I just want you to report the truth.

00:36:17.000 I want you to report the totality, the context, the statistical data that would let people know what the actual risk looks like for them, because it has a real practical meaning to people's lives.

00:36:28.000 Yeah, one of the things that we've talked about quite a bit is that you've got kids growing up with Facebook being inundated with nothing but videos of police brutality and then genuinely believing that cops are doing this every day, they're actively seeking people out.

00:36:41.000 I mean, we've heard BLM activists say like, oh, they're hunting us down.

00:36:45.000 And that's just not true, but I don't think it's as activist-y.

00:36:50.000 I mean, maybe it is.

00:36:50.000 Maybe it's activists who are watch- Imagine you're 10 years old, you're inundated by nothing but these videos, and now you're 18, 20, you're in college, you get out, you go get a job at, you know, Vox or whatever, and you believe it, so you start writing it.

00:37:03.000 But I do think there's a lot of people, when they give you their excuses and their justifications, it's because they're grifters.

00:37:08.000 It's because they're like, dude, I got two million clicks on that.

00:37:11.000 My boss paid me a bonus.

00:37:13.000 I'm not going to admit I did wrong, right?

00:37:15.000 These people are unwilling to correct the record because it's the rage that gets them the traffic.

00:37:22.000 Now, me, I gotta be honest.

00:37:25.000 I think what gets me the traffic is admitting when I'm wrong.

00:37:27.000 I think the viewers we have are specifically here because we do corrections and we will admit when we're wrong.

00:37:32.000 And I'm really strict with TimCast.com on, like, any change.

00:37:36.000 Anything.

00:37:37.000 Punctuation.

00:37:37.000 I want a note saying what we changed and why.

00:37:39.000 I want a record of that.

00:37:40.000 So people who go there can see it.

00:37:43.000 Media doesn't do that.

00:37:45.000 I think you've got true believers who have been indoctrinated, and I think the grifters are on the way out, to be honest.

00:37:50.000 And now you're getting true believers coming in.

00:37:53.000 They've fed this refuse to the children, and that's probably why you don't get journalists anymore, you get activists.

00:37:59.000 Well, you know, there was an analogy.

00:38:00.000 I did some work for an organization that was headed by Jonathan Haie,

00:38:03.000 he's a social psychologist.

00:38:05.000 There's a really good analogy for changing your beliefs.

00:38:07.000 Instead of thinking about it as a switch, like, okay, I either believe this or I believe that,

00:38:11.000 it's on and off.

00:38:12.000 Think about it like a dimmer, right?

00:38:13.000 Like, oh, I'm maybe 70% sure about this thing, but I can change it to 50% if someone gives me

00:38:19.000 some new information, some new evidence, because it really is about tying up with your ego.

00:38:22.000 And I think you're exactly right, that when we have response systems now,

00:38:27.000 or like gamified, you know, we have a gamified world where you're given a certain amount of like,

00:38:31.000 you know, happy feelings from taking a certain position, from making a certain stance,

00:38:37.000 from describing the world in a certain way.

00:38:39.000 You don't want to lose those feelings by saying, maybe I was wrong, maybe I should change my mind about this, maybe it's a little bit different.

00:38:44.000 We've set up incentive systems that make us behave in really anti-social and anti-intellectual ways.

00:38:49.000 And I think your practice that you just described is very healthy.

00:38:52.000 It's like you're setting up a new incentive system for yourself.

00:38:54.000 You're saying, actually, my viewers really appreciate it when I admit that maybe I was wrong about something, or maybe it's a little bit different than I thought before.

00:39:01.000 My opinions change, um, not all the time, but periodically.

00:39:06.000 Like, uh, you know, fairly absolute on 2A.

00:39:11.000 You know, I used to be like, well, there's got to be some things we can do.

00:39:13.000 We need to have conversations that's urban versus rural.

00:39:15.000 And now I'm at this point where I'm like, nah, everybody gets guns.

00:39:17.000 Government should be giving guns away for free.

00:39:19.000 Give everybody guns.

00:39:20.000 Um, I'm half kidding.

00:39:21.000 I don't, I do argue.

00:39:24.000 And this is important.

00:39:25.000 Why the government should give away free guns is that the right never fights for anything.

00:39:31.000 And they say, you know, a lot of the conservatives are like, it's because we don't think the government should be providing these things.

00:39:35.000 And I'm like, well, here's the imbalance.

00:39:37.000 The left will demand universal health care.

00:39:39.000 They'll demand government do things for them.

00:39:42.000 And then all the conservatives will do is say, no.

00:39:46.000 Conservatives never actually advocate for things on their own, within reason.

00:39:49.000 And it doesn't have to be about giving someone something, but I'm actually taking this from Michael Malice.

00:39:54.000 God, we quote this guy too much.

00:39:56.000 But he said the left demands universal health care, the right doesn't demand universal gun access.

00:40:02.000 But I will say the real argument is, where are the Republicans coming out and demanding a repeal of the National Firearms Act?

00:40:08.000 Where are the conservatives coming out and saying, we don't want the government to do things, we want to reduce... They don't do that.

00:40:13.000 So you end up with the left constantly demanding things and taking it, and the right doing a whole lot of just saying stop.

00:40:19.000 Yeah, I mean I've written a couple pieces actually for the Washington Examiner, which is like a DC-based magazine

00:40:24.000 That's right-leaning is like kind of center right or right of center

00:40:27.000 About sort of the debates within the conservative movement about where their governing philosophy should be going in

00:40:33.000 the next few years And I think for many years the conservative movement has

00:40:36.000 basically been tantamount in many ways to the libertarian movement, right?

00:40:40.000 Their general philosophy is government should take their hands off stuff, we should spend less money, we should have less regulations, and we should just embrace personal responsibility and individual freedom.

00:40:50.000 I think there is a rethink happening about that in many parts of the right right now.

00:40:54.000 It's not a dominant philosophy, it's not something you'd see McCarthy's and McConnell's of the world embracing, but I do think you're seeing some people in the Senate and the House and a lot of people on the intellectual right starting to say, hey look, we can't really respond to the collapse of the family by just talking about another tax cut, right?

00:41:09.000 Like, you know, it's not that you should never cut taxes, you should never deregulate anything, but there has to be kind of a broader kind of social and political and economic agenda than I think just the libertarian mottos.

00:41:19.000 And it's really interesting and kind of what you just said about guns because I think One way that gun policy may be different in some parts of the world is that gun ownership in a place like Switzerland, right?

00:41:32.000 It's not super unusual to have training for your firearm, to have a firearm.

00:41:37.000 They often keep them locked up or they keep the ammunition separate or something, but they don't necessarily see it as antagonistic to gun rights to have the government involved in it at some level.

00:41:48.000 Whereas here in the U.S., the debate's very polarized.

00:41:49.000 There's some people who just absolutely hate guns and don't think anyone should own one, and then there's other people who just, you know, they think everyone and their mom and their baby should own a gun, but like, they aren't necessarily saying, okay, the government should put together, you know, a really cool training course and give it to kids when they hit high school in this rural area where a lot of people own guns and, like, actually get, you know, get people's buy-in and confidence and get, like, people who are not gun enthusiasts thinking, okay, there's a way we can use these things safely, and there's a way we can make sure people have access to them, and good training, and so on and so forth.

00:42:20.000 Yeah, the gun thing, I think, is one of the most glaring examples of the media lying, or having no idea what they're talking about.

00:42:29.000 And so, like, very early on in the gun debate, I just would do basic research as a journalist, and I started to learn more and more and more about how, you know, wrong the media was.

00:42:38.000 They're still wrong to this day.

00:42:39.000 Constantly saying things that make no sense, advocating for the ban of things that don't do anything.

00:42:43.000 Uh, the example I love to give is that in Maryland, the M1A is banned as an assault weapon, but the SCAR-20S is not.

00:42:51.000 And for people who know anything about guns, you'd probably be like, that's a weird thing to do because the M1A is, it's a great weapon, but the SCAR-20S is more customizable, adaptable, easier in a lot of ways, I suppose, but just more modern and better.

00:43:06.000 And I guess depending on who you ask, some people might like the M1A.

00:43:08.000 But the fact of the matter is, this is what you get from media disinformation.

00:43:12.000 You get policies that make no sense, and you get the escalation and the indoctrination.

00:43:17.000 So actually, taxes are a really great idea.

00:43:19.000 We've talked about taxes quite a bit.

00:43:20.000 I think, Ian, you were the one mentioning that early on the first income tax was like

00:43:23.000 2% or something.

00:43:24.000 Oh, I don't know the number.

00:43:25.000 We were having a conversation a while ago, and you were like, initially, the income tax

00:43:29.000 was going to be like, it was only for the rich, and it was only supposed to be like

00:43:35.000 And they were like, it's just the rich, it won't affect you.

00:43:38.000 And now here we are, with like 35 to 45% total taxes, not just income tax.

00:43:45.000 Like I think they say the average person will pay 45% of their income in taxes when it comes to sales tax, property tax, you know, gas taxes, whatever, food, sales, all that stuff.

00:43:54.000 And it used to be, None.

00:43:57.000 But what happens is, they'll come out and they'll say, you know, we just want this teeny bit.

00:44:03.000 You give them an inch, they take a mile.

00:44:03.000 That's why the gun rights advocates in this country are adamant about giving nothing away.

00:44:08.000 Because they know that it's just chipping away at the block and eventually it's all gone.

00:44:13.000 Yeah, it was 3%.

00:44:13.000 Did you look it up?

00:44:16.000 1861, President Lincoln.

00:44:17.000 And that eventually, I believe, got repealed to later get recreated by the Federal Reserve in 1914, I think?

00:44:21.000 1913?

00:44:21.000 Something like that.

00:44:25.000 Yeah, I mean, one of the issues where this headed up was school shootings, right?

00:44:31.000 I think we had some very high-profile school shootings in the United States coming by in the 1990s in Newtown and Parkland.

00:44:39.000 It's really shocked a lot of people's conscience.

00:44:41.000 It was heavily covered in the media, and I think it produced a policy response that was He was very well intended.

00:44:46.000 I think people were legitimately scared for their children, but now I looked it up and like a majority of states, I think around a majority or at least half, actually require students in schools to do school shooting drills.

00:44:56.000 Like, off the top of your head, do you know how many students die every year in a school shooting?

00:45:00.000 What's the number?

00:45:01.000 It's around 10 on average, right?

00:45:01.000 It's 10.

00:45:04.000 And how many students are there?

00:45:06.000 It must be 70-75 million, something like that, under 18.

00:45:10.000 So, you know, school shootings, of course, are tragic, but what's the impact of having, you know, tens of millions of kids, you know, hiding in the hallways, on their desks, being in kind of a war posture, right, within their schools?

00:45:22.000 Even Everytown, which is one of the gun control groups, did some studies on this and found that it increased anxiety, increased depression, and now they're advocating for reform, saying we shouldn't be doing, you know, all these all the time.

00:45:31.000 Because I think it was a knee-jerk reaction to a highly charged issue, and I think that we've seen a lot of that during COVID-19 as well, which is where people... I think, you know, one of the phrases that comes to mind is, um, better safe than sorry, right?

00:45:45.000 You know, you can't over-protect someone.

00:45:46.000 But what I always say is, like, If you're overprotecting people from one thing, you could be underprotecting them from another thing, right?

00:45:53.000 If we install all these measures on children against something which they almost completely unlikely they'll ever face it, we may be underprotecting them against things like anxiety, depression, you know, long-term kind of suicidal tendencies, all kinds of cognitive distortions about fear of things that really they shouldn't be all that afraid of.

00:46:10.000 If you think entirely about protecting a population from one thing, You can underestimate the risk from all sorts of other things and I think reframing it that way might be one way for us to be able to to rethink some of these like overreactions to some of these threats that we we face historically.

00:46:26.000 There's like a matrix kind of red pill blue pill phenomenon I'm seeing from this that's causing I'll just call it societal collapse and what I mean to say is When you're inundated by a certain subject matter, school shootings, police brutality, whatever, on social media, and then the algorithm keeps feeding you that content, and then you come to perceive that as the only existence, as the real world, you're basically in this matrix.

00:46:51.000 You are in the algorithm's world.

00:46:54.000 Now...

00:46:56.000 Being fed these stories, you'll immediately become an advocate, saying like, we have to stop this!

00:47:00.000 And you'll start giving your energy and power to politicians who don't actually care to solve any problems, just exploit your fears.

00:47:06.000 And then there are people who are sort of awakened to this, right?

00:47:10.000 So the blue pill, red pill, you're in, and I hate the political red pill, blue pill thing, but I mean quite literally like, There's an algorithm at play on social media, crafting a world for people that makes no sense.

00:47:23.000 Because they click on police brutality and the algorithm says, let's give them more of that.

00:47:27.000 It's good for business for the company that they're on the website more, so let's do more algorithmic content feeding.

00:47:32.000 And then there are people who are just like, I'm sick of the algorithms.

00:47:35.000 I'm just going to shuffle it up.

00:47:36.000 I want to read.

00:47:37.000 I'm going to investigate on my own.

00:47:38.000 And then they break out of that system and say, hey, wait a minute, something's not right here.

00:47:43.000 Now the problem is we're having this conversation about the rarity of school shootings, the rarity of unarmed black men being killed by police.

00:47:51.000 Both circumstances are extremely awful and shouldn't happen, and we should do what we can to make sure they don't happen, but extremely rare.

00:47:58.000 So for us to put, you know, 70-something million kids through school shooting trainings, Because you said, what did you say, 10 will die?

00:48:05.000 I think on average it's 10.

00:48:06.000 It may be a little bit more some years than others, but generally speaking, more kids die in pool drownings or in some kind of drowning.

00:48:12.000 Swim lessons would be more useful for children than school shooting drills.

00:48:15.000 Let's see, here's what happens.

00:48:17.000 The people who live in the Matrix, in this algorithm, you know, or this media narrative or clickbait, ragebait, grifter, whatever, start voting for policies based on a fake worldview that was fed to them to make money.

00:48:29.000 That's why I think it's gotten so substantially worse to the point where it's like, you know We feel like we're at each other's throats.

00:48:34.000 There's there was literally a shootout this past weekend One of the guys probably got shot in the they were shooting at him and he got he took a bone leg It was uh, I don't know if he was a proud boy.

00:48:45.000 It was the guy tiny I thought he was Patriot prayer But people are saying proud boy and there was a shootout a couple weeks ago and in Portland as well where thankfully nobody got hurt but what happens is you have people and Who will vote?

00:48:58.000 Who will run for office?

00:49:00.000 And it's not just like you live in a matrix where there is an overseer keeping you in the matrix, like people believe if they saw the movie.

00:49:07.000 No, no, no.

00:49:08.000 The people who are running the matrix live in it too.

00:49:10.000 The people who are taking the blue pill, who believe that it's a pandemic of police officers going around hunting down black people, they run for office based on that, and then try and pass laws based on that. 0.68

00:49:25.000 You try and tell them it's not real, and they'll snap at you. 0.96

00:49:27.000 They'll call you a Nazi, a fascist, all right.

00:49:30.000 They gotta protect that worldview.

00:49:32.000 I don't know how you break out of that.

00:49:33.000 Yeah, I mean, look, the other day, something I've been writing about is basically pandemic

00:49:37.000 responses across the world.

00:49:39.000 Because one thing I noticed is that the US response when it comes to children is very

00:49:44.000 different than most of the world, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand.

00:49:48.000 You know, we're requiring masks in most school districts in the United States, even for children

00:49:52.000 who are four or five years old, six years old, which actually is much more conservative

00:49:56.000 than what the WHO recommends.

00:49:58.000 It's more conservative than what the European health agencies are talking about, or most of the Australian districts.

00:50:04.000 And, you know, to buttress my argument, I just put out a basic graph from the CDC showing that child mortality, child deaths from COVID-19 are very, very small.

00:50:14.000 They're a very small percentage.

00:50:15.000 They've generally been the same throughout the pandemic.

00:50:17.000 And, you know, the instantaneous response you get to that is that you're minimizing the deaths of children, right?

00:50:22.000 Literally posted the facts straight from the CDC, showing the context of this.

00:50:27.000 And I think that, you know, part of it is that I think once you've adopted the activist mindset or the moralizing mindset, you have one goal in mind.

00:50:34.000 That goal, of course, is protecting children from COVID-19.

00:50:36.000 It's a totally understandable goal.

00:50:38.000 But at the same time, when you're not getting the whole picture, you're not looking at all the other possible ramifications of keeping kids in this crisis mode for basically forever, and you're not considering the points of view of other people in the world who are not doing that.

00:50:49.000 You know, in British schools, they're not doing that.

00:50:51.000 In Australian schools, they're not doing that.

00:50:52.000 They're using largely rapid testing, social distancing, some vaccinations at the higher level, like 16 and 17 year olds maybe are getting vaccinations, but they're not having toddlers running around in masks for the most part.

00:51:03.000 And UK's had the Delta variant. They've had this experience, they've

00:51:07.000 seen this movie, and yet they're not doing it.

00:51:10.000 I think we're not really giving any weight to their concerns because we fixate so much on one

00:51:14.000 problem, and that I think is really, you know, not only is it corrupting journalism, it's corrupting

00:51:19.000 society because I think we need to be well-rounded people, right? A bird can't fly with just one wing.

00:51:23.000 You got to have two wings, right? You got to be able to understand things from more than one point

00:51:26.000 of view, and you have to be able to look at more than one problem in society because I think we've

00:51:30.000 created a lot of problems for ourselves by not doing that.

00:51:33.000 I think things like certain kinds of over-parenting, certain kinds of over-scheduling children.

00:51:39.000 You know, I talk to kids these days about, like, what they do.

00:51:41.000 I do some community work with children, and I talk to, like, some kids about, you know, what's their summer like?

00:51:46.000 And they're saying, oh, you know, I go to band camp, then I'm at, you know, algebra class, and blah blah blah.

00:51:51.000 They have a full schedule.

00:51:52.000 They're busier than I am during their summers, right?

00:51:55.000 That's a huge change in society.

00:51:56.000 You know, generational change versus what it was in the 1990s or early 2000s.

00:52:00.000 And, you know, maybe there's some positive benefits for that.

00:52:03.000 Maybe there's some drawbacks.

00:52:04.000 But we have to be able to look at both sides of it.

00:52:06.000 Otherwise, we're only seeing half the world.

00:52:07.000 And we could be missing a lot of threats to our children if we continue to address, or threats to anyone else, if we continue to address social problems in that way.

00:52:15.000 Perspective.

00:52:16.000 You know, the difficulty is the hysteria.

00:52:19.000 There's money to be made for the media.

00:52:21.000 When, you know, a shooting happens, the media says, this is big, run it.

00:52:25.000 Look at, I don't know if you saw the Project Veritas expose where they had the CNN guy being like, you know, we just run the COVID death tracker because it plays well.

00:52:34.000 You know, it's like it was gangbusters for the ratings.

00:52:37.000 That's what they're thinking about, and it drives panic.

00:52:40.000 And panic?

00:52:41.000 You never wanna panic.

00:52:42.000 You panic?

00:52:43.000 You cause problems.

00:52:44.000 If you're in a fire, the last thing you wanna do is panic.

00:52:46.000 You wanna be calm, rational, be like, okay, here's what I gotta do, here's how I gotta feel the door, I'm gonna get down, get under the smoke, all that stuff.

00:52:52.000 Instead, the media just screams in everyone's faces at the top of their lungs, screaming, panic!

00:52:57.000 And then people panic, and then they click more, and then they get more, you know, they make more money, they make more ads, they get more subscriptions.

00:53:03.000 And it all ends up, you know, going into every facet of society.

00:53:07.000 It's not just the media.

00:53:08.000 It's now in, like, regular businesses, it's in the medical, it's in, like, movie theaters, it's in burger joints.

00:53:17.000 Yeah, I mean, and look, like, panic is part of human nature for a reason.

00:53:21.000 It's our evolutionary response.

00:53:22.000 If you see a saber-toothed tiger, maybe it might be a good idea to run and dart in the other way.

00:53:26.000 Well, to be honest, if I saw a saber-toothed tiger, that'd be cool.

00:53:30.000 I mean, like, whoa, I thought they were extinct.

00:53:32.000 That's true.

00:53:33.000 But that kind of evolutionary response or instinct is only useful in some select circumstances where you're really seeing a direct threat in front of you.

00:53:40.000 Complex social problems really never really benefit from panicking.

00:53:45.000 And if you think about who we think of as the great leaders throughout history, whether they're generals or theologians or activists or so on and so forth, they generally had a calm, thoughtful, reasoned response to the social problems they were dealing with.

00:53:59.000 We admire the SCLC and SNCC and King's movement.

00:54:05.000 If you actually look at some of the old photos, and I think it actually still exists, the Highlander Center in Tennessee where they were training civil rights activists, they would have people sitting at like a lunch counter, a mock lunch counter.

00:54:15.000 Someone will be pulling their hair.

00:54:16.000 Another person will be blowing smoke in their face.

00:54:17.000 And they would train them just to like brush it off.

00:54:19.000 Just say, I don't care.

00:54:20.000 I'm going to keep on the course of action, right?

00:54:23.000 Those are the modes of thinking or the temperament that you have to adopt when you're dealing with really complex, high-pressure problems at times.

00:54:30.000 And I think treating everything like it's, you know, the bear just walked into your camp and you better dart leads you astray a lot of the time.

00:54:38.000 And unfortunately, I think that we have so much technology and so much of the commercial products that we use today are basically based on using that kind of response because that's what they want to bring out of you because that's what will make them money.

00:54:51.000 Yeah, well, I don't know how you break that, right?

00:54:53.000 I guess that's a problem of the free market, right?

00:54:57.000 That this system in place makes money, so it is being incentivized.

00:55:02.000 You know, I'll go back to what I was saying about the algorithms feeding kids, this endless stream of police brutality stuff.

00:55:07.000 Well, companies rose.

00:55:10.000 It's very simple.

00:55:11.000 Company A and Company B start up.

00:55:13.000 Company A does legit fact-check journalism.

00:55:15.000 Company B does rage-bait activist stuff.

00:55:18.000 Which one made the money?

00:55:20.000 So, over the course of six months, the Real News website does decently, and the Grifter outrage site makes tons of money, and then the investors come in and say, Oh, that one makes money.

00:55:31.000 Let's do that one.

00:55:32.000 And now it's been a decade of this.

00:55:34.000 It's been 13, 14, 15 years of this.

00:55:36.000 And now we've built this massive ecosystem of, hey, we make money when we just tell people what they want to hear instead of informing them of the truth.

00:55:45.000 It's not only that they make money doing that, I mean, well, it's not only that it generates money,

00:55:49.000 generates revenue, but it's also very quick and easy to do.

00:55:52.000 Think about how many articles you read that's like, you know, three people tweeted something.

00:55:56.000 It's mildly offensive, but by the time you figure, by the time you get through the article, it's

00:56:01.000 going to be super offensive. It's going to be like the worst thing in the world to you. It's

00:56:04.000 super easy to run that article.

00:56:06.000 It probably gets hundreds of thousands of views if you're putting it up there.

00:56:09.000 You don't have to spend money on investigating, fact-checking, traveling, FOIA, records requests.

00:56:15.000 None of that work.

00:56:16.000 It's extremely easy, and I think that's part of why it's profitable, because I do think that well-produced, good journalism does get a lot of viewers and readers.

00:56:24.000 I think people enjoy it and appreciate it, but it's also more expensive to do, right?

00:56:27.000 Which is a challenge, I think, for a lot of people who are producing it and investing in it.

00:56:31.000 Unfortunately, I think that's also created a situation where, like, a lot of good media isn't necessarily profitable.

00:56:37.000 We are kind of, like, at the behest of, like, philanthropists and billionaires who want to spend money promoting something like Pierre Omidyar did with The Intercept or like Peter Thiel is doing with some, like, alternative video platforms or things like that.

00:56:50.000 I don't think it's all bad.

00:56:52.000 There was an episode of Joe Rogan's show he did, and I think it may have been with Matt Taibbi, I'm not sure, where they mentioned, like, anybody who goes for legit journalism right now is probably gonna make a killing, you know?

00:57:04.000 And we're already seeing it with all these different substacks popping up.

00:57:07.000 I mean, Glenn Greenwald, you have a substack, Michael Tracy, for instance, Matt Taibbi.

00:57:11.000 And apparently they're doing really... Barry Weiss.

00:57:13.000 They're all doing really, really well.

00:57:15.000 I mean, TimCast.com is doing really, really well.

00:57:18.000 And so...

00:57:19.000 I will say, there's always a challenge in trying to figure out if you're actually doing the right job, or if you're just, you know, partisan.

00:57:26.000 But I think it's fair to point out, yeah, the establishment is just pushing narratives, many of these outlets just want to stick to their worldview.

00:57:34.000 Side with the audience, they call it.

00:57:36.000 And if their audience is trapped in a whirlpool of fake news garbage and hating someone else, siding with the audience isn't the right thing you want to do.

00:57:43.000 No, you want to challenge.

00:57:44.000 You don't even want to challenge it.

00:57:45.000 You want to be honest.

00:57:47.000 So interestingly, you mentioned these articles where it's like they'll grab a few tweets and then post an article being like, you know, so-and-so said this.

00:57:53.000 We've actually talked about this at TimCast.com because we've had a few articles where it's like so-and-so was criticized and then we show some tweets and I'm like, we won't do that.

00:58:01.000 And I was like, hey, let's talk about this is this is it might be newsworthy to be fair.

00:58:05.000 It might be because if like a congressperson makes an official statement about a specific policy that starts a feud or something, and then it's just you're pulling tweets that may be something people want to know about.

00:58:14.000 But I said what we should do is.

00:58:16.000 If we see one of these Twitter spats, we're not just going to pull up someone on the right who's saying, you know, F you.

00:58:22.000 I want to see what the left, you know, prominent personalities are saying, and the right, and then we want to actually break down the fact check of who's right and who's wrong.

00:58:29.000 Now that's a little bit more work.

00:58:30.000 You had to actually do some journalism there, but that's the way it should be.

00:58:33.000 Conversations are happening on Twitter, very important ones.

00:58:35.000 It's kind of silly in some ways, but if a congressperson is debating another congressperson, I think, you know, we want to talk about that.

00:58:42.000 Look, I think part of it also is just, like, awareness.

00:58:44.000 I think we were... I did some work earlier this year for a guy named Justin Rosenstein.

00:58:48.000 He was an early Google and Facebook guy.

00:58:50.000 He also co-founded Asana.

00:58:52.000 He made, like, I don't know, he's like probably a billionaire worth of his Asana stock and Facebook.

00:58:58.000 And his conclusion was that he created all these technologies to help people cooperate with each other and work together as teams.

00:59:04.000 But they all kind of went awry and everyone hates each other.

00:59:06.000 There's a lot of division and everything.

00:59:07.000 So basically he's giving away a ton of money through philanthropy and grant making because he feels guilty about all this.

00:59:14.000 I think that, you know, he started this company with... he started these companies with, like, good intentions.

00:59:19.000 Like, he was one of the founders of, like, the Facebook like button.

00:59:23.000 And, like, I think that they actively debated whether or not to make a dislike button, but they were like, we're not going to do that because it'll be negative.

00:59:29.000 People will get fighting and all that stuff.

00:59:29.000 It'll create negativity.

00:59:31.000 But it ended up... Facebook like ended up, like, being pretty bad anyway because people are using it to share content.

00:59:35.000 This is like dissing someone or attacking some out group or something.

00:59:39.000 But I think that You know, there are large social and cultural changes that happen once you're aware that something is a problem, and I don't think that we looked at, you know, the YouTubes and the social medias of the world and sort of the echo chambers, hyperpolarization, all this as a problem until very recently.

00:59:56.000 I think even if you go back to like 2009, 2010, 2011, we were talking about how these things were great.

01:00:00.000 We were all communicating with each other.

01:00:02.000 They were helping Democrats in elections, so Democrats liked them versus how they felt about Trump using it in 2006, 15, 16.

01:00:10.000 Or him using Twitter But I think now that we have the awareness of the problem.

01:00:14.000 I kind of feel like the solutions will bubble up as After the awareness is built because I think that's what's happened with other technologies that ended up being harmful for us I think everything from we have much safer cars now with seatbelts and airbags To where we have a dramatic decline in smoking in the United States right smoking was an addictive product it was flying off the shelves making people at Altria and so on and so forth and tons and tons of money.

01:00:37.000 But I think once we recognize that it was a problem, start educating people about it,

01:00:41.000 creating some alternatives, some minor regulations, I think we actually moved in a healthier direction.

01:00:45.000 And I think something similar will happen with social media and a lot of what online, you know,

01:00:51.000 monopolization has done to journalism.

01:00:53.000 And part of that, I think, is antitrust, like getting very serious about the fact

01:00:57.000 that these companies basically are the new standard oil, they are the new railroads,

01:01:02.000 and that creating alternatives to them and creating healthier modes and models

01:01:05.000 is very, very difficult while they have such high market share.

01:01:08.000 And I think more Democrats and Republicans, in the Congress you have David Cicilline, who's the head of the relevant committee in Congress on antitrust, and Ken Buck, who's the ranking Republican, actually agreeing on a lot of the core antitrust issues with a lot of these big companies.

01:01:23.000 It was funny that like I think a third of the Republicans in the Senate voted for Lena Kahn to join the the FTC who's a very progressive person who in many ways has talked about breaking up companies like Amazon or turning them into public utilities or having utility regulation instead.

01:01:37.000 So I think that we're seeing much more agreement that these things are a problem and some agreement on solutions.

01:01:43.000 Now does that mean I think that a year or two from now we're gonna have an entirely different Online and social media environment, which I think ultimately would impact the media environment, no.

01:01:51.000 But I do think over the long term, having that awareness and having that recognition is the first step towards creating something better.

01:01:56.000 This is different though, right?

01:01:58.000 With these past things that were bad for us, asbestos and smoking and lead gas and stuff like that.

01:02:04.000 I mean, that was neutral-ish.

01:02:06.000 It was public interest versus the special interest that had money around a specific product or practice.

01:02:13.000 Now you got half the country.

01:02:14.000 So if we're talking about censorship and you have this major shift where all of a sudden the more establishment, I mean like the neocons and the democrats are basically in favor of massive multinational corporations curtailing speech, I don't see us fixing that because that directly impacts who gets elected in the first place.

01:02:33.000 When Jack Dorsey can ban negative news about Hunter Biden, well then Hunter Biden's dad gets elected.

01:02:41.000 And depending on what you believe, I mean, there was a survey from Rasmussen which found that if people had been informed, because people didn't know about this, when they learned that Hunter Biden had done these things with Joe and these shady business deals, they would not have voted for him.

01:02:53.000 The margin was massive, or large enough to actually question, you know, it was like 10% of people said they wouldn't have voted for Biden had they known the truth.

01:03:00.000 Well, we know that Facebook and Twitter suppress negative news about a Democratic candidate.

01:03:06.000 That being the case, why would any Democrat ever give in to any kind of legislative reform over these companies?

01:03:13.000 The antitrust stuff I can see, yes.

01:03:17.000 I don't think it'll solve the problem, though.

01:03:18.000 What people need to understand about Facebook and Google is that antitrust makes sense simply because we're not... You know, some people say, oh, but, you know, who wants to use a bunch of different video platforms?

01:03:29.000 We're not saying that.

01:03:30.000 YouTube is a video platform.

01:03:32.000 AdSense is an advertising platform.

01:03:34.000 AdWords is an ad distribution platform.

01:03:37.000 I mean, I think they changed... Now it's just Google Ads or whatever.

01:03:41.000 But these are all different products.

01:03:43.000 YouTube hosts your video and broadcasts it.

01:03:47.000 Google sells ads on them.

01:03:50.000 Google buys and sells ads and distributes them.

01:03:54.000 They also market your content to maximize viewership.

01:03:57.000 These are different companies.

01:03:58.000 In the past, you would find someone to record your music, you'd find someone to distribute your music, and then you would find people to promote your music on the radio.

01:04:07.000 Today?

01:04:08.000 That's it.

01:04:08.000 YouTube.

01:04:09.000 YouTube hosts and distributes.

01:04:11.000 They're the ones who do all the ad selling and they're the ones who determine who's going to be on the front page.

01:04:15.000 You could break them up into three companies.

01:04:17.000 Antitrust could come in and say, you know, everybody likes YouTube because it's where the videos are.

01:04:21.000 Okay.

01:04:22.000 YouTube, you no longer can do the ads.

01:04:24.000 We're breaking this up into different companies.

01:04:27.000 And then all of a sudden you'd see way more competition and ad rates.

01:04:29.000 Probably ad rates would improve dramatically for a lot of people.

01:04:32.000 You would then get people at YouTube basically being like, you know, this would be interesting because there would have to be individual deals with your channel and YouTube as to how revenue is generated.

01:04:46.000 It'd be very, very complicated.

01:04:47.000 It may actually even destroy YouTube because I don't know if YouTube is possible, if YouTube can even function without subsidy from Google in the first place.

01:04:54.000 But if that's the case, there's a lot of questions we have to ask about major companies making tons of money doing one thing, subsidizing and cutting everyone else from the market by dumping money into another thing, right?

01:05:07.000 So a better example is...

01:05:09.000 I won't name the big chain of coffee houses, of coffee shops, just for legal reasons, but I've heard these stories from local mom-and-pop cafes, where a big chain shop opens up next door and sells coffee at ridiculous prices.

01:05:24.000 Ridiculously low.

01:05:26.000 Because they're well-funded by a massive conglomerate, they can sell at a loss.

01:05:31.000 It chokes out the mom-and-pop shop because now all of a sudden you've got people like, why spend five bucks on my cappuccino when ChainStore has it for three bucks?

01:05:39.000 Then once mom-and-pop goes out of business, ChainStore jacks the prices back up and now owns 100% of that market share.

01:05:46.000 That's problematic.

01:05:47.000 That's predatory behavior that we see a lot of.

01:05:50.000 I know a lot of people on the right say that's simply just, oh, it's free market capitals when they're allowed to do it.

01:05:53.000 And I'm like, I mean, that's brutal.

01:05:56.000 That's basically what YouTube does.

01:05:58.000 Google just dumps money into these things.

01:06:00.000 So Facebook, for instance, is the same thing, right?

01:06:01.000 Facebook is a social network as well as advertising sales and promotion, marketing, all of these things.

01:06:08.000 I think we could look at that and find a way to break it apart.

01:06:11.000 Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of this is going to depend on the right, because I do think that the tech companies had the mindset that you were describing, that if they aggressively basically took the positions and the stances that the Democrats wanted in the 2020 election, it would avoid regulation from the Democrats when they took power.

01:06:28.000 It's not necessarily a super safe bet because the Democrats have their own grievances against tech, right?

01:06:32.000 A lot of them think that tech doesn't censor enough, right?

01:06:34.000 Right.

01:06:35.000 And the Republicans think maybe it censors too much.

01:06:38.000 But I think they run the risk by being so polarized towards the Democrats of actually radicalizing the Republicans.

01:06:43.000 So I think that, you know, when I wrote my most recent article for The Examiner about big tech and the Republicans, you know, I asked Ken Buck's office about, you know, A few years ago, he was not talking about breaking up big tech companies.

01:06:54.000 He wasn't even interested in the topic.

01:06:55.000 And he was like, yeah, I went to a field hearing and a bunch of my constituents were talking about Amazon and how it was, you know, it was making it difficult for them to sell.

01:07:01.000 And like, you know, the Republicans are noticing what's happening to them, right?

01:07:05.000 So it may be that if the Republicans change their political orientation enough, you know, if they actually respond to events and not just respond with a bunch of slogans and mottos about tax cuts and deregulation.

01:07:15.000 But if they actually see these companies as opposed to their base and they need to respond to their base, the next time they get enough power, they would conceivably be able to, either through legislation or through continuing to support people in the regulatory agencies, be able to create the majority for things like breaking up the large companies, imposing common carriage rules, which would help against a lot of the discrimination and censorship issues, interoperability so that different people, users from different companies can talk to each other, so you know.

01:07:44.000 It won't be like, okay, I'm on a network with 500 people, so I can't talk to people who use Facebook.

01:07:48.000 No, you still would with interoperability.

01:07:49.000 So I think that a lot of it really is the ball being in the Republicans' court.

01:07:53.000 There are enough Democrats, even though Democrats are more pro-censorship, who do want to address the power of these companies for one reason or another.

01:07:59.000 And there are a growing number of Republicans, but I think as long as there's a core group of Republicans whose, you know, their mantra is basically to look at what's happening to their base and do nothing about it.

01:08:10.000 Which has been kind of the way they've responded to a number of social crises over the past, you know, generation or so.

01:08:15.000 Then I don't think much will happen, but I do think that if somebody like a Josh Hawley or a J.D.

01:08:20.000 Vance or some of these people on the right who are very enthused about this issue are willing to work with Democrats on the issue.

01:08:25.000 You know, Hawley supported Lena Kahn.

01:08:27.000 He might have been the only Biden nominee that he supported who's a very, you know, very much to the left on this big tech issue.

01:08:33.000 She probably wasn't the only one, but he voted against most of the nominees, so it was rare to see him support one.

01:08:38.000 I do think if those people grow in influence and are able to make that argument to the base and mobilize that base against the establishment, then you'd really see movement on this issue.

01:08:47.000 I think as long as you see one party that takes a complete laissez-faire attitude towards corporate concentration, which is what the Republicans have been doing, you're right, probably nothing will happen.

01:08:56.000 But if they change their orientation and at least a few Democrats are willing to support some reforms, then I think something probably will happen.

01:09:02.000 I think we may see a reckoning with the Republicans in the midterms.

01:09:07.000 2016, Republicans had everything, and they did nothing.

01:09:11.000 In fact, many of them supported the Russiagate investigation.

01:09:14.000 Then 2018, the Democrats, you know, recoiling from Trump, take the House back.

01:09:19.000 Then Trump loses 2020, Joe Biden is now president, and we end up with people who are sick and tired of watching this problem of social media manipulation, big tech censorship, actually having a major influence on the election, like we mentioned, with suppressing negative news about Joe Biden's family.

01:09:36.000 And now you have to wonder what's going to happen with the Republican Party.

01:09:39.000 There's a lot of talk about a lot of, you know, right populists who are now running to primary existing Republicans or, you know, current Republicans.

01:09:48.000 I think, you know, a lot of people keep saying, oh man, the Republicans are going to win the House in 2022 and they're going to push back.

01:09:54.000 But I also think we're gonna see a lot of establishment Republican types, feckless, you know, laissez-faire perhaps is the way you describe them, they do nothing, just whatever goes with these businesses, they're gonna get ousted.

01:09:54.000 Maybe.

01:10:08.000 I don't know for sure, I just think that the sentiment surely is there to not just have a sweep of the House, but also a changing of the guard in the Republican Party, because as it stands, we were mentioning this earlier in the show, Republicans don't do anything.

01:10:22.000 You know, at least right now, right?

01:10:24.000 They're not coming out and saying we want to repeal firearms legislation.

01:10:28.000 The left is saying we want firearms control, we want gun control, and the right's just saying no.

01:10:33.000 Where is any semblance of a resistance saying we actually want to repeal some of that legislation?

01:10:38.000 It doesn't exist.

01:10:39.000 Then you have 2016-8, 2016 till today, with every Trump supporter knowing this was a problem going back to 2016, complaining about being banned, the censorship getting worse, and nothing getting done about it.

01:10:51.000 Now all of these people are probably fed up. 0.98

01:10:53.000 How stupid did Republican politicians have to be to ignore a problem that would result in them actually losing elections? 1.00

01:11:01.000 So, now you get Republicans just replacing those people. 1.00

01:11:04.000 Let me tell you a story.

01:11:05.000 So, you know, not only did I work in journalism, I worked directly in advocacy earlier in life.

01:11:10.000 You know, I was working for a progressive PAC in, I think it was around 2012, 2013, maybe a little bit after that.

01:11:17.000 And I went to a progressive conference, and there was a bunch of people in a room from a range of progressive organizations.

01:11:24.000 And they were all talking about protecting Social Security and Medicare, and I was like, guys, like, you can talk about protecting it all day long or whatever, but what you need to be doing is seizing the opportunity to talk about expanding these programs, right?

01:11:35.000 This was 2012, 2013.

01:11:36.000 Nobody was talking about doing this.

01:11:38.000 I think starting six or seven months later, there were members of Congress who started talking about doing it.

01:11:42.000 There were other organizations started doing that.

01:11:44.000 And I think the Democrats really came to understand something, that if you can control the playing field of the debate and not be on the defensive, you've shifted things in your direction, even if you don't exactly get what you want.

01:11:54.000 So now I think when someone like a Bernie Sanders talks about Medicare for all, gets people excited about that, the chances of there being significant Medicare cuts, of raising the retirement age, of different types of privatization, have gone down.

01:12:06.000 Because now the public debate is all about whether we should expand it or not, instead of cutting it.

01:12:09.000 So I think exactly what you just said, The lack of a proactive Republican response on so many different issues allows the Democrats to control the playing field.

01:12:20.000 And if I were the Republicans, I would think it was a terrible strategy, but I think that's just been their go-to mode for so long, thinking that, you know, if we'll just call the Democrats socialists and communists and gun grabbers, that'll win us every election, right?

01:12:31.000 And that's just not the reality in this country anymore.

01:12:33.000 There are a lot of people who are interested in a lot of progressive ideas, as I think they should be, because I think some of the progressive ideas are worthwhile and worth exploring.

01:12:41.000 But as long as there's no response, the progressives, of course, are going to win the day, right?

01:12:44.000 You can't just completely fall back to your slogans and your mottos from 40 years ago when the world has changed in 40 years.

01:12:51.000 Here's the big difference I see, right?

01:12:52.000 We have the squad, we have the progressive left, but man, do they fall in line really fast with the establishment Democrats.

01:12:58.000 The Republicans hate the Republican Party.

01:13:01.000 Like, I love pulling up these polls, but we go to Civics, and you can take a look at their polling.

01:13:06.000 It's like, Democrat Party sentiment.

01:13:09.000 And it's like, you know, 60% of people, or I think they're viewed unfavorably, but like 40% view them favorably.

01:13:15.000 Among Democrat voters, it's like 80% favor the Democratic Party.

01:13:20.000 Among Republicans, favorability for the Republican Party, it's like 50-something percent.

01:13:26.000 Because like, Republicans don't like the Republican Party.

01:13:29.000 I think that right there from that polling shows that they're ready to make a big movement, right?

01:13:34.000 big change that we're gonna see a bunch of right populists primary a bunch of 0.99

01:13:39.000 Republicans and then change we'll see we'll see there's been a lot of talk

01:13:42.000 about I think I think that the the energy is out there to do that with what

01:13:46.000 is lacking is probably the organization so I something that's been really

01:13:49.000 interesting and again this was in my examiner article I reported was that

01:13:52.000 there are some Republican politicians now we're saying they will not take tech

01:13:56.000 Like, if a tech lobbyist or a PAC, you know, wants to throw them a fundraiser or give them money, they will not take it.

01:14:01.000 The Heritage Foundation, which is the most establishment, you know, voice on the right, recently said they will no longer take any more tech money.

01:14:07.000 Now, does that mean that the Heritage Foundation is completely going with the populace against the establishment?

01:14:11.000 I don't think so.

01:14:12.000 Policy-wise, they haven't changed that much.

01:14:14.000 But it does tell me that there's a sea change in thinking among their constituency and among the party about their relationship to corporate America to where they actually said there's actually one corporate sector at least that they're not going to be taking money from anymore.

01:14:25.000 That's a huge change from what the Heritage Foundation would have been saying 10 years ago.

01:14:28.000 So I think There's a lot of this base sentiment on the Republican right that a lot of their politicians have not been standing up for their people, have not been standing up for their bases.

01:14:35.000 It just needs to be organized, right?

01:14:37.000 A lot of what people like me on the left were doing years ago in terms of organizing and changing the way that the parties kind of address these issues and tackle them needs to happen on the right.

01:14:47.000 And I think, honestly, a lot of the people who've been controlling the policy arena on the right are just very, you know, they're a very narrow band of people.

01:14:54.000 , and I think that's a really important thing to think about, and I think that's a really important thing to think

01:15:16.000 about, and I think that's a r They think that the Republican Party needs to be defending the interests of the base first and foremost, including by using state action if necessary, rather than adhering to a sense of, you know, a sense of principles or certain tenets about limited rule of government, irregardless of what's happening to the base or the constituencies of the voters.

01:15:32.000 Yeah, why is it that, you know, Bernie Sanders folds so quick though, right?

01:15:36.000 And I don't mean him specifically, I just mean like... You know, we look at 2016, you got Bernie and you got Trump, the insurgent candidates.

01:15:43.000 Trump said, excuse me, no, kicks the door in, says I refuse, and takes over.

01:15:47.000 Bernie says, I'll say whatever you want, Hillary. 0.66

01:15:50.000 And then the progressives come in and they're like, yeah, whatever the establishment wants.

01:15:53.000 The funny thing is, as effectively as somebody like a Hillary Clinton red-baited Bernie Sanders

01:16:00.000 in 2016, campaign cycle and so on and so forth, I do think that Bernie is fundamentally a team

01:16:05.000 player, right? Like he's someone who has certain policy priorities that he works for day and night,

01:16:10.000 and he feels like if he can move the ball a little bit on them, he's willing to work with just about

01:16:14.000 anyone.

01:16:15.000 That's always been kind of the way that he's addressed his relationship to the Democratic Party, even though he's an independent.

01:16:21.000 And I think it was highly predictable, given the way that he operated in Congress in the 1990s.

01:16:26.000 I mean, let's remember when Newt Gingrich was running Congress,

01:16:30.000 the member of Congress who passed the most amendments was Bernie Sanders, right?

01:16:33.000 Bernie and Newt are diametrically opposed from each other in many ways.

01:16:37.000 And of course the Republicans were holding Congress, but Bernie Sanders was very, very good

01:16:40.000 at working with House Republicans even and getting their votes on amendments

01:16:44.000 where he felt like maybe they agree with him on some corporate welfare issues

01:16:47.000 or some individual liberty issues.

01:16:49.000 And I think that, you know, Bernie, you know, despite, you know, maybe he's not that great

01:16:53.000 at telling this story about himself on the campaign trail, but I think within Congress,

01:16:57.000 People realize that he's actually a fairly pragmatic figure.

01:16:59.000 He's not really the revolutionary that I think he often, you know, was portrayed at in his campaigns, or some of his base, or his, you know, really tough fans really think he is, so.

01:17:10.000 Yeah, actually, I think it was the World Socialist website called Bernie Sanders a nationalist capitalist.

01:17:16.000 And they were like, he's not a socialist, he does not support us, he's a nationalist who has four closed borders and border barriers, and he is a capitalist who wants business to make money.

01:17:24.000 He's just somewhat more left.

01:17:26.000 That was funny.

01:17:28.000 But here's the issue I take.

01:17:29.000 You say these stories about Bernie Sanders.

01:17:31.000 I'm like, yeah, well, that's why I liked him.

01:17:33.000 Past tense.

01:17:33.000 Liked.

01:17:34.000 And then when he basically, you know, got on his knee and kissed Hillary Clinton's pinky ring, I'm like, this guy's got no principles.

01:17:40.000 I don't care what he's fighting for.

01:17:41.000 He could have absolutely said, I'm not going to endorse her.

01:17:43.000 Have a nice day.

01:17:43.000 Sorry.

01:17:44.000 And that's it.

01:17:45.000 But instead he was like, whatever the machine needs of me.

01:17:48.000 And now what is he doing?

01:17:49.000 I mean, this is a guy who in the 2016 cycles, in 2015, said that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal to, you know, to exploit these workers and things like that.

01:18:00.000 Then come, you know, 2020, the 2019 primaries and all that stuff, he's talking about open borders and free medical care for non-citizens and stuff.

01:18:08.000 He totally flipped on all his positions.

01:18:10.000 You know, that's what I see when I see, like, the squad.

01:18:13.000 AOC, man, I remember as soon as she got elected, all of a sudden her stance on Palestine and Israel started shifting.

01:18:18.000 Activists started getting really angry, like, what's going on?

01:18:21.000 Why is, why is she walking this back? 1.00

01:18:22.000 She needs to, because she didn't know what she was talking about, right?

01:18:25.000 So they get in, and they just say, tell me where the line is, and I will tow it.

01:18:31.000 Look, I think part of this is that, you know, we think about these members of Congress as, like, what they're doing in Congress with legislation, hearings, briefings, investigations, so on and so forth, but I think this newer breed of members of Congress, and there's people on the right who are this way as well, I think they see a lot of their constituency the same way as, like, an Instagram influencer or, like, a celebrity sees their constituency, right?

01:18:52.000 As long as they're making a lot of progress in terms of the retweets, the likes, the shares, the subscribers, they're raising a heck of a lot of money.

01:19:00.000 I think AOC is one of the best fundraisers in Congress because of all their small donor base and their support.

01:19:05.000 I think they see themselves as achieving some level of success, right?

01:19:07.000 And maybe they will even achieve long-term political success in their careers by doing it.

01:19:12.000 But it isn't necessarily the most effective or the best way to move things in Congress.

01:19:15.000 I mean, I'll give you an example.

01:19:16.000 I think that, you know, Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar, You know, they get in a lot of hot water talking about Israel and the Middle East, but what exactly have they accomplished on those issues?

01:19:28.000 I can't think of them.

01:19:31.000 They aren't any of the authors of any of the primary legislation on Middle East human rights issues.

01:19:35.000 That's Betty McCollum or some other members of Congress.

01:19:38.000 When there was a recent outbreak of fighting between Israel and Gaza, it was John Ossoff, who was a very kind of low-key senator from Georgia, who organized the letter calling for a ceasefire.

01:19:45.000 It wasn't Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib.

01:19:47.000 sometimes being the more like outspoken Twitter punchy type person you know

01:19:51.000 maybe it'll get your applause your fan base to make you a little bit of a

01:19:54.000 celebrity but it isn't necessarily the way to actually move things in Congress

01:19:58.000 and actually carve out you know some progress and I think yeah I mean to be

01:20:04.000 fair to them I do think that they have sometimes unrealistic expectations put

01:20:07.000 I mean, they're fresh members of Congress, so they're like, you know, some of them have been there for two terms now.

01:20:12.000 Normally, when you're in that position, you're not going to be that effective, just because of how the House operates.

01:20:16.000 Now, the Senate's very different.

01:20:18.000 You can be very effective as a first-term Senator, or very impactful, but the House is a little bit different.

01:20:23.000 So, some of the expectations are maybe a little unfair on them, but also, at the same time, you know, I think of them more as influencers, and I think of them as lawmakers, because that's mostly what they do.

01:20:31.000 I think, I will refer to this as the AOC phenomenon. 0.94

01:20:35.000 How is it that she is such an effective fundraiser? 0.79

01:20:38.000 The way I describe it is, imagine you have a hundred cities, and in those cities, 40% are Republican, 42% are Democrat, and then you've got a mishmash of Libertarian and Green Party and unaffiliated, whatever.

01:20:55.000 Well, I think those numbers are probably unfair, because it's like thirds is probably independent voters.

01:20:59.000 But the point is, ignoring that, let's say that out of each city, 1% is Democratic Socialist Pro-AOC.

01:21:09.000 Now if you're in that city and you're trying to fundraise, you're not going to make any money because you're like, you know, you got one person who can donate to you.

01:21:16.000 But what if you could tap into the power of the internet?

01:21:18.000 And now you have every major city across the country, those in each in each and every city where there's just one person who believes that you believe, all of a sudden now through the internet, they're connected to you and funneling money to you.

01:21:31.000 And now all of a sudden AOC is raising money.

01:21:34.000 Outside of her district and it's a new phenomenon they talk about the squad members getting I think most of the donations came from outside like the Substantial amount like 97% or whatever came not from their own districts So what they're doing is they're they're taking the fringe of each and every city They're online speaking up sending money to AOC AOC is not I would say she's popular in the sense that all of those people are loud now but if we were to if this was before the internet era and She would not be considered popular, I'd imagine, right?

01:22:05.000 It's interesting because an equivalent figure, if you go back to like the pre-social media era, would maybe be like Denis Kucinich, right?

01:22:12.000 Like Kucinich was probably the most left-wing member of Congress.

01:22:15.000 He was a Democrat congressman from Ohio.

01:22:17.000 He ran for president a couple times and basically the Bernie platform didn't really get anywhere.

01:22:22.000 Um, but it's exactly that.

01:22:23.000 Like, Kucinich's power base was his actual district in Cleveland, in Ohio.

01:22:28.000 Or, like, in the Cleveland area of Ohio.

01:22:30.000 Uh, he wasn't tapping into a large sort of internet, social media fan base that maybe represented a small sliver of America, but could give him tons and tons of money the same way that I think Really, starting with Ron Paul.

01:22:42.000 Like, Ron Paul on the right, on the libertarian side, you know, represented sort of a minority faction of people, but he was able to mobilize a tremendous number of internet donors, some of which transferred into volunteers, which increased his profile, which actually gave him a real platform and a voice in the political debates, and actually gave him some surprising performance in those couple of primaries that he ran in.

01:23:01.000 I remember The Daily Show had a really fun segment about how, like, he got maybe second in a state, and, like, the major media didn't even mention it, but, like, you know, he He obviously was doing very well, punching well above his weight.

01:23:11.000 You know, Ron Paul started that, and I think Bernie Sanders continued it.

01:23:15.000 And now you have people who I think, I would argue, are much less impactful than someone like a Bernie Sanders, which is the squad, who carved out their social media niches.

01:23:24.000 And yeah, I think they provide them with enough money to basically fend off any kind of challenger within their district, which would only come from within their party, because they're all very Democratic-leaning districts.

01:23:34.000 But that simply isn't the way that you actually change things in Congress.

01:23:38.000 The fulcrum of Congress is typically the swing districts, right?

01:23:41.000 It's the districts that a party can't afford to lose, and the ones that give them the majority and the control of the committees and the chairs, but which are always very competitive.

01:23:50.000 Because I don't think you can beat AOC talking about prison abolition.

01:23:52.000 I mean, that's the real thing she's talked about, and win any swing district anywhere in America.

01:23:56.000 That would be turned into an advertisement by the Republicans, and you'd be gone in, you know, the next cycle.

01:24:01.000 but you can sitting in a district that I don't know if her district is like D plus 30 or 40 or 1.00

01:24:06.000 something. D plus 30. Yeah it's pretty it's pretty up there.

01:24:08.000 You can say basically anything you want right? It'd be very hard for anyone to defeat her. Incumbents 0.94

01:24:13.000 very rarely lose any kind of primary challenge and particularly in that in that kind of

01:24:17.000 a thing of a district I mean.

01:24:18.000 Nancy Pelosi said you could take this glass of water put a D on it and it would win 0.82

01:24:23.000 in AOC's or my district.

01:24:25.000 They know it.

01:24:27.000 How broken is this system, right?

01:24:29.000 You know, we have talked with other GOP candidates in the past who are in like deep blue areas.

01:24:34.000 And I'll tell you, man, the only reason areas are deep red or deep blue is because the parties don't invest money.

01:24:41.000 They're like, what's the point?

01:24:42.000 And it's like, well, dude, if you're not trying to influence people on your ideas, you're losing.

01:24:47.000 And I'll tell you, it's mostly a phenomenon of the right.

01:24:50.000 You know, we mentioned this before, they don't care about culture.

01:24:53.000 They're sitting there thinking that appointing federal judges is winning the culture war, and it's like, no.

01:24:58.000 Because I'll tell you this, you can appoint however many judges you want, but if Amazon, CNN, Cable TV, New York Times, all of these things are all saying X is right and Y is wrong, the courts are going to be like, I'll just do what they tell me.

01:25:13.000 Because, you know, the courts ultimately in the end are just enforcing popular opinion.

01:25:18.000 We've had a bunch of changes of precedent over our, you know, several hundred years.

01:25:24.000 Free speech as we know it, I think, was only essentially, not literally codified, but precedent was set, what, like 1968, I think it was?

01:25:31.000 Well, one example of this would be school prayer, right?

01:25:35.000 Like, people today, a lot of people we talk to, and they're like, well, school prayer's not allowed, because that's the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, blah, blah, blah.

01:25:41.000 Yeah.

01:25:41.000 School prayer was in schools until like the 1950s or something, right?

01:25:44.000 The courts were defending it.

01:25:45.000 It wasn't a matter of just like the Constitution being rewritten.

01:25:48.000 It was just that the culture's perception of whether or not it's appropriate changed.

01:25:52.000 Right. Yep.

01:25:53.000 And that was much more important than having a particular judge on a particular court.

01:25:56.000 So as the right, you know, these establishment neocon Republican types

01:26:00.000 keep thinking that, oh, we're going to just win in the institute

01:26:04.000 in the in the governmental policies.

01:26:06.000 you.

01:26:07.000 Meaningless.

01:26:09.000 Meanwhile, the left is controlling all these institutions, taking them over.

01:26:12.000 So, you know, it is a good point you bring up that someone like AOC couldn't win in a swing district.

01:26:18.000 I do think there's something interesting to be said about the need for Republicans to go into an AOC-type district and actually start advocating and presenting an alternative.

01:26:26.000 Well, let's remember that one of the—he's obviously in a very different role these days—but one of the icons of the Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani, was only that icon because he was able to win power in New

01:26:37.000 York City. Now, the Republicans do have a nominee in New York City, Curtis Sliwa, who's a

01:26:42.000 former, you know, garden angel.

01:26:44.000 He's actually a very storied figure in many ways. But I, you know, I haven't looked it up,

01:26:49.000 but I doubt Republicans are investing just about anything in that race. And, you know, I,

01:26:52.000 to be fair to them, I doubt that they would win it no matter what they invested. But it's a matter

01:26:56.000 of long-term investment, right? It's a matter of running a series of competitive candidates until

01:27:01.000 you get someone like Rudy Giuliani, who's actually going to win, who's going to pave the way for

01:27:04.000 someone like a Michael Bloomberg, who is, you know, semi-Republican.

01:27:07.000 But if you don't even try, yeah, obviously you're going to end up with that result.

01:27:12.000 I think this is what's contributing to the culture war and the hyperpolarization, in that Republicans and Democrats are like, I have no reason to even talk to the people in these deep districts.

01:27:20.000 And now that the hyperpolarization has gotten so extreme, now they're even more entrenched in not communicating.

01:27:26.000 But if you just leave New York City to get further and further left without even trying, then we're drifting so far apart eventually the band snaps and then there's just two different realities.

01:27:37.000 I think we're already starting to see it.

01:27:38.000 Like Portland announced they will cut off trade and travel or whatever for Texas.

01:27:42.000 California banned state travel to like a handful of states.

01:27:44.000 You're going to have this phenomenon that we talked about before where truckers aren't going to go to New York.

01:27:50.000 They're going to be like, I can't go there because I don't feel like dealing with the, you know, the ban on public accommodations for people who aren't vaccinated.

01:27:56.000 Let's say you live in Texas.

01:27:57.000 And you're a truck driver.

01:27:58.000 And they're like, hey, we got a big shipment.

01:28:00.000 It's gotta be sent up to New York.

01:28:01.000 I'd be like, nah.

01:28:02.000 In Texas, they don't have the restrictions.

01:28:04.000 In New York, they do.

01:28:04.000 They're gonna be like, I don't feel like doing it.

01:28:06.000 Which is gonna be interesting because someone in New York who's a trucker will be like, oh, I can go to Texas, no problem.

01:28:11.000 So it's creating kind of a one-way track.

01:28:14.000 Yeah, I mean, this is the important thing to understand about polarization.

01:28:17.000 So I actually worked on polarization professionally from 2018 to 2020.

01:28:20.000 I did a fellowship at a center at Berkeley called the Greater Good Science Center, which works on psychology science.

01:28:27.000 And so, you know, I spent a lot of time talking to researchers who study it and practitioners who work on it.

01:28:32.000 Here's the thing to understand about it.

01:28:33.000 It's not really based on what you believe, right?

01:28:36.000 There is a really great political scientist at the University of Maryland, Liliana Mason, who studied this, and what she found was that people who are most polarized from each other are people who have very strong political identities, who very strongly identify with the label, like, liberal or conservative.

01:28:49.000 In fact, they are even more polarized from each other than people who disagree more on, like, an issue like guns or abortion or something, meaning you can be all the way to the left, But if you don't identify very strongly as a leftist or a liberal, it's not a core part of your personal identity, you probably aren't going to be as angry or resentful or contemptuous of people who are all the way on the right.

01:29:07.000 Versus even if you're somewhat in the middle, but you're like very strongly identifying yourself as a Democrat and you conceive of yourself as that way, You can be much, much more polarized against someone, even someone who agrees with you on most of the issues, but who has the opposite political identity.

01:29:19.000 So I think it's really about making that political identity first and foremost, and then just not interacting very much with people with other identities.

01:29:26.000 Because here's the reality.

01:29:27.000 I grew up in the Deep South as a very left-leaning person, particularly at that point I was very left-leaning compared to everyone around me.

01:29:33.000 But, you know, all my friends were Republicans.

01:29:34.000 A lot of them hunted.

01:29:35.000 You know, you go to Waffle House, you see someone with a Confederate flag t-shirt sitting next to someone with an MLK t-shirt.

01:29:40.000 Like, that was the South growing up in the 1990s.

01:29:43.000 There was so much mixing and integrating and, like, old-fashioned diversity of, like, people would look at you funny if you were like, yeah, I don't want to have any friends who are Republicans.

01:29:50.000 They'd think you were some kind of freak or something, right?

01:29:53.000 But the Facebookification of the United States, where everyone has their kind of curtailed personality and very strong identity established through exclusively, in some cases, politics, has made it much easier for people to silo each other, to segregate from each other, and again to elevate this part of your identity versus all other parts of your identity.

01:30:10.000 You know, it's not your hobby, it's not your career, it's not your religion, it's not your family life.

01:30:15.000 It's, in this house, we believe X, Y, Z. You see those signs around Northern Virginia.

01:30:20.000 You see, I don't know why they're putting those signs up.

01:30:24.000 Do I care what you believe? I don't really want to give someone a political litmus test upon

01:30:28.000 meeting them, but that's what these people really conceive of themselves as. It's tribalism. I

01:30:33.000 mean, and I'll tell you, look, Republicans, I think, for the most part, are spineless,

01:30:39.000 feckless, and aren't fighting for I have very little to say about a party that's not doing much.

01:30:45.000 They're not coming out and demanding the Department of Gun Services and a repealing of the NFA and a gun in the hand of every child.

01:30:51.000 You know, as much as I would jokingly be like, yeah, yeah, by all means.

01:30:54.000 They're not doing that.

01:30:56.000 The Democrats are absolutely steamrolling, pushing, advocating very, very hard for doing these things.

01:31:00.000 And then when I call out the media for lying, what happens?

01:31:02.000 I mean, look.

01:31:03.000 Look at Matt Taibbi.

01:31:04.000 I'm sure you get it.

01:31:05.000 Glenn Greenwald gets it.

01:31:06.000 You're all right-wing now.

01:31:07.000 You're all right-wing grifters, simply for saying, hey, media, that wasn't true.

01:31:11.000 I think part of it is that when somebody has a very strong identity, they view it as an identity threat to see someone disagree with them, right?

01:31:18.000 And I think one way to resolve— And you must be the other.

01:31:20.000 Yeah, exactly.

01:31:21.000 One way to resolve that threat is to simplify the world and just say, oh, that person's in the other category.

01:31:26.000 It's called, what is it called?

01:31:28.000 In-group homogeneity, out-group homogeneity bias, right?

01:31:33.000 Where you think that everyone who disagrees with you basically has one set of narrow beliefs that all of which you hate and disagree with, right?

01:31:39.000 And so, yeah, I think it would be absurd if someone were to look at my resume and really honestly read my writing and think that, you know, I'm a staunch right-winger or something.

01:31:47.000 They'll say it.

01:31:48.000 If I went down to my state house in Virginia or something and told them what I believe on criminal justice, they'd probably think I was a lunatic communist or something.

01:31:57.000 But if I go on Twitter and I say something that 60% of Americans agree with, people will reply saying, I'm Rudy Giuliani or I'm a fascist, blah, blah, blah.

01:32:05.000 And it's just like, what are you talking about?

01:32:07.000 It's an alternate reality, right?

01:32:09.000 My favorite is the Satanic Temple.

01:32:12.000 They're suing over the abortion bill in Texas. 0.73

01:32:15.000 And so I just tweeted, I was like, I want, okay, so one of the tenets of the Satanic Temple is that your body is inviolable.

01:32:20.000 It is yours and no one can, you know, mess with it or whatever.

01:32:22.000 And I'm like, all right, like, what's your thoughts on the New York vaccine mandate?

01:32:26.000 Because I agree with you completely.

01:32:28.000 And I'm pro-choice.

01:32:29.000 I've always been pro-choice.

01:32:30.000 I have wonderful arguments with pro-lifers and there's a sort of a libertarian impasse we come to.

01:32:36.000 And we go into great detail explaining this 50 billion times.

01:32:38.000 I don't know if I can do it again.

01:32:39.000 But when I post something like, you know, my body, my choice, I get these tribal leftists on Twitter who will say, yeah, but when it come to Texas, you pro-lifers.

01:32:47.000 And I'm like, I'm not pro-life.

01:32:48.000 And they're like, well, you're grifting then.

01:32:50.000 And then I'm like, I'm grifting to whom?

01:32:52.000 The left who is in favor of the vaccine mandates by me complaining about them?

01:32:56.000 Or the right who's pro-life and me saying I'm pro-choice?

01:32:59.000 Which, who am I grifting to?

01:33:00.000 You know, it's really funny.

01:33:01.000 I think the people who tell you that, they always assume that you are captive to somebody else.

01:33:06.000 They never assume that, like, let's say if someone who's very right-wing decided to have a conversation with you, that maybe you might convince them, right?

01:33:13.000 It actually does work both ways, but they assume it only goes one way.

01:33:16.000 Exactly.

01:33:17.000 So something I've often said is politics flows in one direction.

01:33:20.000 If there is a photo of me with a far-left Antifa guy, they'll accuse the Antifa guy of being right-wing.

01:33:29.000 Because it- but like, me?

01:33:31.000 Like, I'm fairly independent, centrist, moderate, with some left-leaning policies, some right-leaning policies.

01:33:36.000 But if I'm standing next to someone on the right, they'll say, aha, that proves that Tim's far right.

01:33:39.000 If I stand with someone on the left, they'll be like, whoa, I didn't realize that Antifa guy was actually far right.

01:33:43.000 Because it only can go in one direction.

01:33:44.000 There's no circumstance in which you take a right-wing individual, have him hang out and crack beers with leftists, and they claim the right-wing- right-winger is a left-winger.

01:33:51.000 Which is wild because I think that, you know, a lot of the recent American history shows that, you know, it's called contact, intergroup contact or contact hypothesis, which is basically when people hang out with each other, you break down barriers between each other.

01:34:05.000 So this is, for the most part, been a huge win for the left over the past 50 or 60 years of American history, right?

01:34:10.000 There's been much less Racial prejudice, much less religious and gender prejudice, as a result of people basically just mixing it up with each other.

01:34:16.000 Like, that was... You can talk about all different ways, techniques, strategies to make this happen, but ultimately, it's people mixing up with each other.

01:34:23.000 It was integrating, right?

01:34:24.000 People just getting to know each other, being friends, has made America one of the most tolerant places, like, on planet Earth and, like, in human history.

01:34:31.000 Generally, it's worked out very well for left-wing goals, I would say.

01:34:34.000 Absolutely, I agree.

01:34:36.000 Let's go to Super Chats.

01:34:37.000 If you haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show, and become a member at TimCast.com because we're going to have a members-only segment coming up after the show.

01:34:46.000 You'll not want to miss them.

01:34:46.000 They're always so much fun because you swear a whole lot.

01:34:49.000 But you know what I'm going to do?

01:34:51.000 I saw a Super Chat, which is more recent.

01:34:53.000 Usually I go back to the beginning, but we're going to read this one just because there's two points that need to be said.

01:34:57.000 JJ says, Tim, your argument against ivermectin because horses are large shows how little you have actually researched the subject.

01:35:04.000 Please do some journalism and actually research the subject.

01:35:07.000 JJ, you saying this shows how little you've actually watched my commentary on ivermectin and other medicine because I've done a tremendous amount of research.

01:35:14.000 In fact, I would argue more than many commentators.

01:35:17.000 And my argument is not that there's something wrong with it because horses are large.

01:35:21.000 Clearly, you have not heard the plethora of videos I've made about this.

01:35:24.000 What I've been saying is, First, the first thing I'll say is, here's the challenge in doing these shows.

01:35:31.000 If I break down, if I do a 15-minute segment explaining my entire thought process so you can understand a subject matter, people complain, Tim, you talk about that too much, we get it.

01:35:42.000 The issue is if I don't, I get super chats like this where they're like, you have no idea what you're talking about.

01:35:46.000 So I can choose to do a 20 minute explainer on the morals and ethics of a particular issue in the news behind it.

01:35:52.000 Or I can just be like, here's a quick summary moving on.

01:35:55.000 But then people complain because they don't actually watch my videos.

01:35:58.000 So let me just break this down really, really quickly for you guys.

01:35:58.000 They hear one thing.

01:36:02.000 People are ingesting full tubes of horse paste.

01:36:05.000 Not in mass numbers, not shutting down hospitals, and there have been calls to poison center places about this.

01:36:11.000 Don't do that.

01:36:12.000 Don't take the horse paste.

01:36:13.000 And I'll tell you why.

01:36:14.000 It's not because horses are large.

01:36:15.000 It's because humans have different quality product grading than animals do.

01:36:21.000 And there's also issues like, horses can tolerate certain substances humans can't, or dogs can't tolerate certain substances humans can.

01:36:28.000 I can't give you a full list of all of the chemicals and break down the formulation for you, that's why it's important you go to a doctor, ask them, and make sure that if you are prescribing a medication, you go to a pharmacist to get that actual medication.

01:36:39.000 But I'll tell you, it's this simple.

01:36:41.000 The FDA says the formulation for animal-grade ivermectin contains things that have not been graded for humans.

01:36:48.000 A horse liver may be able to process certain things that you can't.

01:36:51.000 Did you know that cats can drink salt water?

01:36:53.000 You can't.

01:36:54.000 You will lose your mind, dehydrate yourself, and die.

01:36:56.000 You wouldn't then be like, well, if the cat can drink it, I can drink it, even if it's in small amounts.

01:37:00.000 No, it's not true.

01:37:01.000 You're totally different.

01:37:02.000 When the FDA approves something, they'll be like, okay, it can't have these things in it because humans don't react with it properly and they'll get sick.

01:37:09.000 No, but horses?

01:37:11.000 That won't bother them at all because they have a different digestive tract and a different liver.

01:37:14.000 And cows have multiple stomachs. 0.99

01:37:16.000 That's the issue.

01:37:17.000 That's why don't eat horse paste in any amount and go to a doctor and find one who's knowledgeable about all this stuff and knows more than I do.

01:37:26.000 And putting it simply, there are studies that are conflicted on Ivermectin.

01:37:30.000 Some say it's good, some say it's not.

01:37:31.000 There's data from countries saying it's good.

01:37:33.000 There's some other information saying it's studies that are like, no, it's actually inconclusive and these studies are wrong, or it's a spurious correlation.

01:37:41.000 I can't tell you what is true because there's no definitive statement.

01:37:46.000 There's competing narratives in a culture war.

01:37:49.000 So the only thing I can say is you make the decision that's right for you.

01:37:52.000 Talk to someone you trust.

01:37:53.000 Professionals when it comes to medical decisions.

01:37:55.000 And that's the breakdown of that tweet.

01:37:57.000 That being said, let's go back to the beginning and read some of these superchats.

01:38:02.000 All right, let's see.

01:38:04.000 Billy Stamatello says, Biden got heckled on his Hurricane Ida tour.

01:38:09.000 LOL you love to see it.

01:38:10.000 Shout out to the 201 sending love to the tri-state and the rest of the country.

01:38:14.000 Hey, thanks for the superchat.

01:38:17.000 Oh, this is great.

01:38:18.000 ChameleonDX says, Tim, big fan of yours, but as someone who makes wine professionally, watching your wine tasting over the weekend hurt my soul.

01:38:25.000 Good.

01:38:26.000 That was the intention.

01:38:27.000 Good.

01:38:28.000 So we, we, uh, we went for a Labor Day weekend.

01:38:30.000 We went to central West Virginia, looked at these ghost towns.

01:38:32.000 It was awesome.

01:38:33.000 And we got these local berry wines.

01:38:36.000 So cool.

01:38:36.000 Like blackberry, raspberry, blueberry.

01:38:38.000 And I have no idea what I'm doing.

01:38:40.000 So I just pretended to know what I was doing.

01:38:42.000 And then we like mixed all of the wines together to make wine punch.

01:38:45.000 I'm sure that was the most offensive thing we could have done.

01:38:47.000 Oh my gosh.

01:38:48.000 That's highly offensive.

01:38:49.000 I didn't even drink wine.

01:38:51.000 I knew we would trigger some, uh, wine professionals.

01:38:53.000 How was the punch?

01:38:55.000 I don't know.

01:38:55.000 It tasted good.

01:38:57.000 Listen, OK, when you're when you're in the middle of West Virginia, you're duct tape, you know, it's it's it's we're not we're not.

01:39:07.000 Yeah, moonshine.

01:39:08.000 We're not talking about some fancy winery of people wearing fancy suits and tuxedos, sipping with their pinkies out.

01:39:14.000 We're talking about taking a barrel and filling it with whatever you got, fermenting it and drinking what you got.

01:39:19.000 Not really.

01:39:20.000 I mean, it was actually really good wine, you know, but, you know, mix them together because we do what we want.

01:39:25.000 Alright, let's see what else we got.

01:39:30.000 3D Pyromaniac says, To be united by hatred is a fragile alliance at best.

01:39:36.000 Darth Treya, Funny how a game about space wizards has a better understanding of philosophy than the modern left.

01:39:42.000 Yeah.

01:39:43.000 Yeah.

01:39:44.000 Pedro Henrique says, have you guys seen Jason Miller?

01:39:46.000 Getter CEO was arrested today in Brazil for our independence.

01:39:49.000 Bolsonaro was going through the same pressure Trump did.

01:39:52.000 He was detained for questioning.

01:39:53.000 Do you guys see this?

01:39:54.000 No.

01:39:54.000 This is brutal.

01:39:56.000 Did you hear about it?

01:39:57.000 I think Glenn was tweeting about it, too.

01:39:57.000 Yeah, I heard about it.

01:39:59.000 The craziest thing about it is Jason Miller, former senior advisor to Trump.

01:40:03.000 He's about to leave.

01:40:04.000 He's getting on his plane, or he was about to get on his plane.

01:40:06.000 They detained him and questioned him for three hours.

01:40:09.000 And your go-to figures on Twitter were cheering for it.

01:40:13.000 And I'm like, yo, are we really at the point where one political, like, people, citizens of this country are cheering for a foreign government detaining an American citizen who was leaving?

01:40:23.000 That, to me, is freaky stuff.

01:40:23.000 It's funny, because I think that a lot of this started with, like, Trump rallies and, like, Lock Her Up.

01:40:30.000 And now I feel like Lock Her Up is, like, a universal thing.

01:40:32.000 Like, there are always Democrats hoping that a range of Republicans, like, get expelled from Congress and or arrested.

01:40:39.000 Which is a weird thing in a pluralistic democratic society for people to be to be asking for or wanting I mean obviously there are public officials who actually commit crimes and like it happens every now and then but like this is all politically motivated it's like pretty obvious right so I think it does not bode well for us.

01:40:55.000 We had John Podesta, you know, according to Boston Globe, was arguing for the West Coast to secede from the Union in the event of a Trump victory.

01:41:02.000 You've got states saying, we can't travel to these states anymore.

01:41:05.000 You've got conflicting policies.

01:41:07.000 Some states, you know, Oregon sued the federal government over when Trump was trying to stop the riots.

01:41:12.000 Like, the fracturing in this country is just getting absolutely worse.

01:41:15.000 And I'll tell you, if there was a collapse happening, You wouldn't see it because you're in it.

01:41:20.000 You know, slow motion breakdown.

01:41:22.000 You're standing in the middle of the forest, surrounded by trees, and you're like, what forest?

01:41:25.000 All I see is trees.

01:41:25.000 Where?

01:41:27.000 And that's the issue right now.

01:41:29.000 But I tell you, if I'm right, and I think we have absolutely been on this trajectory towards collapse or civil conflict or something, in 50 to 100 years, they'll be like, oh, this whole period was the breakdown of the American empire and all that stuff.

01:41:43.000 This sounds very weird, so I'm gonna read it.

01:41:43.000 All right.

01:41:45.000 Oh, good.

01:41:46.000 Josh Oh My Gosh says, Hey Ian, what if parallel universes are a mechanism for a higher dimensional womb using the accumulative experiences of every sentient living creature in every universe to make a baby that knows everything when born?

01:41:57.000 Mic drop.

01:41:58.000 Yeah, I think we're in a black hole and that your thoughts are causing matter to come in from the outside of the black hole.

01:42:04.000 So it looks like it's expanding, but matter is actually just coming in from the outside.

01:42:07.000 I think you beat him.

01:42:11.000 Might be onto something, Josh.

01:42:12.000 Yeah.

01:42:14.000 Alright, Cat Purple says journalism used to be a blue-collar job, then the elites took it over, and then it became a leap propaganda.

01:42:22.000 Simple.

01:42:23.000 Leap propaganda?

01:42:24.000 Was it ever a blue collar?

01:42:26.000 Yeah I think Tybee actually writes about this which is that back in the day it was sort of just like something if you were just kind of like you know you you were kind of like second or third tier your school or college and you just you needed a job and because there were so many local newspapers back then right before there was so much consolidation so a lot of people who entered journalism I think We're kind of people who are not at the top of their business or law school, or they weren't cut out for medicine, and so on and so forth.

01:42:52.000 It wasn't really seen as an elite trade until very recently, or something that was all that prestigious, I guess.

01:42:59.000 At least when you're talking about your run-of-the-mill journalist.

01:43:01.000 So I think there's a lot of truth to that.

01:43:03.000 Although I don't know exactly, like, I don't have a figure or something of what the average journalist was like 50 years ago versus now.

01:43:08.000 But yeah, it definitely, the nature and prestige of the trade has changed a lot.

01:43:12.000 Well, I have seen Anchorman.

01:43:14.000 And if it's anything like that, it was bad.

01:43:16.000 Yeah.

01:43:17.000 It's just like that, I'm sure.

01:43:19.000 Kado Osta says, Tim, do you think fathers have any rights over unborn children?

01:43:24.000 Like, if you got your girlfriend pregnant... Like, if you got your girlfriend pregnant, didn't tell you, and got an abortion, would you be upset? 0.89

01:43:30.000 If society make men responsible for impregnation, it would only be fair they get some rights. 0.99

01:43:33.000 This is very interesting, and I think the answer is yes.

01:43:36.000 I don't think it's equal.

01:43:37.000 I will also add that, you know, we were talking on the show last week, and people were saying that the Texas abortion law has exemptions for rape and incest.

01:43:45.000 It doesn't.

01:43:46.000 Yeah, it doesn't.

01:43:47.000 And I've read a couple different articles saying there is no exemption.

01:43:50.000 In that case, that law is a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad law.

01:43:53.000 It is tough, though.

01:43:54.000 It is still very difficult to parse this out morally, though.

01:44:01.000 There is a medical exemption, but no exemption for rape.

01:44:04.000 And that tends to be the main focal point of the argument I'm seeing from many on the left that are advocating for the right at any point to abortion, specifically rape.

01:44:13.000 And I'm like, Yeah, the state saying that somebody was forced by someone else and then that person is the one who took the action to impregnate the woman.

01:44:21.000 The woman didn't choose to do that. 1.00

01:44:23.000 Then the argument from people in the chat was that, you know, if the woman makes a choice, she has a responsibility to the life inside of her.

01:44:30.000 But what if she didn't make that choice?

01:44:31.000 Texas should have an exemption in that regard.

01:44:34.000 It's not easy.

01:44:34.000 This is probably one of the most morally and ethically difficult questions of our lives, to be honest.

01:44:40.000 All right, let's see what we got here.

01:44:43.000 Delta34 says, Hey Tim and cast, I worked a few years on a project to find a universal formula for morality.

01:44:49.000 I have it almost fully animated and narrated.

01:44:51.000 What does an enlightenment defender got to do to come on and share it?

01:44:55.000 Um, are you checking the spin the UFO stuff?

01:44:58.000 Spin the UFO at gmail.com.

01:44:58.000 Yeah.

01:45:00.000 Yeah.

01:45:00.000 You're welcome to resend it.

01:45:01.000 It might've slipped through the cracks, but I do check.

01:45:03.000 Yep.

01:45:04.000 There you go.

01:45:08.000 Matthew Hunter says, the horse paste tubes are meant to be dosed by weight, and it's the same dose per pound for humans as for horses.

01:45:14.000 Don't take 1,250 pounds worth of IVM unless you weigh that much regardless.

01:45:18.000 Simple.

01:45:19.000 No, not simple, as I've explained.

01:45:21.000 Look, some people are arguing, but I think the issue is, are you really going to trust that they're going to keep a product safe when the liability is substantially lower?

01:45:32.000 There's another issue with horse medication versus human medication.

01:45:37.000 It may be ivermectin as the active ingredient.

01:45:39.000 It doesn't mean the inactive ingredients are the same.

01:45:41.000 I think the ivermectin paste is like 90... What is it?

01:45:46.000 98% not ivermectin.

01:45:48.000 There's other active ingredients in it.

01:45:50.000 Sounds right.

01:45:50.000 If a human being ingests something and dies, the liability for that company could be in the tens of millions.

01:45:56.000 If a horse ingests something and dies, depending on the horse, the liability could be in the tens of thousands.

01:46:02.000 So I'll just put it this way.

01:46:05.000 Just talk to a doctor, man.

01:46:06.000 Don't go to a tractor supply because it's just... I hear these stories about, you know, we've heard a lot of stories about people going on Amazon and going on these other websites and buying, you know, prescription drugs, but off prescription by going to other companies, countries and stuff like that.

01:46:19.000 I think that's all bad too.

01:46:21.000 I think, you know, but you know what?

01:46:22.000 Look, I'll tell you this.

01:46:24.000 My opinion, my choice for my life, your opinion, your choice for your life.

01:46:27.000 All right, let's see what we got.

01:46:31.000 Michael Martin says, Fauci and Rand Paul.

01:46:34.000 More proof that the difference between conspiracy theories and the truth is about 60 to 90 days.

01:46:39.000 Thank you for being my nightly news.

01:46:40.000 Hey, thanks for watching.

01:46:41.000 We try our best.

01:46:45.000 What is... Natalie Kuchia says, Hey Tim and crew, just wanted to hear you say Rachel Madcow out loud.

01:46:53.000 Please feel free to go around the table and have everyone say it.

01:46:55.000 Well, I'll read it, but people don't have... I love it.

01:47:01.000 All right, let's see.

01:47:04.000 Daniel Bundrick says, Tim, please issue a correction.

01:47:06.000 Ibuprofen is toxic to dogs.

01:47:08.000 I have your reference here.

01:47:10.000 Dunier E. ibuprofen toxiciton in dogs, cats, and ferrets, vet med.

01:47:13.000 Let me just Google search ibuprofen for dogs and there's like dog branded ibuprofen.

01:47:19.000 So I don't know.

01:47:20.000 Whatever.

01:47:22.000 Perhaps you can't give too much of it to them.

01:47:24.000 Well, the joke I was making is that they prescribe the same antibiotics and the same like painkillers to pets.

01:47:30.000 And so what are we going to do?

01:47:31.000 We're going to go around being like Joe Biden was seen ingesting dog medicine today at the White House.

01:47:34.000 And it's like he's holding a bottle of aspirin.

01:47:36.000 It's like, dude, it's aspirin.

01:47:37.000 It's it's it's for what it's for.

01:47:39.000 You know what I mean?

01:47:42.000 All right, let's see where we're at.

01:47:46.000 Ethan Davis, Tim, I think I might have an answer or part of the answer to your question about what happened to people.

01:47:51.000 The rage.

01:47:52.000 And I think it stems back to the birth of the internet and the death of innocents.

01:47:56.000 So one of the things we've pointed out frequently is how people have become extremely angry.

01:48:02.000 You know, people I've known my whole life all of a sudden are just messaging me saying extremely angry, vile things, and I'm just like, yo, why are you so mad?

01:48:11.000 Like, they're people I've known for decades.

01:48:13.000 We're friends on Facebook, and all of a sudden they're messaging me with all caps, being like, I'm sick of this!

01:48:17.000 You're out of the facts!

01:48:18.000 And I'm like, why are you yelling at me?

01:48:21.000 And they're just, like, they have no real answer.

01:48:23.000 It's like, where did this anger and rage come from that people are just so angry all the time now?

01:48:28.000 Yeah, I mean, I think part of that is they've externalized their mental state or their problems, right?

01:48:33.000 I mean, maybe something is happening in their personal lives, or they have some lack of personal fulfillment, and they've taken that and turned it into a political problem, right?

01:48:42.000 If this wasn't happening in the world, if it wasn't happening in society and politics, I'd be happier, right?

01:48:46.000 And that's when they personalize those problems.

01:48:49.000 I do marvel at, like, you know, I know people who are, like, war refugees who came to the United States who were very chill and relaxed and very happy about living here, and then I know people who grew up here upper-middle class who seem, like, you know, enraged and upset all the time. 0.97

01:49:01.000 It's just, like, doesn't really make a whole lot of sense if you think about their external life circumstances, right?

01:49:07.000 But it makes a lot of sense if you think about this as a failure for them to, like, establish, like, an internal locus of control and actually recognize their personal problems as personal problems.

01:49:15.000 And, like, it doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the world or engage with it, but, like, if you find yourself being personally enraged and being antisocial towards your friends or your colleagues, then, you know, there is something that you need to work on personally before you fix the rest of the world, so.

01:49:27.000 Yeah.

01:49:28.000 You know, I think there's a couple things at play.

01:49:31.000 People have no purpose in their lives.

01:49:33.000 When we were in West Virginia, they had this thing called hotspots.

01:49:38.000 They're basically just like miniature casinos.

01:49:41.000 So we were bored, it's late, and I'm like, I don't want to sit in on a Sunday night or whatever on Labor Day.

01:49:45.000 Let's go to these little hotspots.

01:49:47.000 We drove like 10 miles.

01:49:48.000 We go to this place and it's a little hole-in-the-wall lounge.

01:49:52.000 They've got, I think, seven slot machines.

01:49:54.000 And each machine has like a different, you can play games.

01:49:56.000 They're all full.

01:49:57.000 There were like two machines open, so we played.

01:49:59.000 I ended up winning a ton of money.

01:50:01.000 It was awesome.

01:50:01.000 I turned 60 bucks into 400.

01:50:03.000 But the point is...

01:50:05.000 People who are there, just gambling.

01:50:07.000 And I'm like, that's kind of sad.

01:50:10.000 Like, that's your, that's, that's, that's, that, and they're all over the place.

01:50:13.000 After we left that hotspot, we went to another one, same thing.

01:50:16.000 You know, seven or eight slot machines, people just sitting around gambling.

01:50:19.000 And I'm just like, they have no purpose.

01:50:22.000 There's nothing to do.

01:50:24.000 Their, their work is done, they're sitting at home, they're bored, they want to go out, so they just go to the slot machine and start, you know, pulling the lever.

01:50:30.000 And I think that occupies them.

01:50:32.000 That keeps them relatively sane.

01:50:34.000 It's like, I'm going to go do my thing, my routine.

01:50:36.000 But there's a lot of people in cities who don't have that.

01:50:39.000 So now they're home from work.

01:50:41.000 They have their bills paid.

01:50:42.000 They have no purpose.

01:50:43.000 So they find Black Lives Matter.

01:50:44.000 They find Antifa.

01:50:45.000 They get angry.

01:50:47.000 The hole in their hearts that they feel is externalized.

01:50:51.000 And then you add COVID on top of that.

01:50:53.000 People are locked in their apartments.

01:50:55.000 And now what do they say?

01:50:56.000 It's the unvaccinated fault. 0.98

01:50:58.000 It's your fault.

01:50:58.000 It's Trump's fault.

01:50:59.000 It's not my fault.

01:51:00.000 It's your fault.

01:51:01.000 There was a documentary filmmaker, Dia Khan, and she's made documentaries about both white nationalists and Islamists, and she got to know them very well, actually.

01:51:10.000 And I think she was on Sam Harris' show or something, and she actually explained some of her thoughts on making the documentaries.

01:51:15.000 And I think she noticed that there were a lot of similarities between the two sides.

01:51:19.000 A lot of people would think, no, those people are diametrically opposed, or different politically, religiously, so on and so forth.

01:51:24.000 But she basically found that there were young alienated people who needed some purpose in their lives, and this is what filled it.

01:51:29.000 I mean, these people could have easily become like guitar players or bowling enthusiasts or, you know, any number of things.

01:51:35.000 They could have filled the hole with something healthier.

01:51:37.000 But this just happens to be the door they picked, and it led them to a very unhealthy place.

01:51:41.000 And I think that they sincerely believed that if they had won whatever political struggle they were involved in, their sectarian struggle, that they would be happier people.

01:51:51.000 , but it was the same it was the same mistake both sides are making ends in this equation, from the extremists

01:52:06.000 issued covered in I think that's probably where a lot of it comes from.

01:52:08.000 Because under Trump, things were pretty good.

01:52:11.000 Maybe one of the components is that with 2019 being so good, you know, I heard from so many people about how they made so much money, and then 2020 was just so awful, and you know what?

01:52:21.000 Maybe people starting to realize that this year, with everything that's getting bad, a lot of the anger is coming from their decision to vote for Joe Biden.

01:52:28.000 I mean, look at Sam Harris saying he's eating his words.

01:52:31.000 So they go through this very, you know, they go through 2020.

01:52:33.000 They blame Trump for everything.

01:52:35.000 It's your fault.

01:52:36.000 Everything was so good.

01:52:37.000 It's your fault.

01:52:38.000 Now it's 2021 and Biden's in charge and it's still bad.

01:52:42.000 And now there may be a lot of them are maybe having this cognitive dissonance of maybe it was the pandemic and maybe voting for Biden is not going to change anything.

01:52:50.000 And they're just, there's no way to solve it.

01:52:52.000 So they blame everyone else.

01:52:55.000 Alright, JDA says that journalistic exodus to Substack is not the only one.

01:52:59.000 In the past few months, the top writers for DC and Marvel have moved to Substack also.

01:53:04.000 What remains at DC Marvel is the worst of the woke.

01:53:06.000 Wow.

01:53:08.000 You know we saw Shang-Chi?

01:53:09.000 Yeah.

01:53:10.000 How was it?

01:53:12.000 I liked it.

01:53:13.000 I thought it was okay.

01:53:13.000 You didn't like it?

01:53:15.000 It was okay.

01:53:16.000 I give it a C. I think that... I could have fixed it.

01:53:19.000 They picked a lot of good Chinese or Hong Kong scene actors to be part of it who really kind of stole the show even though they were side characters.

01:53:27.000 I think that was a pretty good decision on their part to pick those people.

01:53:30.000 I think the challenge was that they were trying to make... They should have gone all in on China, in my opinion. 0.99

01:53:37.000 Instead, they tried adding some, like, American stuff to it to make it so, like, Americans could relate to it, I guess?

01:53:46.000 Nah, it should have been... It should have just been in China, right? 0.99

01:53:50.000 So, I'm not gonna spoil anything, but Shang-Chi is from China, but he lives in America and then goes to China, and I'm just like... That just made the whole thing confusing.

01:54:00.000 A lot of missing beats.

01:54:00.000 Yeah.

01:54:01.000 Well, what's interesting is like the larger context of it is Disney's trying to expand heavily in the Chinese market as are much of, as is much of Hollywood.

01:54:08.000 So I think the more they can set in China, the easier it will be for them. 0.98

01:54:12.000 Because I think a lot of the Chinese audience isn't as interested in some of the American stuff.

01:54:16.000 Um, so I think they were trying to split the difference and get both audiences involved.

01:54:19.000 And you know, to be fair, I wasn't right.

01:54:23.000 So like, look, we, I, We've got a bunch of Marvel movies that are really, really good.

01:54:28.000 If you're gonna make a Marvel movie about the Mandarin with his ten rings, and he's Chinese, and he has Chinese children, you don't need to put him in San Francisco for ten minutes.

01:54:38.000 Like, it just made the story not make sense.

01:54:40.000 And there were a bunch of things they could have done.

01:54:43.000 I already figured out how to fix the entire movie, because I did it with Doctor Strange, the What If episode.

01:54:47.000 But I'm like, man, I wish there were so many misbeats.

01:54:51.000 But it was good.

01:54:52.000 It was...

01:54:54.000 I would say I give it a grade C, meaning I enjoyed going out and watching it.

01:55:01.000 Had fun, you know, hanging out in the theater.

01:55:03.000 It was enjoyable.

01:55:04.000 And what's the actor's name?

01:55:07.000 Simu?

01:55:08.000 Simu?

01:55:08.000 I don't know.

01:55:09.000 I don't remember.

01:55:09.000 I don't know.

01:55:10.000 He was really good.

01:55:11.000 He was really, really good.

01:55:12.000 And the guy who plays that, I thought they both did really, really great.

01:55:14.000 I think everybody did a great job.

01:55:16.000 But I'll tell you this.

01:55:18.000 I always, I can always tell you my ultimate rating is not a thumb up or a thumbs down.

01:55:22.000 It's what I watch the movie again.

01:55:25.000 And I would say for the movie Doctor Strange from 2016, I watched that movie on loop.

01:55:30.000 I love that movie so much.

01:55:32.000 Shang-Chi? 1.00

01:55:33.000 You know, honestly, at first I would have said no.

01:55:36.000 I'd watch it again.

01:55:37.000 I wouldn't go to the theaters.

01:55:39.000 When it comes out, I'll probably put it on and watch it again, but not particularly strong, you know?

01:55:44.000 So it's like, eh, enjoyed it, you know?

01:55:47.000 I think the ending was fun, but they could have done a way better job.

01:55:49.000 I think a lot of it wasn't explained as, like, what was happening wasn't explained well enough.

01:55:54.000 Yeah, they didn't give the main character as much characterization in this one, for sure.

01:55:58.000 Yeah, it was.

01:56:00.000 It really felt like it was a bunch of scenes that were edited together.

01:56:04.000 That was my issue with it.

01:56:05.000 And I'm like, they needed only a little bit to make it like totally epic.

01:56:10.000 And oh, man, I don't want to spoil anything, so I won't say much, but they needed only a few sentences and a few tweaks in like one or two places.

01:56:18.000 And it would have been like one of the greatest films ever.

01:56:21.000 So that says a lot.

01:56:22.000 It was it was I like it.

01:56:23.000 It was good.

01:56:24.000 But, you know, I'm not going to give it a A.

01:56:27.000 Unfortunately, but I was excited for it.

01:56:29.000 It's good to see.

01:56:31.000 All right, let's see what we got here.

01:56:36.000 Insert name here, says Tim.

01:56:37.000 When are you going to have Colean Noir or another prominent 2A voice on?

01:56:41.000 Also, I know it's not your focus, but you rarely talk about anti-2A stuff.

01:56:46.000 We talk about gun control periodically.

01:56:48.000 We had the fella from Phoenix Ammunition on.

01:56:51.000 Recoil.

01:56:52.000 We've had the guys from Recoil, yeah.

01:56:53.000 Or the guy from Recoil Forest.

01:56:56.000 We are staunchly pro-2A.

01:56:59.000 To an extreme degree.

01:57:00.000 When we had Colonel Allen West here, and he was saying that if you commit a felony, you lose your right to have a gun.

01:57:06.000 And I was like, I disagree.

01:57:07.000 I think once you get out of prison, you get your gun back.

01:57:09.000 And he was like, I don't know about that.

01:57:10.000 Violent criminals?

01:57:11.000 And I'm like, yep, I think so.

01:57:12.000 I think if you get out of prison, you get your gun, you get your vote, you get everything back.

01:57:15.000 That's how it works.

01:57:16.000 You outflank the Texas Republican.

01:57:18.000 Well, people were like, Tim, rights can be taken from you through due process.

01:57:21.000 And I'm like, a life sentence, never owning a firearm to defend yourself?

01:57:26.000 After you got out of prison?

01:57:27.000 I think that's a little much.

01:57:28.000 Now, like, okay, for sure, like, you're a murderer or something with 25 to life and after 30 years they let you out?

01:57:35.000 We can have a discussion about some kind of, like, extended due process of restrictions.

01:57:41.000 I still lean towards, yeah, get out of prison, you get your vote, you get your gun back.

01:57:46.000 That's just me.

01:57:48.000 Alright, let's see.

01:57:53.000 Delhiopolis says, the argument governments shouldn't legislate morality doesn't hold water when it's obvious that the left has no problem legislating immorality.

01:58:03.000 That's one of the big challenges, I suppose, is that when it comes to any kind of, you know, culture war issue, you have people who are like, I'm going to play by the rules, be nice and tell the truth.

01:58:12.000 And the other side saying, we're going to lie, cheat and steal.

01:58:13.000 And who's likely to win that in that conflict?

01:58:16.000 You know, if you're playing a game against somebody and they're willing to lie, cheat and steal, you're at a serious disadvantage.

01:58:21.000 the stuff all right let's see

01:58:30.000 We'll see you next time.

01:58:31.000 Wicked Karma, 1776, says I'm completely wrong about ivermectin, saying, look at ivermectin meta-study, peer-reviewed, 63 studies, 21,000 patients.

01:58:40.000 So I did.

01:58:41.000 And we talked to Dr. Chris Martinson about that.

01:58:43.000 And the issue was, there's a bunch of reports from, like, universities and medical journals saying that, you know, a lot of those studies were done wrong, the methodology was bad.

01:58:52.000 And so all I'm saying is this.

01:58:55.000 I don't- I'm not gonna trust someone simply because someone else says, like, I know- I know person A is lying.

01:59:00.000 It doesn't mean person B is telling the truth.

01:59:02.000 It- so- so my ultimate position is...

01:59:06.000 It's a- it's- the media's lying about it across the board with the horse-paced thing.

01:59:10.000 The media's lying about, you know, Joe Rogan, and they're putting out these headlines to manipulate you.

01:59:15.000 I can't tell you about efficacy because there's conflicting studies, even with this one big, you know, meta- meta- analysis.

01:59:21.000 There's- there's a bunch of, uh, researchers saying that's not- not correct, so...

01:59:25.000 I'm gonna I'm gonna leave it to you guys to go talk to a doctor make sure there's someone you trust and Look, man, there are people in the culture war I don't care which side they're on who are gonna believe things and tell you things and you're gonna have to navigate this world But ultimately I try to be careful of people who are trying to win some kind of you know Cultural issue when it comes to my personal health decisions by all means I think the right tends to be more and more publishing the truth in media Not always and the left tends to be publishing lies and manipulations the establishment left That doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly trust anybody.

01:59:58.000 And if I don't have definitive data in front of me, even if I want to believe something, I'm not going to make a move on it.

02:00:03.000 Sorry.

02:00:03.000 It's up to you to talk to somebody who's got the expertise and everything.

02:00:06.000 And by all means, tell me I'm wrong.

02:00:08.000 That's fine.

02:00:09.000 Tell me you trust Brett Weinstein because he's the evolutionary biologist.

02:00:13.000 Way more credentialed than I am.

02:00:15.000 My position is my position because I'm not in a position to have any expertise on this stuff.

02:00:19.000 It's the best I can do, my friends.

02:00:22.000 Oh, okay.

02:00:23.000 So here we go.

02:00:23.000 So I've got some pushback on the abortion thing.

02:00:26.000 Zachariah Kitzman says, Tim, you're wrong about the abortion law not having exemptions.

02:00:30.000 It's already written into Texas law, the heartbeat bills, in addition to the newly standing law.

02:00:36.000 I'll have to do a deep dive on this one because there's been a... I think the governor was asked about this and this week or this past week and he said something like, well, you have six weeks.

02:00:45.000 So six weeks.

02:00:46.000 It takes account, you know, the time someone would need in that emergency situation to seek it.

02:00:51.000 But I don't think it has an explicit exemption.

02:00:53.000 Right.

02:00:53.000 And then he also, didn't he say something like, well, we're going to hunt down all the rapists to stop this?

02:00:57.000 Yeah, that was also kind of a weird.

02:00:58.000 Something like that.

02:01:00.000 I don't see how that would really take care of the issue.

02:01:03.000 But yeah, yeah, yeah.

02:01:05.000 So.

02:01:07.000 You know, but I'll do a deep dive to make sure, but I saw that because we had said on the show, we had had people on the show saying there is an exemption for this.

02:01:14.000 It's cleverly crafted.

02:01:15.000 And I was like, oh, okay.

02:01:16.000 Well, that makes sense.

02:01:16.000 All right.

02:01:17.000 And then I saw some advocacy groups saying there's no exemption for rape or incest.

02:01:23.000 And so I said, okay, I better fact check this one.

02:01:25.000 I pulled up a handful of articles saying there is no exemption.

02:01:28.000 And I was like, oh, okay, well, I guess I was wrong about that.

02:01:31.000 But I could be wrong about being wrong about that.

02:01:33.000 So I'll just actually dig into the law and pull it up as I should have done in the first place.

02:01:38.000 Well, there you go.

02:01:39.000 All right, let's see.

02:01:42.000 Oh, someone mentions that there is the day after pill that victims can take.

02:01:46.000 Oh, yeah.

02:01:47.000 Someone is asking me for Joe Rogan's phone number.

02:01:51.000 It's the weirdest thing when people like, I get, we get a lot of people who come through here email and they'll be like, yeah, oh, and by the way, can you, uh, call Joe for me?

02:01:59.000 And I'm like, no, I can't.

02:02:01.000 What are you, are you, that's, that's, bro.

02:02:04.000 You know, a funny story though.

02:02:05.000 Once I was at a Boost Mobile.

02:02:07.000 This is like 15 years ago.

02:02:09.000 Oh man, this is like 16 years.

02:02:10.000 No, it's like 15 years ago.

02:02:12.000 And the guy who worked there had Robin Williams' phone number.

02:02:15.000 Hmm.

02:02:16.000 Because I guess he looked it up.

02:02:17.000 Because they had the computers.

02:02:19.000 And I heard him talking to his co-worker about how he had it.

02:02:22.000 And I was like...

02:02:23.000 B.S.

02:02:24.000 You don't have his phone number.

02:02:25.000 He's like, yeah I do.

02:02:25.000 And I was like, prove it.

02:02:26.000 And he's like, I'm not going to give you his phone number.

02:02:27.000 And I was like, you don't got it.

02:02:29.000 And then he holds it up for about a second and then pulls it away.

02:02:31.000 And then I was just like, 8-6-7-5-3-0-9.

02:02:34.000 And he was like, oh dude, dude, dude, please, please, please.

02:02:37.000 Like he didn't realize I would just photographic memory and know the number.

02:02:41.000 But that was funny.

02:02:42.000 I don't know if it was actually his number though.

02:02:43.000 It was probably just some guy B.S.ing at the shop.

02:02:45.000 But I don't know why I told that story.

02:02:47.000 All right, let's see.

02:02:49.000 Sonny James says, with all these mainstream media resignations, are they taking early retirement to save face?

02:02:53.000 As the left gets more centralized, the Joy Behar type or Maddow type, operations get too expensive and less needed.

02:02:59.000 How many people you need to say the same thing?

02:03:01.000 I mean, yeah, well, Rachel Maddow is doing, what, 30 million for, like, a network now or something?

02:03:07.000 Yeah, she's kind of grandfathered in though.

02:03:09.000 I think she's been at this for a while and it's kind of given her a level of security because they have an audience who wants that every night.

02:03:16.000 But it's true that the younger cohorts, Millennials and Zoomers, are probably not going to want or need that format. 0.99

02:03:23.000 Oh yeah, so people like to point out that the Key Demo ratings are abysmal for CNN and MSNBC.

02:03:32.000 And it's true, our ratings are higher in the Key Demo than CNN, MSNBC, HLN, whatever.

02:03:40.000 But their total viewership, because they have people who are over 55, brings them up to the hundreds of thousands, close to a million.

02:03:47.000 That being said, on YouTube, we can brag all day and night, but there's probably a thousand channels that are in the same category of beating Rachel Maddow's ratings.

02:03:56.000 So it's not to say that we're doing that well.

02:03:58.000 We're, like, probably.

02:03:59.000 I mean, actually, the TimGuys.rl is apparently a top iTunes podcast now, consistently, which is great news.

02:04:05.000 Uh, when I was doing Tim Pool Daily Show every single day, I reached like number 17 in like total podcasts.

02:04:12.000 And then when I stopped doing weekends, it just knocks you off because that's how it works or whatever.

02:04:15.000 But you know, whatever.

02:04:16.000 It is what it is.

02:04:17.000 We can brag about how they're doing really bad, but the reality is they're still doing really, really well on YouTube.

02:04:21.000 So we got to be, we got to recognize that for what that means for the future.

02:04:24.000 But that being said, my friends, thank you all so much for hanging out.

02:04:26.000 Go to TimCast.com, become a member.

02:04:28.000 We're going to have a members-only segment coming up.

02:04:30.000 We're going to be talking about the ACLU flip-flopping and the corruption of mainstream institutions and how it took place, why it took place.

02:04:36.000 So you'll definitely want to see that.

02:04:37.000 Smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends, leave us a good review.

02:04:41.000 You can follow us at TimCast IRL.

02:04:43.000 You can follow me personally at TimCast.

02:04:46.000 Zed, you want to shout anything out?

02:04:48.000 Uh, just basically, uh, yeah, check out our sub stack at inquiremore.com.

02:04:52.000 Uh, for $6 a month, we hope to give you guys a lot of, a lot of good content, a lot of good original reporting and a news analysis that you won't get elsewhere.

02:04:58.000 So.

02:04:59.000 And where can people follow you on Twitter?

02:05:01.000 Yeah.

02:05:01.000 So my Twitter is just my first name and last name.

02:05:03.000 So Z A I D J I L A N I. So thanks man. 0.78

02:05:06.000 Um, you can follow me iancrossland.net.

02:05:08.000 Hit me up on social medias at Ian Crossland.

02:05:11.000 Good to see him.

02:05:12.000 And it occurred to me that you guys might not know what email Tim's referring to.

02:05:15.000 And this is just spintheufo at gmail.com.

02:05:18.000 So if you want to send something my direction, I will read it.

02:05:20.000 I probably won't respond to it because I do get a lot.

02:05:23.000 I get a lot of email in general anyway.

02:05:25.000 But I am always sifting through it.

02:05:27.000 And you guys are welcome to follow me on Twitter at Sarah Patchlitz.

02:05:30.000 We will see all of you at timcast.com.

02:05:33.000 The member segment goes up usually around 11 or so p.m.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - September 07, 2021

Timcast IRL - New Documents Prove Fauci Lied To Congress, Committing Perjury w-Zaid Jilani

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript