transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] The Department of Justice has secured a grand jury indictment against the liberal non-profit, the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're not familiar with this group, they smear any and everyone on the right with the most insane of lies. And I can speak to that as they once accused me of traveling to Iran for a Holocaust deniers conference, which is something insane to claim, considering it's very difficult to go to Iran, let alone to go there to attend a Holocaust deniers conference, is something so easily proven false. Well, let's just say a reckless disregard for the truth doesn't begin to describe it. They've also accused our friend, Luke Radkowski, of being a crazy, far-right, anti-government extremist. They have been indicted for funneling $3 plus million to white supremacists themselves, including the Klan. Now, the argument is that this is fraud. Imagine you're a donor and you're giving money to a nonprofit that's claiming to fight against white supremacy and racism while secretly funding these groups. The accusation, they were propping up the very groups they were claiming to fight against, sounds like fraud to me. Now, it was a grand jury that returned this indictment. It's not like Donald Trump just rubber-stamped to indict them, and the DOJ said, OK, a group of individuals looked over the evidence and said, we think if there is a preponderance of evidence that a crime was committed, and thus they have now been indicted, they will get their day in court. But let me just say, we're going to go over some of the history of this organization, and I'm going to give you my thoughts and opinions on all of this. I'm going to say right away, this is a massive, massive victory for the Trump administration, something we have been begging for for a long time. I hope people do not disregard the victories the Trump admins had, particularly with eliminating USAID, and now the indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center. These are the dirty, dirty smear merchants that we have talked about for some time. The network of NGOs funded through these illicit government programs that smear honest individuals and alternative media, now getting some comeuppance. Does it mean they'll be convicted? We don't know exactly what this means for their leadership, but it's still massive and we want to break that down. Of course, we've got more news. In Iran, Trump says the ceasefire is staying on despite saying Iran has repeatedly violated the ceasefire. So suffice it to say, no one has any idea what's really happening and anyone claiming they do know what's going on is probably trying to sell you something. And Tucker Carlson has issued an apology saying that he's tormented for having supported Trump and he's sorry for misleading everybody. Of course, leftists aren't accepting the apology. They're still condemning him. And then the big election today in Virginia, results are coming in over the redistricting effort. And right now, we've got some pollsters saying Democrats won. It's over. However, as of right now, the data that we have so far from the results is that no redistricting is still winning. But we will break all of that down and talk about the insane amount of news that just broke in the past couple of hours. Before we do, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you. It is BeamDream. Head over to shopbeam.com/timpool. Use code TIMPOOL. Get 35% off of your night time blend to support better sleep. This is a delicious cup of hot cocoa you drink every night. I drink it just before bed and I got to tell you, I swear by this stuff, I've got these little packs, single servings. I travel with them every single night after the show. I drink this stuff. No joke. My sleep score has improved dramatically. I've got one of those sleep trackers. It's got melatonin, reishi, altheanine, magnesium. And I do think one of the big things about it that really helps you with deep sleep is hydration. But if you're a guy, you got to understand, your testosterone and HGH are generated in your REM sleep and deep sleep. If you are getting bad sleep, you are going to be fat, tired and sluggish. Take your sleep seriously, take your hydration seriously. Check out Being Dream. I don't even need a script for this. I love this stuff so much. No joke. Even James O'Keefe was here and he abruptly just said during the middle of the ad read, I drink this stuff too. So there you go. James O'Keefe endorsing Being Dream for free. I really do recommend it. In all seriousness, I absolutely love it. It's like right before the show ends, I pour a hot cup of water, put some hot cocoa in it. I absolutely love it. Thank you, Being Dream. We're big fans. Go to shopbeam.com/timpool. But don't forget, don't forget, sometimes you want to wake up. So after you have that beautiful night's sleep and you wake up, you drink a delicious cup of cast brew coffee. This will wire you. Quite the opposite. Go to castbrew.com. This is what I drink.

Speaker 2:
[04:45] This is what I'm drinking right now, baby.

Speaker 1:
[04:48] Ian stays up till five in the morning anyway.

Speaker 3:
[04:50] Unfortunately, some nights that is true.

Speaker 1:
[04:52] Go to castbrew.com to support the show. We got a bunch of different kinds of coffee. We've got light roast. We've got medium, dark, whole bean, ground, you name it. Plus our signature influencer series with a whole bunch of different flavored coffees. castbrew.com. Don't forget to also tap that like button. Give it a little tap. Share the show with everyone you know. Join us at timcast.com of course. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we've got Donnie Discerned.

Speaker 3:
[05:16] Hey, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1:
[05:17] Who are you? What do you do?

Speaker 3:
[05:19] I am Donnie Discerned, formerly known as Donnie Darkened. You can find me on X. I talk about eschatology and times, stuff related to Trump, which I'm sure we'll get into.

Speaker 1:
[05:29] Oh yeah.

Speaker 3:
[05:30] And I was on the culture war, what, two or three years ago.

Speaker 1:
[05:34] And you made some predictions that came true.

Speaker 3:
[05:36] Yes, I did. Yes.

Speaker 1:
[05:37] That freaked me out. That freaked me out a lot. Basically, you told me that if Trump gets an injury on the right side of his face or arm, he may be the antichrist. And we were like, well, you know, now he's got this praying bruise on his hand, it's getting bigger. And of course he had what some people are describing. And it's always a stretch, but with Trump getting shot in the side of head and coming down and then rising up, some people have called it a false resurrection. So, you know, we'll talk about that later on, but good to have you and get some updates on this conversation. Elaad is hanging out.

Speaker 2:
[06:06] What up? Good evening, everybody. Elaad Eliahou, White House correspondent here at Timcast. Ian, good evening.

Speaker 4:
[06:11] Yeah, you too, man. And it's just the stimulation is high right now. So thanks for being here, Elaad. Donnie, it's great to meet you, man. I've been following your work for a long time and well.

Speaker 5:
[06:20] Yeah, man. Likewise. I'm really pumped about this. I watched the culture war back then, and tonight's your face reveal. So let's get into it.

Speaker 1:
[06:26] There it is. Everyone can see your face now. All right, let's get to the news. We've got this from the DOJ themselves. Federal grand jury charges Southern Poverty Law Center for wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. This is massive. They say a grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama today returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, a conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The US. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division filed two forfeiture actions to recover alleged proceeds of the organization's fraud scheme. The FBI investigated this case with assistance from the IRS. I would just like to say shout out to Cash Patel, grand slam with this. I didn't even know it was coming. Here's where it gets crazier. This investigation began during the Biden administration and they shut it down. They tried to cover this up. This is a part of the scheme. The game they play is they will smear you and lie about you. That way, it can be launderd by news organizations. The goal would be this NGO says we did important research and found out that Ian Crossland kicked a dog. Then, media organizations can then report an academic institution and researchers found Ian Crossland kicked a dog. You can't sue the news organizations because they're just referencing what an NGO said. The NGO just says, oops, if you actually force them to take it down. You can't sue them because they'll claim Times v Sullivan precedent, you got to prove actual malice. So check this out, Todd Blanch says the SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence. The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. Said FBI Director Cash Patel, they lied to their donors vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes. That is illegal. And this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved. I want to stress this. The FBI is accusing the SPLC of providing material resources for federal crimes to white supremacy groups. It's exactly what people have been accusing these groups of doing for a long time, intentionally manufacturing the crisis they can then fundraise off of and smear everyone else in the media. And I got some examples for you. Here's an article from the SPLC from 2018. Explanation and apology. The multipolar spin, how fascists operationalize left wing resentment. What does it even mean? Well, they took it down, they said. On March 9th, 2018, we posted an article on our hate watch blog entitled Multipolar Spin, How Fascists Operationalize Left Wing Resentment. Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacist, fascist, and or anti-Semites and falsely accused them engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views because neither we nor the article's author intended to make such accusations. We took it down while we reexamined its content. No, the reality is it opened them up to a serious lawsuit. And I think I was actually the lynchpin on this one. Let me explain. They say this, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe that they had been falsely described, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Ronnie Akalik and Brian Becker, and to disclaim as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists and or anti-Semites, that they hold such views or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. They have been intentionally trying, they and the other ilk in this network of NGO smear merchants to malign people as pro-Russian for years and you see how this manifests when the Biden administration actually gets the power to do that, and they go after people like me once again. They took this down and described me as an individual on the left. Now, the reason why I think I was a lynchman in why they pulled this down, is that the author claimed I had traveled to Iran for a Holocaust deniers conference, which by any by any person, even if you're like a hardcore lefty, you are going to be hard pressed to claim that's not reckless disregard for the truth because they're simply going to be like, is there ever been any post or like, when do you think Tim Pool went there? When did he ever go to Iran? It's just something they literally fabricated out of thin air. Well, they were forced to take that down. But wait, there's more. Check this out. Ghosts of Harrison, I don't know what this is about. All I know is that I searched for Luke Rudkowski. What? This must be, what is this article? It's not the article that I pulled up. Maybe it changed on me. Anyway, let's see if I can get Rudkowski on here. Well, he's not in this article, but I'll find it in a second. Give me a second. They have smeared Luke Rudkowski like to an insane degree. And if you guys know Luke is kind of politically unassuming. He's not a staunch Trump supporter. He's actually fairly critical of Trump. He's more so anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian than anything. And they continually tried to frame it as though he's the leader of some far right white supremacist group. So this is a massive victory for, let's just call it truth in this country. Now what we're looking for after this is an actual conviction. But let me just point out, the DOJ alleges between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals associated with the Ku Klux Klan, United Clans of America, Unite the Right, National Alliance, the National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations Affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, the American Nazi Party and the American Front. They say in order to covertly pay the individuals, they opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities. The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, source and ownership and control of the fraudulently obtained money the SPLC paid the individuals. In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts. A conviction will result in the forfeiture of financial gains from the alleged illegal activities. Absolutely amazing.

Speaker 4:
[13:00] Bro, this is like you're playing a game. You have all these creatures, all these characters. One of them gets revealed that it's been in stealth. It's been like an alien evil creature in your in your town. And now you know, like this is a foreign, most likely foreign funded op to destroy our country from the inside with a culture war. It's been like one of the villains of the story, but it's been in sheep's clothing until today.

Speaker 1:
[13:23] Oh, I see. Their website seems to be down. The SPLC website is down.

Speaker 4:
[13:28] Oh, wow.

Speaker 1:
[13:29] Check this out. You probably pull it up, Gateway Timeout. So here's what you can see. When you search for Luke Radkowski, SPLC, charges against We Are Change, its leader, Luke Radkowski, committed the time that the SPLC said nothing of whacks, alleged raising money for 9-11 first responders. We Are Change leader, they say whack. That's what they call it, whack.

Speaker 5:
[13:48] Oh, whack.

Speaker 1:
[13:48] I think Luke realized. Luke would put on his microphone WRC.

Speaker 5:
[13:51] Oh, We Are Change.

Speaker 1:
[13:53] Yeah.

Speaker 5:
[13:53] Whack.

Speaker 1:
[13:54] They mention Luke Radkowski over and over again, and calling him far right and all of this stuff. And oh, Luke's had a tweet on it. Let's see what he said. So the SPLC was financing the problem that it was trying to quote solve indeed. This isn't the only one. And I want to stress as much as people are pissed about Donald Trump and the war in Iran, whatever your arguments might be, to ignore the dismantling of USAID is to ignore one of the biggest successes that we've seen from any administration. This was an illicit network of NGOs doing things like this, and they were shut down. And now they're going after the SPLC. I hope they go after a handful of other organizations that we could, I won't name them specifically.

Speaker 4:
[14:38] Yeah, I know, I have some thoughts as well.

Speaker 1:
[14:39] Indeed. Me too. Yep.

Speaker 4:
[14:41] I think we will be seeing things like that in the near future.

Speaker 1:
[14:43] This is incredible.

Speaker 4:
[14:44] This is, this is because-

Speaker 1:
[14:45] I mean, this should bump Trump's approval up by three points.

Speaker 4:
[14:47] Like taking-

Speaker 1:
[14:48] Sure, I'm not saying it will.

Speaker 4:
[14:49] Right, do people understand the esoteric value of it? I hope so. I hope people, this is sinking in, like it's one thing taking Venezuela, I understand, you know, securing oil trade, but disemboweling the culture warrior, like the enemy culture warrior is like, bro, we just like, we could have-

Speaker 5:
[15:06] It's precedent setting.

Speaker 4:
[15:08] So much of what is gonna happen is about what the people want. So with things like this that have been manipulating people, I mean, it's just like the tentacles have been severed, it feels like, or the octopus has been, has been extracted from the brain.

Speaker 3:
[15:20] Yeah, you know, I almost feel kind of indicated as like a conservative leading black man, because like I'm like a black sheep of my family, because my family is mostly Democrat. And like I've always said, like, man, I feel like this racism, this like white supremacist thing is like kind of overblown. I feel like it's almost a vindication for like me, you know, in a way.

Speaker 4:
[15:36] It felt like that since 2014 to me or 2013, that like, you just got so many views and they're like, ooh, and then who knows why AI picked up. Obviously China, other countries that have massive technology, but not the military, are trying to whip up a frenzy on American shores. Well, it ain't happening.

Speaker 1:
[15:55] I wonder how many, you know, I have another, I have a question about one organization I can bring up and that's the ACLU. And the reason is the ACLU actually defended Unite the Right in Charlottesville until they started bleeding a bunch of donors and then they flipped in a dime. I'm wondering if something changed at a lot of these, these NGOs or organizations. I'm also wondering if there was government or what's it called, an intelligence agency or deep state pressure put on these organizations to become weapons.

Speaker 4:
[16:24] Probably during COVID, it felt like the whole world decided to play their hand, or like the whole world, the World Economic Forum, the people that want to corporatize the globe and destroy governments is like, and they went full in, but they couldn't beat us because we have the internet and people like Brett Weinstein and Robert Malone and people that were just fearlessly, you know, just the tip of the, just, and ever since, I think this is part of it, probably big bribery kicked off around that time, you know, the printing of the, what, 10 trillion in money since that happened. Sorry, Elaad, you're the one who's lying.

Speaker 2:
[16:56] No, I mean, I think this is the end result of when demand for racism outstrips the supply and the SPLC had to manufacture more racism because the Democrats run on the racism industrial complex, right? If you need a fear monger around white supremacy, if that's your goal with your narrative and spin and you're lacking that, then you really need to manufacture it. That's what I guess these guys have been doing over the course of what, seven years now. People who were former Ku Klux Klan guys and all these guys are just feds.

Speaker 4:
[17:27] It's crazy. Oh, they were they were funding people that turned out to be undercover feds. Is that what happened?

Speaker 2:
[17:31] You're saying? I understand they turned a lot of people who were former KKK guys or here, I have something specific right now. One of the SPLCs, they paid a member of the National Alliance over $1 million. I think this National Alliance is some like fascist group.

Speaker 1:
[17:47] That's the Nazi Party, isn't it?

Speaker 2:
[17:49] Yeah, so between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC...

Speaker 1:
[17:52] No, no, it's not. It's not. The National Alliance is a different from the Nazi Party.

Speaker 2:
[17:55] F9 was affiliated with the neo-Nazi organization, the National Alliance. That's what it says in the indictment and served as an informant for the SPLC for more than 20 years. And that's where over the course of 2014 and 2023, they secretly paid him over $1 million.

Speaker 4:
[18:10] Oh, the SPLC had an informant in that.

Speaker 1:
[18:13] Here's the thing to understand. The argument that they make is that, no, no, these are informants to us because we're trying to stop them. The problem is the indictment is that the money was being given for the commission of federal crimes. So my response to, because I guarantee you the response from liberals is going to be, Trump's weaponized DOJ is going after people fighting white supremacy and this proves it. My response is, how do you think the SPLC would fund federal crimes through white supremacy groups? Do you think they're going to just claim they were directly giving money to white supremacists? No. If it were true that they had informants for the intention of disrupting these groups, they wouldn't have created fake bank accounts for fake entities. They would have tried to obfuscate this. They would have outright just paid the guys and said, you're an informant for us.

Speaker 4:
[19:01] Like O'Keefe Media Group, I imagine he pays the people with his company, O'Keefe Media Group, it's on the books.

Speaker 1:
[19:07] The people who are undercover reporting are employees.

Speaker 4:
[19:11] Yeah, exactly, he's doing it on the books. These guys were not.

Speaker 1:
[19:14] And that's the fraud. But more importantly, they were committing crimes. That's the allegation. So the SPLC is like, you're an informant, and the money is going to go to commit crimes, but you know, it's to stop the crimes.

Speaker 5:
[19:28] It's like informing on yourself. You got to commit the crime.

Speaker 1:
[19:31] I think the reality is the SPLC wanted them to commit crimes, and that's why they allegedly were hiding the money through fictitious entities. They want Unite the Right. They want those rallies, because then they go, oh, oh no, you know what it is? Yes. Do you guys remember Danny Polishuk and Ryan Long's Antifa window repair company? Yeah. They were like, at night, we're Antifa, and we go smash windows, then we put our business cards, the next day, we repair the windows. That's what it is. It's a perfect business.

Speaker 4:
[19:59] Sure, you fund the enemy, and now you have an enemy.

Speaker 1:
[20:01] What if it turns out there is no Antifa, and there never has been? It's just a ton of local window repair companies are putting on blackmashing, going like, oh, Trump's a fascist, and smashing windows.

Speaker 4:
[20:11] Well, it was rough. We suffered too in that economy, you understand? We had to do something.

Speaker 2:
[20:18] This is a conveniently timed win, I will say, though, for Cash Patel, who's been, I think, desperate for a big win like this for some time. Let's hope to see this indictment actually goes here. There's obviously a lot of allegations in here, but we have seen the DOJ come forward with a lot of these different indictments towards a lot of different lawmakers that hasn't gone anywhere, that's been kind of disappointing, so hopefully this does actually go somewhere. I think this is Todd Blanche's first indictment.

Speaker 1:
[20:43] Well, just so you understand, the Grand jury returned this today. So the moment the indictment came in, we got a press release and announcement. Yes, I agree Cash needed this victory, but I don't think it's intentionally timed, but it is convenient.

Speaker 2:
[20:57] Well, Pam Bondi missed on the spoils for this, right? I think this is one of Todd Blanche's first days as the new attorney. I think at least acting right now.

Speaker 1:
[21:06] Oh, yo, yo, the indictment actually has some of the evidence. Check this out. They say, honor of the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institutions. I employee one certified that I am the sole owner of the above named proprietorship, federal tax ID number, redacted, engaged in business, the trade name of center investigative agency. So they had people opening bank accounts, masquerading as sole props that were funneling money from the SPLC to white supremacists.

Speaker 2:
[21:36] Yeah, they use multiple shell corporations, that is to try to...

Speaker 1:
[21:40] In 2016...

Speaker 4:
[21:41] I don't want to... I'm not going to gush over cash because I know I'm personally... Maybe I'm a little biased.

Speaker 1:
[21:45] I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Speaker 4:
[21:46] But he's so biased, dude.

Speaker 1:
[21:47] I got to... This is crazy. In 2020, bank one conducted an internal investigation to the accounts. Thereafter, an SPLC employee requested bank one close the accounts associated with the CIA. I'm not kidding. It's called the Center Investigative Agency, CIA. This is nuts. I would not be surprised if it were true. It was literally the CIA. That's why they kept trying to malign people as Russians.

Speaker 4:
[22:17] Yeah, yeah, there was a lot of anti-Russian propaganda.

Speaker 1:
[22:19] These people are evil.

Speaker 4:
[22:20] That all started off in 2015 also, all that anti-Russian propaganda.

Speaker 2:
[22:23] Do you know what's fascinating? The timing of this is for the first Trump campaign, right? In 2016.

Speaker 4:
[22:28] Yeah, right when Hillary and Trump were debating, it just came in force.

Speaker 2:
[22:31] Well, this was all to help build a narrative against President Trump, or well, before he came president, then immediately after he was elected.

Speaker 4:
[22:38] I think they expected Hillary to win and go to war, and then we'd have enough hatred of the Russians and be like, see, and Trump was one. Now we can, yeah. But what happened was Trump won, and they're like, well, now we got to-

Speaker 2:
[22:46] Yeah, because this mostly happened between 2015 and 2023. So the SPLC need to manufacture this stuff as Trump was getting into office. Because again, the demand was outstripping the actual supply for the racism going on here. How do you feel as, I don't know, are you black or?

Speaker 3:
[23:05] Yeah, yeah, I'm black. Yeah, like I said, I mean, it's crazy. I really hope my Democrat family members see this, and I hope it wakes them up to some degree, because I'm always misaligned as Uncle Tom or whatever by them for being conservative leading and not going hard enough against white supremacy or whatever, whatever it is, so.

Speaker 4:
[23:27] Do you guys talk about geopolitics a lot?

Speaker 3:
[23:30] Sometimes, I mean, they kind of avoid talking about politics and like culture stuff with me anyway, so.

Speaker 4:
[23:36] Are they familiar with like the liberal economic order, the banking establishment and all that?

Speaker 3:
[23:41] Yeah, I doubt it.

Speaker 4:
[23:42] Whenever I get into it with like people with different political alignments, I refocus them on the liberal order of banking that's kind of like pulling strings, at least when you see things like this, all the money is pushing and I don't know. Then they start to understand like no, you don't matter what side of the aisle you're on, a corporate government would be horrible for everybody. So that can kind of get people real.

Speaker 3:
[24:04] A little bit on board, right?

Speaker 4:
[24:06] Big time.

Speaker 2:
[24:08] So do black people show love to the president or is it still, I don't know, is it still an 80-20 thing?

Speaker 3:
[24:13] I mean, I would say in my friend group, I mean, they're definitely less on the Trump is racist train than they were back in 2016. In 2016, I remember when I was really big on Trump, a lot of people hated on me, big time, calling me all sorts of names.

Speaker 2:
[24:32] Are you more of a Trump supporter or a Republican, do you think? Because I know Trump's brought a lot of different people on board that may not have been Republican in the past, but voted Republican because of him.

Speaker 3:
[24:42] Well, I voted for Trump in 2016 and I voted for him in 2020. And before I developed this whole theory about him, I was really big on Trump. And I would consider myself more of just a conservative. I've always been more conservative leaning. And I never saw the white supremacist boogeyman as a real thing. My experiences with white people have always been good. I'm not one of those guys who's like, oh man, like we gotta, you know, the white people, they try to get us, you know, it's never really been my thing.

Speaker 1:
[25:15] I'm sorry, just to go back to this, I really wanna stress, can I find that stupid, where was that indictment at? There it is. I really wanna stress, guys, you need to understand that the name of one of the fictitious entities was the CIA. They created a sole prop, according to the indictment, called the Center Investigative Agency that was funneling money, according to the indictment, funneling money to white supremacists. It's called the CIA. I'm gonna go ahead and say this. I think it is intelligence. Well, look, real quick, I wanna-

Speaker 4:
[25:50] I think you might be right, because if it wasn't, that would be like spitting on the CIA when they found out, they wouldn't risk-

Speaker 5:
[25:58] I feel like they did this before with a different name though.

Speaker 1:
[26:01] I'm gonna wrap this all up for you guys and just give a brief overview of what I think is going on based on my experience. At the time when this article was published, March 9th, my birthday, by the way, 2018, the article that the SPLC was forced to take down was attacking individuals who were critical of US involvement in Syria, of which I was passively critical of it, mocking that the media only praised Trump as presidential when he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria. The purpose of this article, back then, the phrase alt-right, initially, this is in 2016, it meant an alternative to the conservative base. So there were many individuals who were traditional conservatives, not white supremacists, who identified as alt-right. Then along came the Associated Press, issuing their guidelines saying that alt-right means white nationalist. At that moment, retroactively, anyone who ever claimed they were alt-right, there was now proof they admitted they were white nationalists. That was the SIOB. So, there are some individuals, I'm gonna leave people's name out of it because it's kind of an old issue, but this matters for where I'm going. You go on X and people say, we are no longer the conservative base, we're an alternative to the right, saying that Trump represents something other than Bush and the neocons. Someone would then tweet, I stand with the alt-right or something like that. Then the AP changes the definition to mean white nationalists. Journalists then grab tweets from a year prior and wrote new articles saying, remember when conservatives admitted they were a white nationalists. That was the Psyop. This article was a desperate attempt to link leftists like Max Blumenthal. I don't even call him a leftist, but he's a lefty. They wanted to link Max Blumenthal. They wanted to criticize him and discredit him. The problem is people like him and Jimmy Dore criticized the US involvement in the Middle East. They were not lining up with the Democratic Party. Many liberals that used to be anti-war were just anti-Trump at this point. So these individuals that were anti-Trump were also anti-intervention and were massively critical, including Ronnie Kalik as well, who still is. This was a manipulation by the SPLC to say they're the same. So they put my name in it. This is actually an archive of the article. The Syria connection, let me add to the mix, Tulsi Gabbard at the time was being smeared much the same way over her criticism of US involvement in Syria. I believe that we're going to see something from Tulsi in this capacity. I believe US intelligence agencies were intending to discredit as many individuals as possible by doing two things, calling them white supremacists, fascists, or Russians. Now obviously they failed in this regard because we all got together for a major lawsuit. And let me see this. Let me show you where I appear. Hands off Syria Coalition Steering Committee member Issa Cher joined Mason on a panel at the Second New Horizon Conference in Iran in 2012. Conference speakers that year included World Workers Party member Caleb Maupin, alt-right journalist Tim Pool, Holocaust denier, I've never been to Iran.

Speaker 4:
[29:22] You spoke at the fictitious event in Iran.

Speaker 1:
[29:25] Wow, that was a real event, I guess.

Speaker 2:
[29:26] Is this when you did the Chatham House meeting with Ayatollah as well?

Speaker 1:
[29:30] In Iran. And I'll tell you exactly how this came to be. It was because their website listed me for some reason. Don't know why. I wonder if the whole thing, even the website, actually, can we pull up the archive?

Speaker 4:
[29:45] That was a setup.

Speaker 1:
[29:46] Yeah, I think. Let's see if Web Archive actually has the old website. Look at this. I don't care about whatever your funding garbage is. This is the website. I'm going to go ahead and say this, guys. I would not be surprised to find that US intelligence spooks made a fake Iranian website, put names of people they wanted to smear, wrote, laundered an article through the SPLC so they can claim that I went there. And then, if we sued, they'd make the argument, don't look at us, the website exists. And it would be impossible for me to track down a website made by proxy in some foreign country. I think what we're looking at is a Psyop from the get-go to destroy independent media and personalities who opposed the US., the machine, what the Democratic Party had been doing, Tulsi Gabbard, of course. So they're calling me alt-right and claiming that I was at an event. Now here's the thing. The source they have, the website doesn't even exist. It was an archive of an Iranian website claiming that I was a speaker. Look at this. I guess this is the website. And 9-11 Truth, History of False Flags, Zionist Fingerprints. I wonder where I pop up in here. Let me see if I can search for my name.

Speaker 4:
[30:58] Like a Thursday night with Jeffrey Koski.

Speaker 1:
[31:00] Different facets of the resistance with Medea Benjamin, Tim Pool and Caleb Muppet.

Speaker 5:
[31:05] I've never been there.

Speaker 4:
[31:07] We should get Medea Benjamin. She's still super radical.

Speaker 2:
[31:09] I think she has been to Iran though. They're grouping you with people who I think have been.

Speaker 1:
[31:13] I think-

Speaker 2:
[31:13] The Caleb guy? Of course.

Speaker 4:
[31:14] That's crazy.

Speaker 1:
[31:15] Again, and the sole prop they created was called the Center Investigative Agency. That's wild, dude.

Speaker 4:
[31:22] It just, the mask is off, dude. They were like 2019, they're like, we are going for it.

Speaker 1:
[31:26] And now let's bring it to the future. What happened in the past two years? Merrick Garland comes out and claims, Russians were secretly funding me, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, a handful of other people. And then a month, it's a month before the election, claim this, and then a month after the election, they told our lawyers it was dropped and there was no longer an investigation. It was fake the whole time. These are deep state evil individuals. They are trying to discredit those that challenge their schemes. And the worst part, the worst part about it is, they're bad at it. If they were good at it, I'd be impressed, but they're bad at it.

Speaker 2:
[32:06] It's a fascinating business strategy. Fund and plant the story, report on it, then fundraise from it. And fear monger based on the informants that you set up going there. So, I think they were involved for some of the Unite the Right stuff. Dude, that was a sick propaganda win for the left. All of that, and then the following implications with the presidents, the lie of there were fine people on both sides hoax. So, this really just snowballed into a crisis for Republicans that was manufactured in part by the SPLC. So, they were very effective in their anti-right wing propaganda. And I'm sure from their perspective, they'd say the ends justify the means. I'm sure they don't give a shit about whatever integrity or what have you. If they were able to move the needle and help fear monger that the Republicans are their white supremacy issue in our country, then they succeeded in spreading their false message.

Speaker 5:
[33:00] It's like a weird Ponzi scheme.

Speaker 2:
[33:02] Yeah, a weird leftist, effective Ponzi scheme.

Speaker 1:
[33:04] I don't think that's what it is.

Speaker 2:
[33:05] SPLC has a rich history of fighting for civil rights, as I understand.

Speaker 1:
[33:09] I don't think that's what it is. I think this is a front for intelligence. And they, I mean, again, I can use the example of this weird article where they... This is what they're doing, right? Like I mentioned, the AP guidelines. Let me see if I can pull up AP guidelines alt-right and show you exactly what they created. I got it right here. So this is, I wonder if there's a date on this. There isn't. Okay, November 28th, 2016. They said, the term alt-right alternative right is a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists refer to themselves and their ideology. So you had a handful of prominent Trump supporters who are not white nationalists. They opposed foreign intervention, supported populism, Donald Trump, and they had claimed that this phrase alt-right was being used initially. There's a dude I know who's a comedian, not a political guy. Back in 2017, I'm hanging out with him, I think it was in DC, and he mentions that he was alt-right. I said, yeah, but you don't mean that in the way they're using it in the media. He's like, what do you mean? I said, well, AP said it means white supremacists. I said, no, not that. I thought it just meant I oppose the Republicans. And I was like, yeah, that's what it used to mean. So the AP changes it. They create this guideline. Then, as I mentioned, a bunch of news outlets start going, here are people admitting they were white supremacists. Notably, they went after Jack Posobic for this reason, as well as a handful of other people. This is laundering. This is PSYOPs. So again, when you can't smear people like Ronnie Akelek or Ben Norton or Max Blumenthal, you have to write a weird article that does this. Russian state media through think tanks and botnets and influence groups and mainstream media to try and claim how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment. They needed to find a way to claim that people who were left were actually in line with white supremacists. So they could smear, again, Ronnie Akelek, me, Max Blumenthal, etc. This, I think, is intelligence agencies. They were trying. I'm just so offended by how bad they were at it, that they had to take it down and apologize. That's just, I'm just offended.

Speaker 4:
[35:22] I thought the great, I mean, the whole, they fumbled, they flubbed the great reset. They were trying to do that garbage. Klaus Schwab did a book. And then they did, well, I said they did, then COVID happened. And then, oh, all of a sudden it was like, oh, yeah, the great, no, a great reset. And it's like, bro, you already released that book a year ago. Do you not think we see what you're trying to do, Klaus? The whole, I mean, most people are pretty dumb. I would say, relative to me, no, no, most people, I think half the people are less than 50%. Yeah, just most people, they don't, they just, like this would have flown if people didn't push back on it. You just assume people wouldn't push back on it.

Speaker 1:
[36:02] You know what Dunning Krueger is?

Speaker 4:
[36:03] I'm joking. I don't think.

Speaker 1:
[36:06] It's like, I better not, I better take that back.

Speaker 2:
[36:07] I wouldn't blame you. I think most people think they're smarter than the average person, of course.

Speaker 4:
[36:12] What a blatant, I mean, it's not like they didn't try to cover their tracks. They put it out, they expected no resistance. They're like, let's test the waters. Let's put out this insane story about Tim Pool. And then there was pushback. They're like, oh crap, delete it, run away.

Speaker 1:
[36:24] Well, it's because of, we think it's because of who Max's dad is.

Speaker 4:
[36:28] Sydney Blumenthal.

Speaker 1:
[36:28] Indeed. And so it was like, you were about to get in, these are people with resources.

Speaker 4:
[36:33] Sydney's very worried.

Speaker 1:
[36:34] Additionally, we were going to go to trial on this. And my lawyer was just like, I really look forward to asking a jury or to ask in a deposition, asking the guy who wrote this, do you believe that Iranian Holocaust denier websites are credible sources of information? Because he will have to respond, yes. And they can't have that on their record because then it would show reckless disregard for the truth. Or he would have to admit that he thought this.

Speaker 4:
[37:00] Man, this liberal, I do want to help the liberal economic order evolve to a better system. We were talking about lying earlier about discernment, actually your name, about deception as a good thing. And I think it can be good, it can be really good if it's used in the right opportunity. But, and then maybe these people are justifying it that way. They're like, oh no, it's good. We have to deceive the people to get this agenda across. And if we don't get this agenda across, we're going to World War III, it's going to be nuclear catastrophe. We've got to put these people in pods. And then they're just like, maybe they then get obsessed with that idea, now it's this reinforced economic movement.

Speaker 1:
[37:40] Well, let's jump to the next scheme that we got going on. We've got this from the New York Times Interactive. They say how both parties are slicing urban areas to tilt the house. Well, my friends, as of right now, we are currently waiting for the election results for Virginia redistricting referendum. With 78% of the votes in, no is currently at 50.46% to yes at 49.54. It is neck and neck and it is closing. Initially, no had a strong lead, but that lead is shrinking now to only about 22,000 or so votes. As more urban districts come in, it may shift. But for the most part, we are getting reporting from almost all the districts. Now, for those that are not familiar with what this is, Virginia, in response to Republican states redistricting mid decade, are trying to pass a referendum to allow the state to eliminate all of their right-leaning districts. Currently, it's a six to five map, considered to be fair and balanced. For the most part, right now, I believe you've got slightly lean Democrat districts that could swing Republican. With the new map, they will completely eliminate all but one Republican district. So you take a look at this, and I'll show you why this is so egregious. You take a look at the map of Virginia, and you can see this right now, the current makeup of Virginia. The new map would put five districts into Arlington and Fairfax County, which is just right here, this giant Democrat cluster. Currently, there's one cluster here for Arlington, that's a district. You then have the rest of Fairfax, the 10th and the 7th border that they all lean Democrat, but these two are massive Democrat districts. Seems pretty fair. What they're doing now, take a look at this. This one, the 7th district, is called the Lobster, because it stretches up like a lobster claw and has this little thin strip that goes straight into Arlington. That way they can saturate Democrat voters into this conservative district and eliminate their voices. Now you may say, but Tim, they did it in Texas. Sure did, by all means, make that argument. I won't argue it with you. Liberals, you win. Now let's go to Virginia, where Democrats are voting to strip the Democratic rights of conservatives in the state because they're mad about what some other state is doing. Tell me you don't believe in democracy without telling me you don't believe in democracy and that's what you get.

Speaker 2:
[40:10] Yeah, that is the core argument I do hear from Democrats, that the president started this by pushing Republicans in Texas to redistrict, which ultimately ended up failing. That didn't stop the Democrats from trying to push the same thing in Virginia. What's fascinating too is that former President Obama is actually pushing this as well. If this does, if this does-

Speaker 1:
[40:31] I think it's going to go yes.

Speaker 2:
[40:33] What did you say?

Speaker 1:
[40:33] I think yes is a guarantee at this point. They're going to redistrict and eliminate conservative seats from Virginia.

Speaker 2:
[40:39] This would make it almost a guarantee that the Democrats would get the majority in the House in the following midterms, and that's almost guaranteed impeachment for the President, and endless investigations for everybody in the administration, really. So this would completely retard the administration's progress and work.

Speaker 4:
[40:56] Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa. You don't say it like it is. Is this like their House passed the bill? Is that where it's at right now, moving to the Senate?

Speaker 2:
[41:03] Well, it's a proposition, so they passed it so the voters could vote on it in Virginia, as I understand.

Speaker 1:
[41:09] There's currently the betting markets. Actually, I should pull this one up. Go ahead and take it away.

Speaker 4:
[41:14] Well, since this new governor of Virginia got in, I've been eyeballing a lot of crazy stuff. It's not over. Obviously, public pressure and public will change the outcome. So stay loud, stay aggressive about what you believe about it. If you don't like it, say something about it.

Speaker 2:
[41:32] I'd need to look into the law to make sure of this, but I feel as though this would get challenged and probably go up to Virginia Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court of the United States. And there is an allegedly a conservative majority of right-wing majority in the Supreme Court. So we'll see what they ultimately do.

Speaker 1:
[41:50] So over on Kalshi, it jumped up to 99.7% likelihood that it's going to pass. And I think that's that's that's fair and accurate. Now we've seen some pollsters already say they're calling it. The reason why I think it's fair to say is currently that no, it has a 21,000 vote lead. However, when you take a look at Alexandria, with only 29% of the votes in, there's 81,000 yes votes. So if we were to just extrapolate that for Alexandria, multiply those numbers by three, then they're going to jump up another 160K yes votes. And they're only going to fill in about, so it's going to be a 50,000 vote advantage once Fairfax County comes in. And indeed, we just got the update. And sure enough, it tracks alongside this. With 50% of the votes in, there's now 138 yes votes. I believe that just put yes over the edge. As predicted in real time when it literally just came in as I was describing what was going on. Yes is going to take this one. If you live in Virginia, your rights have been taken away by Democrats who are arguing it's for democracy.

Speaker 2:
[42:51] Yeah, Tim, let's flesh this out a little bit more. How would you respond to people who do make the argument that the Republicans picked this fight and are losing it now?

Speaker 1:
[42:59] Texas and Virginia are different states. A resident of Virginia has a right to be heard by the federal government. Democrats deciding to take their voices away just prove that they are power hungry fascists more concerned with fighting far away individuals than they are allowing the individual to have their rights to speak. If you want to make the argument that Texas did the same to Democrats, agreed. Thank you Democrats for pointing this out. Wow, Republicans are bad people. Does that mean you have a right to be fascist too? Okay, well, thanks for explaining it. You're fascists.

Speaker 2:
[43:28] Yeah, but they were unsuccessful at being bad. What does that mean about the competency of our party? As I understand, did it pass in Texas as well? They were redistricting?

Speaker 1:
[43:36] I thought they already did it.

Speaker 2:
[43:37] I didn't think it passed. Maybe I'm...

Speaker 1:
[43:40] Yeah, I thought that it's currently, with Virginia, puts Democrats over the edge, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Speaker 2:
[43:46] Let me look up the reporting on that.

Speaker 4:
[43:49] While you're doing that, I want to shout out Lucret Kowski, who's in the chat.

Speaker 1:
[43:52] I would add this to the mix. If you want to get partisan, Democrat gerrymandering in the Northeast, like Massachusetts, it's slightly greater than the third Republican with zero Republican seats. Democrats have been doing this forever. So when Republicans finally say, okay, we're going to redistrict right now to push back on Democrat gerrymandering, and they respond by just stripping the voices of conservatives, it's just fascism. Take a look at Illinois. Do I have this stupid Illinois map? I love the Illinois. Watch this, you're going to love Illinois's congressional districts. Take a look at this one. I love the 13th, which takes Champaign Urbana and combines it with Springfield and East St. Louis in a thin little strip. But you know what? I gotta give the 17th, Illinois 17th, a big shout out. Bloomington, Peoria, and then wraps around and grabs Rockford. Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the country. It is a vile and disgusting political place. You've got dirty cops with black sites. You've got mafioso politics for sale. Illinois is as dirty as it comes as far as states go. I gotta tell you, it's Al Capone City, baby.

Speaker 4:
[45:04] I keep thinking about the future of voting about, because I visualize heat maps. You look at this map, that's insane. I feel like when you vote, it should affect the area around you. Doesn't matter where the borders are. Like if I live, because I live on a border right now of two states, of multiple states. If that, my votes should affect that other state. It's like a mile away from me. And my votes should not affect 180 miles east in my own state that I'm nowhere near. I should be voting in my local, my vote should affect my locality only, regardless of what state that means. That's my opinion. Otherwise-

Speaker 1:
[45:41] So I'll tell you, let me pull up something from Third Way. And I talked about this in my 4 p.m. segment. Is illegal immigration really a democratic plot to sway congressional apportionment? So Third Way purports to be, I think they're like their shtick is that they're Democrats, but they're not woke. They're trying to be reasonable. It is a fact. Illegal immigrants give Democrats extra congressional seats. It is mixed whether they get extra electoral college votes and I will explain. When you look at this assessment, they say take a look at Pew and the Center for Immigration Studies, which created the mirage that Democrats get more congressional seats based on illegal immigration. They point out that while it is true, illegal immigrants do create seats and redistribute seats, meaning there's a finite amount of seats. So if New York gets an extra one, another state is going to lose one. So you can see, Alabama loses a seat, California gains a seat, Minnesota loses a seat, they're Democrat, New York gains a seat, they're Democrat too, Ohio loses a seat, Texas gains a seat, Republican and Republican, therefore it's zero, right? Based on that math, it bears out that there is zero to one extra seat for Democrats. I was worried for a minute. Oh wait, track any data source and you'll find that illegal immigrants are centered around sanctuary cities, which are deep urban environments. So when a Democrat or Republican state gets an extra seat, it's going to be a Democrat seat, get it? So let's say you've got in New York, for instance, New York City has 836,000 illegal immigrants. That means the city itself gets one extra Congressional seat. That seat for New York State is going to be in New York City. That means there is a whole seat in New York City just because of illegal immigration. Now you can go to Texas. Ah, Texas. They gain a seat from this as well. Yes, that gained seat is going to be around Houston or Austin. It is going to be around liberal centers with high density of Democrats. It is giving Democrats another congressional seat. So this is a lie. When you actually base the extra seats on where they are, because congressional seats are not by state, the number becomes an average, according to their data, around two to four extra congressional seats for Democrats based on illegal immigration. I bring this up. When Democrats come to me and say, well, Republicans started it, I say, no, that's a lie. Democrats have been getting around two to four extra seats through illegal immigration and gerrymandering, which I experienced in my home state of Illinois, which is a nightmare. And you can see it in the North Atlantic in the Northeast. Now, Texas finally says, okay, we're going to redistrict to deal with this. And all the Democrats rush out to silence democracy. These people are evil. That's it. I think the Republicans and the Democrats were the same thing until Trump came along. It was the deep state. The independent media voices that were rising up were viewed to be bad. So they ran PSI-OPS against me and many other people. They started losing. And now some of the people they went after are in the government. Namely Tulsi Gabbard. I hope, as DNI, she is contributing and she helps Cash Patel dismantle these crony scumbags.

Speaker 4:
[49:05] Yeah. Well, two things. What would appear in its place once it's dismantled?

Speaker 1:
[49:10] Trump world order, I guess?

Speaker 4:
[49:12] Maybe, maybe.

Speaker 1:
[49:13] I think that's what we're watching happen. Again, it's really hard to figure out, but Trump claims Iran violated the ceasefire. Then a few hours later, he goes, we're going to keep the ceasefire. And I'm just like, there isn't one. Like what Trump, you said they violated the ceasefire. Again, I think the intended condition is just what you see and not what they say. Actions speak louder than words. If you come to me and tell me something and then I watch you do something else, I just don't believe you. And I've been saying this the whole time. I've told this story, I've had friends, they would say things to me like, I want to do what you do when I was working for Vice. How do I travel the world? I say, save up your money, buy a ticket and go do it. And they'd say, well, but my apartment, my rent is so expensive. And I'd say, I don't have an apartment. I was working for Vice, sleeping on a couch. They'd say, well, I like my apartment. I'm like, indeed, you want your apartment more than you want to travel and do journalism. That's fine. But stop pretending otherwise. That's the truth. So when Trump says, we're going to open the strait, but then blockades it and then says, and that takes every action to keep it closed, I don't think his intention is to open it up, which indicates a new hegemonic power structure, largely not centered in Europe like it used to be, where Trump is controlling the Western hemisphere and now cutting China off from their energy. You then point to what cash is doing with the SPLC, the dismantling of USAID, and it does look like the Trump administration is actually gutting the deep state. I think people are mad because they want to see Hillary Clinton locked up, but I think what they're doing is, and I hope, I could be wrong, is going after the root structures.

Speaker 4:
[50:47] Yeah, let go of the vendettas and focus on the future. You need to re-fertilize the soils.

Speaker 1:
[50:53] Dismantling USAID was a hundredfold better than arresting a single crony that we see on TV.

Speaker 5:
[50:58] Oh, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[51:01] Sometimes those boring, seeming boring things where it's like, we went through and itemized 17 billion in fraud, and you're like, oh my god, numbers, databases, guy I don't know telling me is way more important than getting Hillary Clinton to get embarrassed. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[51:16] Right.

Speaker 3:
[51:16] A lot of people are acting like Trump's losing on all these fronts, but I think there's a lot going on sort of behind the scenes, and he's doing things that are probably much more effectual than people might seem to realize at the time. But we'll see how it pans out.

Speaker 2:
[51:33] Do you think that this will embolden the president now to just not have any considerations for the midterms? So he's thinking, I'll just do whatever the hell I want now?

Speaker 1:
[51:47] I think Trump's got a plan. I don't think it's largely just, I'll do whatever I want now. The midterms do matter, but I wonder if, I'm just gonna say this, the indictment against the SPLC is like the white pillist of white pills. It is like a white suppository glowing on a pedestal floating before our very eyes that when you grab, it goes, dun-dun-dun-dun, and it plays that beautiful fanfare from The Legend of Zelda. I am hoping this indicates there are actually more moves behind the scenes to dismantle these mechanisms that they use to win their elections.

Speaker 4:
[52:20] Yeah, I like that you called it the Trump world order.

Speaker 2:
[52:21] I mean, I'm not, I didn't come up with it.

Speaker 4:
[52:23] I'm not like a cultist or anything, but the old order-

Speaker 1:
[52:27] I did not come up with it. I'm citing other people.

Speaker 4:
[52:29] The old new world order seemed to be like a business strategy out of Davos. The old new world order?

Speaker 1:
[52:35] The new new world order.

Speaker 4:
[52:35] The new new world order is getting rid of that Davos taint with this global economic money. They're gonna reset the economy. I know that still sucks. It'll still be devastating. And then they're gonna turn it into a crypto economy and then do the tracking technocracy, which you still get the technocracy, which was a problem, but at least it won't be a Swiss thing. It'll be an American thing, I think is the goal.

Speaker 3:
[52:57] Yeah, I've said for a long time, you know, I think Trump is gonna essentially take down that deep state old world order and kind of build up a new one that's like just totally different. And I've been saying that for years, that I think that's gonna happen.

Speaker 1:
[53:11] I think so.

Speaker 2:
[53:12] I wanted to correct something that I said earlier. So the Texas legislator passed the redistricting maps and then a lower court, rule two to one that it was unconstitutional, then it went to the Supreme Court that issued a temporary stay, a 6-3 full stay, and then for the next election, the maps will be the new maps. But then in fall of the 2026, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for it. And it is likely, we'll see what will happen after that. But as far as 2026 goes, it'll be the new maps. But this is still-

Speaker 1:
[53:48] Right, right. Democrats, if you want to argue that Republicans are fascists, you have done so ad nauseum. If Virginia wants to say, but look what Texas did, I'll say, that's really interesting. Wow, Texas, they're really bad for doing that. What's your reason for taking away the rights of conservative voices in your state? A state that is purple, that is 55% Democrat, 45% conservative, and now you're making a 10 to 1 Democrat controlled state in Congress. What's your justification for being fascist too? Other people are fascists? Your argument is that because other fascists are fascist, you're fascist too? Agreed.

Speaker 2:
[54:18] Democrats are willing to do power plays. They're willing to mog and be unapologetic about it. While Republicans stand on principle, the Democrats are openly talking about packing the Supreme Court. They're openly talking about bringing in new states. They're talking about getting rid of the filibuster as well. I hate Republicans, dude. While the Republicans try to stay principled, it's like, oh no, we're packing the Supreme Court, by the way. It's like, oh, we're adding states. The Republicans, John Cornyn, is fighting about, oh, you know, I don't want to get rid of the filibuster. I don't want to nuke the filibuster. I don't want to pass the Save America Act. Maybe doesn't want to save America, but...

Speaker 1:
[54:54] I think I'm going to vote Democrat. I think I'm just going to vote Democrat.

Speaker 2:
[54:57] You and Nick Fuentes.

Speaker 1:
[54:58] All the way down. You know why, though? Because I hate Republicans more, and I want to see them just get wiped out. Like, I know it's not true, and I'm kidding, by the way. The argument, like Dave Simons was saying this, is that they need to be punished for this. I would agree with that sentiment if Republicans were actually being punished. But I think that most of these Republicans would celebrate if Democrats won everything and then rammed through the liberal economic order agenda.

Speaker 2:
[55:21] I'd agree with that sentiment if I were in a leftist in everything but name and had the same foreign policy as progressives.

Speaker 1:
[55:29] I am saying that if the Republicans lose the Senate and the House, they will probably celebrate. They will go, yay, we did it. The reason why Republicans don't do anything is because they're Democrats. They have to pretend to oppose. Otherwise, people would vote for a different political party. So you vote Republican expecting results. The Congress gives you nothing. To be fair, Trump's getting us stuff. But now, if they really would suffer for losing, I'd vote Democrat just so that they suffered, but they'd enjoy it, so they're massive.

Speaker 2:
[56:04] But you'd also suffer, Tim.

Speaker 1:
[56:06] You're going to suffer either way.

Speaker 2:
[56:07] Republicans aren't doing anything.

Speaker 1:
[56:09] Republicans in Congress wouldn't have passed the SAVE Act. What was the point of voting for Congress? So people are like, you're going to vote for Congress? I'll just vote for Trump, I guess. The Trump administration did stuff.

Speaker 2:
[56:18] I guess the argument is that they wouldn't have, they don't have enough votes in the Senate. This can't advance.

Speaker 1:
[56:23] That's not true. They could limit the filibuster. Democrats are talking about doing it, and they will. We're watching what they do. So what was the point of voting for Republicans if they're just going to be a roadblock or a speed bump for Democrats? In which case, maybe Nick Fuentes is right. Accelerationism is the only thing to do. Again, I don't really want Democrats to win, and it's better to slowly devolve into psychotic tyranny than to just dive head first into it. So what I don't see with the Republican Party alight at the end of the tunnel, when they win, they do nothing. It was the same when Trump was in. The first two years of Trump's first term, they obstructed him and played along with Russiagate. They were in on the take. Now, they could pass the SAVE Act, and they come up with a million and one reasons why they don't do it.

Speaker 2:
[57:07] As I understand, John Cornyn's argument for this would be that we will be in the minority soon, eventually.

Speaker 1:
[57:14] We SI don't care. That's the lie. Democrats get the slightest monocle of power, and they put people in prison. They put Bannon in prison. They put Peter Navarro in prison. They arrested Trump's lawyers. They falsely accused him of crimes, and Republicans go, well, what happens when we're in the minority? Bro, you're in the majority, and they're doing this to you, and you will do nothing about it because they're the Washington generals to the Democrats Harlem Globetrotters. So at this point, I say, what's the point? Well, I guess the point is Democrats and the machine state would love it if everyone just voted Democrat and they had the Communist Party of America under one political party.

Speaker 2:
[57:52] You know, there's a hot race right now in Texas. People trying to get rid of Cornyn. I don't know if you saw that race. Do you have an opinion on Cornyn versus Paxton?

Speaker 1:
[58:00] Paxton's way better. He just filed a lawsuit against ActBlue. I'd love to see it.

Speaker 2:
[58:04] I bet he'd nuke the filibuster. I've got very little hope or faith in these people.

Speaker 4:
[58:09] I have not a lot of...

Speaker 2:
[58:11] Even Paxton, you don't have a lot of...

Speaker 1:
[58:13] In 10 years, the Republican Party is going to be a bunch of gay communists, and the Democratic Party is going to be AI.

Speaker 4:
[58:18] It's been a hundred years that they've been entrenching banking cartels running our economy. It's supposed to be Congress. In 1913, they gave it to the Federal Reserve. That's antithetical to the United States in totality, to have a private quasi-bank running our monetary supply when we the people are in control and protective of it through Congress. It's been a hundred years they've been entrenching it. They tried with the business plot to overthrow the government with a direct fascist coup in the 30s. They tried with Smedley Butler, didn't work. Now, they're just economically building a system where these people get voted in, and then they're like, oh my God, I'm in a web. How do I fucking, oh my God, it's 29 trillion in debt now. What do I tell people? I'm only here for four years. Okay, I'm getting paid at least. I'm getting paid.

Speaker 2:
[59:01] I'm only here for two years.

Speaker 4:
[59:02] I can write a book. Thomas Massey at least is a scientist, building things. But that system, how do you unweave the system? I just see a crack. I can't, other than a reset, which means a total economic, not a total collapse.

Speaker 1:
[59:18] There's only one result from this. The conservative people in Virginia who are no longer represented leave. Not all of them, but many of them. They will start moving to West Virginia and other red areas. This will result in an expansive hyper-polarization with geographic boundaries. And then that leads to one result, which is violence.

Speaker 2:
[59:43] Damn.

Speaker 1:
[59:44] I mean, that's the reality.

Speaker 2:
[59:44] Civil War on Brand.

Speaker 1:
[59:45] Well, I don't know. I can tell you this, like, we're, there's a few towns that we're very close to. Leesburg is very close to us. Winchester is very close to us. And we already have security concerns going to Loudoun County and Winchester because Democrats are psychopathic, violent lunatics. Not all, every single one of them, but enough of them. You know, there's an old saying that feminists like to make about men. When people would say, when the hashtag not all men was going viral, the feminists went, imagine I give you a bowl of M&Ms, but only three of them are poisoned. Go ahead, eat a handful. Would you? And everyone's like, no, and they go, see? And the argument is made for literally every single group ever to justify, you know, separating whatever group by whatever group. But I would still say this. The security concerns that we have, my family, going into places like, you know, Loudoun County and Winchester specifically, is that I don't believe, like Winchester, for example, their vote right now, it's about 50-50. So it's 3,600 yes, 3,038 for no. So it's fairly split down the middle. I am not worried about the 50% of people that vote no at all. They probably would agree with me on a lot of things. In fact, we go down there, there's a lot of people who are fans. I am not concerned about the 3,000 individuals who voted yes. I'm concerned about the 600 people who voted yes, who are deranged, violent leftists, who would physically attack me or try to kill me and my family. That's the problem with the left. We have body camera footage that just got released, and it shows the ICE facility when the cop walked outside and they were launching fireworks, and within seconds, he's shot in the neck by leftist terrorists. I have no fear in any Republican jurisdiction of a right-winger threatening me or attacking me or being violent. There are overt, like there are fringe right-wing white supremacist dudes who would condemn me for being mixed race and call me a Jew, who I do not fear at all. I could walk up to them and they would yell at me and argue with me. There are leftists who have already threatened and tried to kill me, they sent us death threats. When I look at these jurisdictions and I see what Democrats are doing, this is particularly worrisome because we know what Democrats, what the left is capable of doing. Even if you want to point out it's 1 percent agreed, that's fair. I don't go to these cities terrified all the time. I'm not like sitting there shaking my goal, leftists are everywhere. I will tell you this though, I avoid any business with a pride progress flag. You got a pride flag, don't care. A progress pride flag, I'm not going in there. Because these people are violent and dangerous. There was a viral meme where a teacher put up a, hate has no place here in her classroom. And then it was, I think it was Jeremy Kaufman said, ironically, this sign indicates her willingness to kill you. And then leftists were like, you really think that leftists want to kill people? And then it's like, list every terror attack by the left in the past six years. Yes, they do. Yep. So especially, you know, I'll tell you guys, I went to Winchester a few weeks ago, it was during that big No Kings protest, and it was freaky and creepy. Bro, these people are psychopaths.

Speaker 4:
[63:13] It feels ass or turf to a lot of it.

Speaker 1:
[63:14] We go down, there's a bunch of restaurants we like in Winchester, it's a beautiful city. And they have a big protest that looked to be about like a thousand people, maybe 600. And as we're getting out of the car and walking, people are just staring at us. I'm assuming many of these people knew who I was, and they're deranged far leftists. So I'm like, okay, let's leave. Like these people are everywhere and they're holding their creepy signs. And I'll tell you this story about when I was in Hamburg, Germany with Lauren Southern and Luker Kowski and a handful of others. So it's the biggest antifa protest in history. And I think it was the, what was it, the G20 or something? And someone takes a picture of Lauren Southern. In the foreground of the photo is a German journalist and an American journalist. The American journalist doesn't know Lauren. We know who he was because we had seen him at various protests. They found him, started punching him and stole his camera simply for being in the foreground of a picture of Lauren Southern. Like Lauren Southern is walking off in the distance and he is just in the foreground. They went after him. Luke was walking with this German journalist, this guy Max, and they yelled Nazi Schweinhund and ran up and started punching Luke and bashing the guy Max, and he tore a ligament in his knee. They did not know who Luke was or this other guy Max, neither a white supremacist, doesn't matter, they were in the photo. So we all meet up for coffee or something, and then we came to a decision, like what should we do? And I said, look, I'm done covering this protest, I got no reason to be here, I'll leave. Lauren should probably leave because they're going to murder her. And so I said, I'll get an Uber and go back with Lauren, you guys can stick around if you want, we'll dip out now. On our way back to the Airbnb, regular people walking down the street were stopping and taking pictures and staring at us and tweeting our location. So Lauren and I had to duck into a Mexican restaurant, I kid you not, in Germany, a Mexican restaurant.

Speaker 2:
[65:05] They have Mexicans?

Speaker 1:
[65:06] Yes. Well, it's a Mexican restaurant, I think it was Indians that were running it or Chinese people.

Speaker 2:
[65:09] Fascinating.

Speaker 1:
[65:09] So I remember one of the creepiest things. On Twitter, at the time it was Twitter, you would track the hashtag and they would say, here's the address, here's the street location where we spotted her. I'm walking with her, like, let's get out of here. Two people are riding on bikes and as they're passing, they do this. Just like the head turns staring at us and I'm like, that was weird. Next to me, no one X, just spotted Lauren Southern, here's her location. So we went inside a restaurant, called an Uber and said, let's wait here until the Uber comes and get the F out of here. That's like coming out of a horror movie. These people are nuts.

Speaker 3:
[65:41] That's crazy.

Speaker 1:
[65:42] Yeah, it's culty, man. It is creepy, creepy stuff. Like Frederick, let me tell you how creepy it is. In Frederick, Maryland, they fly the Pride Progress flag over their town hall. They fly the flag of ideology over their city centers for governance. It is a cult.

Speaker 4:
[66:03] Yeah, part of why I don't get too partisan, because I don't want to get on the bad side of any one of these cults, but like the downside of speaking of-

Speaker 1:
[66:10] What are these cults? What other cults are there?

Speaker 4:
[66:12] Oh, any religious cult, a political cult, even like groups of friends-

Speaker 1:
[66:15] There's only two prominent large ideological factions in this country you have to worry about. Do you know what those two factions are?

Speaker 4:
[66:22] I don't- whatever your cult, whatever the cult, I'm just not really interested in-

Speaker 1:
[66:26] Let me ask you, Elaad, there are two large ideological factions you have to be concerned about saying the wrong thing to. Do you know what those two groups are?

Speaker 2:
[66:33] Communists.

Speaker 1:
[66:34] That's a bit too granular. The far left is one, indeed. What's the other one?

Speaker 2:
[66:41] The far right too, actually.

Speaker 1:
[66:42] No.

Speaker 2:
[66:43] Who do you think it is, then?

Speaker 1:
[66:44] I want someone to say it because-

Speaker 2:
[66:45] I think there's gatekeeping. If you don't say the right thing-

Speaker 1:
[66:47] Pretty sure everyone in the chat is going to spam the chat with what the other ideological group you can't defend is.

Speaker 4:
[66:52] It's just today, one group-

Speaker 2:
[66:53] I have an idea of what's being spammed.

Speaker 4:
[66:55] In a year could very well be another group.

Speaker 2:
[66:57] I have an idea of what's being spammed in the chat. I don't know if I agree with what-

Speaker 4:
[66:59] Who holds power has a lot to do with it, psychotic.

Speaker 1:
[67:02] Do you have a guess, Carter?

Speaker 5:
[67:03] Yeah, but I don't want to say it.

Speaker 2:
[67:04] Does it start with a Z and end with a Z?

Speaker 1:
[67:05] It does not. In fact, nobody's afraid to criticize Zionists.

Speaker 2:
[67:09] Well, they say that they are, but they aren't actually.

Speaker 1:
[67:12] There are two groups that if you offend, you die. The left is-

Speaker 2:
[67:17] No. Are you sure?

Speaker 1:
[67:18] Yes.

Speaker 2:
[67:19] I'm not going to go there.

Speaker 1:
[67:20] Are you joking?

Speaker 2:
[67:21] I feel like you can't say bad things about black people. If you say the N word, people will justify assaulting you.

Speaker 1:
[67:27] Well, that's the left.

Speaker 4:
[67:28] Whatever your belief, see how confusing it is, cults and ideologies and parties.

Speaker 1:
[67:32] Can you spare me? Literally, everybody in- Oh, it's funny. People are saying- Okay, they got it in chat.

Speaker 4:
[67:38] The reason I brought it up is because I'm not particularly-

Speaker 1:
[67:41] Are you joking? It's Islam.

Speaker 4:
[67:42] If you speak-

Speaker 2:
[67:44] Totally forgot about the Muslims.

Speaker 4:
[67:45] You forgot.

Speaker 1:
[67:46] That's wild. You post a picture of Muhammad, you die.

Speaker 2:
[67:50] That's true.

Speaker 3:
[67:50] That happened in Texas. Not too far from where I'm at.

Speaker 1:
[67:53] Look at the things that Crowder has to deal with, the threats against him because he's offended Islam. You can say anything you want about Trump. You can call him a pedophile, rapist, and nothing bad happens to you. Not a single conservative will threaten your life. You can insult Christians. You can smash a statue of Jesus Christ and the worst thing they do is complain on the internet.

Speaker 2:
[68:14] What does that say about Muslims that they are so willing to defend their ideology, their profits?

Speaker 3:
[68:22] It's in their religion. In their religion, if they die for their cause, they will go to heaven. That's the whole thing.

Speaker 2:
[68:30] And even the so-called assimilated ones in our country, I have found to be still very radical. And we have people in our country, I don't know, I mean, there's pearl clutch. It's interesting to see the reaction of the Catholics pearl clutching, some Catholics pearl clutching over the recent post from the president, allegedly depicting himself as Jesus. If he did that, depicting himself as a homit or something, there would actually probably be violence. But no.

Speaker 1:
[68:59] South Park was banned by Comedy Central from displaying Muhammad.

Speaker 2:
[69:03] Well, the Charlie Hebdo thing, when they depicted him, they depicted Muhammad, they murdered him. And we kind of just swept that under the rug. So people are scared to depict Muhammad, like, of course, you know, you likely will, if you're a popular show, if you have a big audience and you display him, then you will definitely get that.

Speaker 1:
[69:24] And I'm going to say this very simply again, like I said, of Democrats, I am not concerned with 99% of Muslims who would just tell me, Tim, why would you offend us like that? That's mean, like, there's no reason to do that. I have said things about Islam in the past, and I've gotten emails from people saying, I like your show, I respect you, but I just don't think it's fair that you are, you are, you know, disrespecting us. And that's all I have to say about it. And I'm like, that's fair, that's fair. And so I try to be disrespectful. It's the 1%. Now, the right doesn't have that. They don't even have the 1%. There are fringe wackos with traditionalist or certain conservative values that are not aligned with mainstream American politics. The left likes to claim some wackaloon who goes and shoots up a gay club is a conservative. And it's like, there is no group on the right that tells people by any means necessary and advocates for things like this. The left has numerous groups that go out and march and kill people and they celebrate it. Apparently, the left was funding white supremacy the whole time as well. So if left means white supremacist, violent extremists and communists, well then the left is all of it.

Speaker 2:
[70:28] I do think, I do suspect we will be seeing an Islamification of the Democrat Party over the course of the next decade. We're already seeing it in parts of Michigan. And I think they will kowtow to the Muslims in their party and the ideology of them.

Speaker 1:
[70:43] There are many Democrats who explain the reason they lost Michigan was because of their unwillingness to go full steam for Gaza. So this is the Democrat autopsy they're refusing to release indicates that they lost youth voters and swing state voters in Muslim areas because they were wishy-washy on Israel-Gaza.

Speaker 2:
[71:00] I think it was the, there is an Arab Muslim Senate candidate in Michigan now who I think on a leaked phone call said he didn't want to talk about the killing of the Ayatollah because it would upset people in his district. And further than that, there was some mayor who was, there was a concerned citizen complaining to the mayor during a town hall or something about how he didn't want a street named after a Hezbollah general or something. And he said, get the hell out of town. We don't want people like you in our town. Oh yeah, I saw that clip. To people like you getting out of here. This is a real issue in Dearborn, Michigan and Michigan. Michigan that is turning.

Speaker 1:
[71:34] Let's jump to this next story from Medi-ite. Let's jump to this story from Medi-ite. We've got this quote, I am sorry for misleading people. Tucker Carlson delivers jaw-dropping mea culpa for endorsing Trump. Let's play this.

Speaker 6:
[71:46] Compromising things, not very. And it doesn't even matter. Like actually, I hate the term, but sack up.

Speaker 1:
[71:54] Yeah.

Speaker 6:
[71:54] Like really, you, again, it comes back to the obligation that he has, not just to Donald Trump, to everybody else in the country, well beyond Donald Trump. Who cares? He can survive.

Speaker 7:
[72:05] So looking back, because, I mean, you and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him. I mean, we're implicated in this for sure.

Speaker 6:
[72:15] Yes.

Speaker 7:
[72:16] It's not enough to say, well, I changed my mind, or like, oh, this is bad, I'm out. It's like in very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now.

Speaker 6:
[72:30] Yes.

Speaker 7:
[72:31] So I do think it's like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences. We'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say, I'm sorry for misleading people and it was not intentional. That's all I'll say. But anyway, but the question does present itself immediately. Like, what is this? Was this always the plan? You don't want to be a conspiracy nut, but like, clearly there were signs of low character. We knew that.

Speaker 6:
[72:59] Yes.

Speaker 7:
[72:59] But it didn't, there are tons of people of low character who like outperform their character. It doesn't have to be.

Speaker 6:
[73:06] Sort of the norm actually these days, I would say.

Speaker 7:
[73:09] I've outperformed my character a lot. I don't have an especially high character, right? But you know, you try to, whatever you try your best, but what was this? Was this always the plan?

Speaker 6:
[73:23] You know, looking back after the last year and a half, it seems like it kind of was and it's easy. Well, you could get really deep about it and say, what was Butler? Like, how was it that he, and Ryan Routh, I mean, he was subject to two legitimate assassination attempts. Have we ever gotten to the bottom? I know you've talked a lot about this, but have we ever gotten to the bottom of that?

Speaker 7:
[73:43] I haven't talked a lot about it. I don't know the answer, but I know that those investigations have been stymied. Fact.

Speaker 6:
[73:49] Yeah, stymied from the very top, from people who actually would have the power to get to the bottom of it.

Speaker 7:
[73:54] And the motive.

Speaker 6:
[73:55] That's the one. Yes, very much. So, the enormous amount of money he got from Miriam Adelson now seems, it seems suspect to a lot of people at the time, but, you know, there's a lot of money in politics to run.

Speaker 1:
[74:09] The reason why Tucker just laughed, and that's why I'm wrapping it there, is because every single person in politics knew exactly what Miriam Adelson's money meant. And the reporting at the time was that it was a quid pro quo that Israel would take the West Bank if she donated to Trump and he got that money, that's what was to happen. That was the reporting. I'm not saying it's true, I don't know. Tucker knew this. His brother knew this. They all knew it. I do not see anything Tucker is saying as sincere in this. What grown man says I will be tormented for this? Let me just stress, everyone knew. We talked about it on this show. Is Tucker, does he have amnesia? Did he just one day wake up forgetting everything that had been discussed during the campaign about Trump's intentions? How about in Trump's first term? He wanted to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

Speaker 2:
[75:05] Seem Suleimani.

Speaker 1:
[75:07] He killed Suleimani. He hired John Bolton. Everybody acting surprised by what Trump is doing is lying. And I'll give a shout out to my libertarian friends. Of course, this does not only reflect on Dave Smith, but does involve him. My question then is, did you forget that Trump went to Israel and did all of this stuff for Israel and that he hired John Bolton in the first place, had said he would stop Iran from a nuclear weapon and killed Suleimani? I wasn't surprised by anything we are seeing. I'm not a fan of it. I just voted for what I felt is slightly better than the... Well, actually largely better in a lot of domestic reasons than Democrats. And now all of a sudden, Tucker and these other people are like, well, I had no idea.

Speaker 2:
[75:54] You know, there's a world where Tucker is legitimately a neocon psyop because he's consistently supported Republican administrations that have been very hawkish. He famously supported Bush and Cheney in the Iraq War and now he obviously contributed a lot to President Trump winning and President invaded Iran now. I think what's also fascinating though is he's sort of burning all of his bridges with the president. Tucker had a lot of access to the president before the Iran War actually. I think he visited the White House something like four, five or six times. They had a memorial at the White House for Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated. Tucker Carlson was there. They've obviously had a major falling out since. It might be a little bit awkward too because Buckley Carlson, Tucker's son and I guess the name of his brother as well, was the press spokesperson for JD Vans, making things a little bit awkward. He left recently to go do some political consulting, which is fascinating. But you really have to wonder about that relationship. Tucker Carlson obviously knew all this stuff at the time. I just think he's wise to what he thinks will be the future political wins. He's seeing some uproar and some fracturing in the MAGA coalition, and he's trying to claim the future of MAGA because I think people like him will see a post MAGA environment and he's trying to capitalize on it.

Speaker 1:
[77:09] You want to read this post, Elaad?

Speaker 2:
[77:11] Hi Tucker Carlson, it's me, a normal person who you mocked and bullied when we tried to warn you about all of this, who doesn't have your wealth and privilege to insulate himself from the consequences of your support for a criminal. Yup, you effed up. Yup, you were wrong. Glad you are finally aware. Know you are not forgiven. Know you are not welcome with open arms. You can go eff yourself, you opportunistic coward. Have the day you voted for. You know that's not actually a common sentiment.

Speaker 1:
[77:35] That's Will Wheaton, by the way.

Speaker 2:
[77:36] Who's?

Speaker 1:
[77:37] Will Wheaton, I'm sorry.

Speaker 2:
[77:38] Should I know this?

Speaker 1:
[77:39] Are you kidding?

Speaker 2:
[77:40] I'm a-

Speaker 1:
[77:41] He was on Stand By Me, right?

Speaker 4:
[77:42] He was, he was in the movie Stand By Me, he was in Star Trek Next Generation.

Speaker 1:
[77:46] We don't talk about him.

Speaker 4:
[77:46] He was a gamer, he had a, what was the name of their gaming company?

Speaker 1:
[77:49] That's not correct.

Speaker 4:
[77:50] Shout out to Will, dude.

Speaker 1:
[77:51] Hey, Will. No, actually, I did like Wesley Crutch, I thought he was a good character.

Speaker 4:
[77:53] If we could get together and hang out with Will, we've won the culture war, so Will, come over.

Speaker 2:
[77:57] I actually reject Hollywood culture, I don't buy into the movies, I don't know a movie you guys are referencing, I haven't seen it.

Speaker 1:
[78:01] He's an actor who's been in a ton of movies.

Speaker 4:
[78:03] He's a little kid.

Speaker 1:
[78:04] And he was in the first few seasons of Stalker the Next Generation.

Speaker 2:
[78:07] I don't buy into the Hollywood propaganda. I will say this though, I don't think this is a common sentiment on the left. I think among leftists like Anna Kasparian, especially Cenk Uygur have been defending Tucker.

Speaker 1:
[78:18] They're cheering for him. He's going to run as a Democrat.

Speaker 4:
[78:20] Tucker, that would be a win.

Speaker 1:
[78:22] I'm half kidding, half.

Speaker 2:
[78:24] No, I don't think he'll run as a Democrat, I think some of the leftists will run as Republicans.

Speaker 1:
[78:31] What?

Speaker 2:
[78:31] I think for a VP choice, something like, somebody like, I don't know, not seriously, but an Anna Kasparian type.

Speaker 1:
[78:37] As a Republican.

Speaker 2:
[78:38] As a vice presidential candidate, maybe.

Speaker 1:
[78:40] What?

Speaker 2:
[78:40] Saying somebody who's willing to, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[78:43] That's ridiculous, it makes no sense.

Speaker 2:
[78:44] No, I think that's the-

Speaker 1:
[78:45] It's just made up.

Speaker 2:
[78:46] If with Tucker at the top of the ticket, obviously it's made up.

Speaker 1:
[78:49] Tucker's not going to run as a Republican.

Speaker 2:
[78:51] Oh, yeah, he will. He's going to try to take over the party like Trump took over the party.

Speaker 1:
[78:54] You want to make a bet right here that Tucker's not going to run for office? Tucker's not going to run for office.

Speaker 2:
[79:00] I'm not even a betting man, but I think Tucker has huge political ambitions.

Speaker 1:
[79:02] Well, a gentleman's bet then.

Speaker 2:
[79:04] Yeah, yeah, I would.

Speaker 1:
[79:05] Tucker's not going to run.

Speaker 2:
[79:06] Tucker has serious political ambitions, and I think his posturing now is doing so for those ambitions in the future. Yeah, I think he'll do this show for another few years, even if he runs a losing campaign.

Speaker 1:
[79:17] I will give you this, that does make probably the most sense as to why he's all of a sudden shifting.

Speaker 2:
[79:21] That's why I think all of these guys are doing it. Joe Kent is doing it for the same reason.

Speaker 1:
[79:24] They're looking for the lowest common denominator.

Speaker 2:
[79:27] Totally.

Speaker 1:
[79:27] And the war is unpopular. So if you want to get the largest vote share, you say, I oppose Trump.

Speaker 2:
[79:32] All of these dweebs are doing it opportunistically. Same with Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's going to have a comeback. Joe Kent, he's going to have a comeback.

Speaker 1:
[79:39] I don't think Tucker's running. I think he's not.

Speaker 2:
[79:42] I think he will.

Speaker 4:
[79:43] I don't think he will because there's a...

Speaker 2:
[79:45] I think he's open to the idea. If the right opportunities comes forth. And I think he's laying down the groundwork for it. Think about it. His son, I mean, I guess he couldn't overtake...

Speaker 1:
[79:56] He could run as an independent or a Democrat. He can't run as a Republican.

Speaker 4:
[79:58] 32, you might see him on a ticket.

Speaker 2:
[79:59] No, he'd have to run as a Republican. I think he'd get a ton of support because he was the 8 p.m. Fox News slot guy.

Speaker 1:
[80:05] It's not gonna get... First of all, you need to understand the people who watched his show six years ago will be dead in two years, or already are dying.

Speaker 2:
[80:13] I love my baby boomerang.

Speaker 1:
[80:14] And again, I'm not trying to rag on these people, but it's called the mortality shelf. When six years ago, the average age was 69, now it's 74. In two more years, we're expecting to see like a 20 to 30% death rate among boomers as they approach 79 years later.

Speaker 2:
[80:28] You think Tucker could win in a primary against, you know, against who else he's running against?

Speaker 1:
[80:33] No, because Trump's base is solid around 40%. So we have seen this in polling for the past decade. Of the Republican party, about 40% are for Trump, no matter what he does. And we can see this with people like Cat Durvance.

Speaker 2:
[80:47] Yeah, but what about when Trump's gone?

Speaker 1:
[80:48] So when Trump leaves, these people are going to look at Tucker as a betrayer. They're gonna say, they're gonna say Rubio or Vance, who stood by Trump. They're gonna say Tucker betrayed Trump, and they're gonna call him a coward for apologizing.

Speaker 2:
[81:01] Yeah, I guess the coalition he's trying to build, he'd be able to proudly say, I was-

Speaker 1:
[81:05] As an independent or Democrat, but not as a Republican.

Speaker 2:
[81:08] Sure, I hope so.

Speaker 1:
[81:09] Republicans support the conflict in Iran. Not every single one, it's like 77%. When you look at the aggregate polling, ask a Republican, do you support the military actions in Iran? It's like 77%, yes. So Tucker's not going to win the Republican primary. Rubio might. JD Vance and Rubio can both come out and say, we hear you and we understand why it was unpopular, we will do better, but we stood by Trump, we are loyal.

Speaker 2:
[81:31] I think a lot of the issues that I think Vance tries to focus on, Tucker would have more credibility speaking to. Like I think Tucker works the populist angle, although he's not a...

Speaker 1:
[81:43] He's not gonna get any donors from the Israel...

Speaker 2:
[81:46] He's already super rich, he could sell fund.

Speaker 1:
[81:48] Yeah, no, you need like $2 billion to run for president.

Speaker 2:
[81:50] I think there are a lot, I mean, I think there are people deep pockets who are willing to support a guy like this. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just saying...

Speaker 1:
[81:56] You are wrong.

Speaker 2:
[81:56] I hope I am. I think he has a lot more credibility, again, with the issues that I think Vance...

Speaker 1:
[82:01] Listen bro, you don't start pandering to Anna Kasparian and Jenki Huger to try and win a Republican primary, sorry. It's not gonna happen.

Speaker 2:
[82:07] Yeah, I hope it to be the case.

Speaker 1:
[82:09] Right now, JD Vance and Marco Rubio are more primed for a Republican primary than Tucker Carlson is. Tucker Corona is a spoiler as an independent and pulls some conservatives, but he'd also pull more Democrats. The anti-Trump, anti-Israel, anti-war stance, substantially popular with Democrats, very lightly and marginally popular with conservatives and moderately popular with libertarians.

Speaker 2:
[82:30] Yeah, aside from if Tucker will run for president in the future, I think, again, a lot of these other nerds are posturing in on the sidelines, preparing to run for something down the line. People like, again, Joe Kent. I don't think we've seen the last of people like Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think they're waiting for, you know, two, four years out where they're going to pop their heads back up and more of those characters.

Speaker 4:
[82:52] Maybe he could run with JD. Vance.

Speaker 2:
[82:54] Or maybe he could just be the mouthpiece for it. I don't think you want to.

Speaker 4:
[82:57] I mean, why would he give up all that money and freedom? I don't think he's going to do it.

Speaker 2:
[83:00] Well, his son works with Vance or used to work with Vance.

Speaker 4:
[83:01] That's why I'm wondering if they would work together. If Vance asks him to be his VP, he'd probably say yes. But other than that, I don't think he'd spoil the Republican ticket, because he has no way he would beat Vance in a primary.

Speaker 2:
[83:14] It has yet to be told. We'll see.

Speaker 1:
[83:16] He won't.

Speaker 2:
[83:17] And he'd also be able to run as an outsider, and that's very advantageous.

Speaker 1:
[83:21] He could be trying to go after the youth vote, to be honest, because younger voters are anti-Israel. So he's looking for a new... Maybe he wants to target the Fuentes crowd and pull them into the Republican party.

Speaker 4:
[83:30] Pull them in advance together.

Speaker 2:
[83:32] And then fracture parts of the Democrat party?

Speaker 1:
[83:35] That's possible. I think...

Speaker 2:
[83:37] And he's been virtue signaling hard towards Muslims, too. I think recently he said, like, Islam is not a threat. And then he was also talking about how Muslims really respect Jesus Christ. I don't accept the divinity of Christ, but neither do Muslims.

Speaker 1:
[83:50] I actually want to give it to you. It does look like political ambitions. It does look like he's trying to court a lowest common denominator for a political...

Speaker 2:
[83:56] Laying the groundwork down.

Speaker 1:
[83:57] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[83:57] And that's especially with the virtue signaling towards Muslims.

Speaker 1:
[84:00] Because he's getting tons of... Liberal organizations have been praising him, and far-off organizations have been warning the liberals to stop praising him. I do believe that if you had a wackaloon far-lefty Democrat and Tucker Carlson, young Turks would vote Tucker.

Speaker 2:
[84:13] The media is so willing to use anybody as an anti-Trump figure that they will make Tucker Carlson a media darling now. He's willing to fight back against the fascism that is Donald Trump. Haven't you heard how bad of an authoritarian Nazi Hitler that Trump is?

Speaker 1:
[84:27] How much do you want to bet Tucker is going to start making appearances in a bunch of shows?

Speaker 2:
[84:31] Oh yeah, he already has been. Wait, but now you're switching your side on the gentleman's bet? Now you do think he might?

Speaker 1:
[84:36] I didn't say anything. I said I do think it does look like he's got political ambitions. I don't think he's going to run. But you've convinced me a little bit more, so I've shifted the probability, though I still think it's a no.

Speaker 2:
[84:46] If the right opportunity comes up.

Speaker 1:
[84:47] I'm starting to see a little bit.

Speaker 2:
[84:49] It's one hell of a shift, you know?

Speaker 5:
[84:50] He's come like from... Like I used to have lefty friends say, but Tucker Carlson, you know, saying he's like super far right. And now over like the last five years, he's become completely different.

Speaker 1:
[85:01] Tucker could target independence. He could get moderate conservative leading types who don't like Trump and don't vote Republican anymore.

Speaker 2:
[85:10] He's such an opportunist chameleon. He's just switched up on so many things. You really just have to think... He's saying whatever he has to do to get support or what he thinks is popular. I think it's a funny shtick the way he dressed up as a sort of like everyday lumberjack type guy. He's been rich since he was a child. He never needed to work a day in his life. People don't understand. He's like the heir to some frozen...

Speaker 1:
[85:29] Swanson TV dinner fortune.

Speaker 2:
[85:30] Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1:
[85:31] So he's not really... It's his stepmom, I believe. They married into that so that wealth does exist in their family.

Speaker 2:
[85:37] He went to private schools his entire life.

Speaker 5:
[85:39] They're rich, of course.

Speaker 2:
[85:40] Filthy rich. I think he likes to do this popular shtick as if he isn't.

Speaker 1:
[85:43] Now that I think about it, I've just kind of re-evaluated everything. And honestly, as I say here today, I'm tormented for having voted for Trump. I just, you know, he's the antichrist. And now, you know, actually, I cry at night. I cry because I should never have supported Donald Trump. You're complicit. I just realized that trans kids are real and should be allowed to get whatever they want. And the CIA is perfect and always the best. Russia is bad. China is good. And, you know, really, I just don't want Democrats to hurt me.

Speaker 5:
[86:14] What a good apology, in my opinion.

Speaker 1:
[86:16] What's really crazy about Tucker is like, I thought that is about this. It's like how fake it is.

Speaker 4:
[86:21] Yeah. What did you think was going to like the genuine question?

Speaker 1:
[86:23] What do you think? He knows exactly what he's doing.

Speaker 4:
[86:26] When you voted for Donald Trump, did you think he was going to release the Epstein files and then end World War? Like, bro, we're part of a system that's continuously moving forward.

Speaker 1:
[86:34] There's no took money from Miriam Adelson.

Speaker 4:
[86:37] Yeah. What's his name?

Speaker 1:
[86:38] His daughter married a Jewish dude and converted to Judaism. The idea that he was not going to have wars was stupid.

Speaker 4:
[86:45] I mean, the Abraham Accords, what's the son-in-law's name?

Speaker 1:
[86:47] Jared Kushner.

Speaker 4:
[86:48] Abraham Accords is based on- Bro's about as saddled up to the Israelis as you can possibly be diplomatically. He's letting him run his Israeli, what, Middle Eastern policy? Is this guy, I don't know if he's a self-acknowledged Zionist, like pretty obvious, pretty obvious, guys. It's just not as bad as what the Democrats are trying to pigeonhole in without a primary.

Speaker 2:
[87:06] Why doesn't Musk get much out of the president? He's donated more money via super PACs to the president's campaign than Adelson did. Why don't you think Musk gets anything out of this?

Speaker 4:
[87:18] Because this world economic order wants Israel to control the Middle East, and they're using the American military to do it.

Speaker 2:
[87:26] The world economic form wants...

Speaker 1:
[87:28] Ian, that's made up.

Speaker 4:
[87:30] It seems to want stability in the Middle East, led by the Israelis.

Speaker 2:
[87:33] I think the WEF is generally anti-Zionist.

Speaker 1:
[87:36] What's the evidence for... Yeah, he's correct.

Speaker 4:
[87:38] I think...

Speaker 1:
[87:38] They continually threaten to... The new Hungarian PM just threatened to arrest Netanyahu.

Speaker 2:
[87:42] They don't support Israel, the Europeans.

Speaker 4:
[87:44] We're probably talking about 80 million different people that want 80 million different things, but this push to create and control the Middle East with like taking Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaker 2:
[87:52] We're taking Iraq now?

Speaker 4:
[87:53] Yeah, we've had it for 20 years. They want... So like anybody that's not... Like the reason they wish Mary Madison is because it aligns with that goal, which has been there since the 1990s or whatever.

Speaker 1:
[88:03] That's not correct.

Speaker 4:
[88:05] I'm sorry, then prove that.

Speaker 1:
[88:07] Yeah, so the reason why we went into the Gulf War, in the 90s, the first Gulf War, was because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was against the liberal economic order. Shortly after this, we heard George HW. Bush talk about the emergence of a new world order. This is where they were roping China and this is when they began to send US manufacturing to China and Southeast Asia. The reason why we went to Iraq the second time was because Saddam Hussein was trying to oil in euro. He was trying to operate outside of the petrodollar system. Additionally, the biggest issue had been Iran. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for one reason. We set up a bunch of military bases along the borders, surrounding Iran, as we were preparing for a strike on Iran. Most other issues are just fabrications. Israel is ancillary to this as an ally in the Middle East that we largely fund, which creates a forward operation center for US military. Additionally, again, Libya had nothing to do with Israel. NATO and Western forces killed Gaddafi because he was trying to trade gold and dinar, among other things. The US was deeply involved in fomenting the Arab Spring. We wanted to get rid of Bashar al-Assad, not because of Israel, because we wanted to build a pipeline from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, up to the water, to the Gulf, through Turkey, through Ukraine, into Europe, to offset Russia's gas monopoly.

Speaker 4:
[89:30] Israel is like, if you were an emperor, Israel would be one of your kingdoms, and you'd give them control of their territory. They would serve you. This is what the liberal economic order wants.

Speaker 1:
[89:38] Then why didn't we do that after we dismantled the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Speaker 4:
[89:42] We are in the process of doing that.

Speaker 1:
[89:44] We are not. We pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Taliban took back over.

Speaker 4:
[89:48] And then we repositioned. We're over there right now.

Speaker 1:
[89:51] The Taliban is running Afghanistan.

Speaker 4:
[89:53] What's that?

Speaker 1:
[89:54] The Taliban took Afghanistan.

Speaker 4:
[89:55] It's a mess. It's a quagmire.

Speaker 1:
[89:56] But our troops are there right now. So why didn't we turn it over to Israel in the 20 years we had?

Speaker 4:
[90:00] No, it's not about turning over territory to Israel.

Speaker 1:
[90:02] What do you mean? You just said it was.

Speaker 4:
[90:03] We just want them to kind of oversee it militarily.

Speaker 1:
[90:05] Why didn't we have them do it in 20 years?

Speaker 4:
[90:08] Because we don't have the territory yet.

Speaker 1:
[90:10] We had Afghanistan for 20 years.

Speaker 4:
[90:12] Well, that's a big barren rock. We don't have Iran. Iran is the jewel. Iran is what they need to secure the area.

Speaker 1:
[90:18] So why didn't we give control of Iraq and Afghanistan to Israel?

Speaker 4:
[90:24] That's, I don't think that was ever a plan to do that.

Speaker 1:
[90:26] Because America's military is in control of the territory. You're saying the West, the WEF wants Israel to control the Iranian territory specifically.

Speaker 4:
[90:32] It seems like they want a quadruple world with India, China.

Speaker 2:
[90:36] You're saying they want a two-state solution, the WEF? They're just trying to do business.

Speaker 4:
[90:41] Yeah, they want stability. Israel is a wonderful, stabilizing force for the liberal economic order.

Speaker 2:
[90:47] Are they, if anything?

Speaker 1:
[90:49] Again, like-

Speaker 2:
[90:49] People argue with the opposite about Israel.

Speaker 1:
[90:51] The argument-

Speaker 4:
[90:51] From their perspective.

Speaker 1:
[90:52] The West or WF wants to give Israel control of the Middle East is something made up by Whackaloons on the internet. And I will say this with 100% confidence, because we on this show, since its inception, have been tracking conflict in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and Europe. And I have personally been following this for 20 years. And I can tell you, what you're saying is fabricated whole cloth by retards, who we call the retard right.

Speaker 4:
[91:15] So like that area, we'll say a college is called the British Mandate for Palestine. When they set up Israel there in 1949, you don't think they wanted Israel to be a power?

Speaker 1:
[91:25] What does that have to do with what you're saying right now? It's like you read a Cliff Notes from some anti-Zionist.

Speaker 4:
[91:33] Why do you think this whole move to create Israel there happened?

Speaker 2:
[91:38] You think Britain gained influence in the Middle East as a result of this foundation of Israel? The Zionists committed terrorist bombings against the British because they felt as though the British were oppressing them.

Speaker 4:
[91:51] That's possible too. No, that's right.

Speaker 2:
[91:52] Remember the King David Hotel bombing? Again, these were Zionists who were pissed off at the British who wanted to kick the British out of the area. So to suggest somehow that the British were trying to have the foundation of Israel to increase their influence in the region, the Israelis were fighting back against the British.

Speaker 4:
[92:09] The British and the French set up Israel to be there, and then whatever Israel wants to their independence, I don't blame them for kicking out their handlers.

Speaker 1:
[92:20] So again, to go to modern and contemporary military structures outside of what Britain and France did, which is immaterial to US foreign policy, for the most part, these days. Libya's strike had nothing to do with what Israel wanted. Barack Obama and Operation Timber Sycamore, I think, was that what it is, were provided weapons to various rebels, which eventually fell into the hands and became ISIS, had, again, nothing to do with Israel. Only ancillary that Israel is around there.

Speaker 4:
[92:48] Let's table the statement that the intention is to set Israel up as the leader. Forget it, maybe that's true, maybe it's not.

Speaker 1:
[92:55] Let's table that.

Speaker 4:
[92:56] But if you didn't see this Middle Eastern conquest on the horizon, this is why I brought it up. It's a very obvious plan to dominate the Middle Eastern forces and convert them into a liberal economic station.

Speaker 1:
[93:08] Indeed, that's correct. The intention here is that Iran has been operating outside the petrodollar system for decades, and the US has struggled to get them to fall in line. Even right now, it would seem, whatever Trump's plan is, he's struggling to get Iran to fall in line. It is not some backwards desert nation. It is 90 plus million people heavily developed.

Speaker 2:
[93:29] I think if you're arguing that the United States has an interest in setting up democratic allies in the area, and that's the WEF's plan, yeah, that makes sense to me. I think that was the general goal in Iraq, to set up a democratic ally. That was the general goal, I believe, with whatever regime change we do in Iran. We used to be allies with the Shah in Iran. So if the idea was we wanted a democratic ally in the Middle East, that's why we're continuing to support Israel, I think that's a large part of it too, because we like our democratic allies. Even if they're not democratic, we like having our allies in the region, but the democracy helps too.

Speaker 1:
[94:03] Why didn't Israel keep the Sinai Peninsula?

Speaker 2:
[94:05] Because they're super soft, they should have.

Speaker 1:
[94:07] Yeah, I mean, I don't understand the reason for...

Speaker 2:
[94:09] They traded back for peace on paper with Egypt.

Speaker 1:
[94:12] Right. They could have just kept it.

Speaker 2:
[94:16] They probably should have kept it. And the same with Gaza, they gave back Gaza. What did the Israelis get in return for giving back Gaza? They got Hamas, and they got October 7th. So I don't think giving land back to the Arabs that you won in wars has been particularly wise for the Israelis. I don't know.

Speaker 1:
[94:36] So we had that woman on who claimed that the reason Zelensky is running Ukraine is because he's a Jew and Netanyahu wants a corridor to Ukraine. It's just like when a retard makes something up ignoring 30 years of US foreign policy in the region, USAID operations as well as Russian negotiations with the EU, Ukraine. It's insane. The thing that really irks me about this greater Israel conspiracy, that the reason we went to Iraq and Afghanistan, because Israel made us do it, is that it absolves the world economic form of their true influence and the liberal economic orders manipulations and injection of gay communism into these countries.

Speaker 4:
[95:13] It is a big red herring for the bankers. They're like, oh yeah, focus on Israel, go after Israel, then we can just do our things in secret.

Speaker 2:
[95:18] I don't want to sound like such a chew about it, but the history of scapegoating.

Speaker 4:
[95:22] You know what, the Israelis did start this war in Iran, and I don't see them anywhere around right now. They lit it off, and then Americans. You don't see them anywhere.

Speaker 1:
[95:31] Hold on, hold on. History will not look back at this and claim the Israelis did it. They'll look back and say the 12 day war never ended. It will say the war with Iran started in June of 2025, when the US with Israel bombed several sites in Iran to take out their nuclear capabilities. Iran was able to smuggle out the nuclear materials before the bombs went off. Trump claimed they did. This result, when you read the paragraph in a history book, it's going to say the war began in June of 2025 with the 12 day war. However, the war never ended because Iran successfully smuggled out their nuclear materials, to which Trump ultimately staged another intervention. It's going to be one moment. This eight month gap between when we bombed them and then again, now when we're bombing them again, there's no historical distinction. They're going to be like, well, the war ended, then eight months later was another war.

Speaker 2:
[96:27] I think there's an argument to be had that we've actually been in a loose world war since 2022 when Russia first invaded Ukraine. We were assisting Ukraine aggressively. Then the following year was October 7th, where Israel obviously was fighting Hamas that expanded into Lebanon, continued into Syria, then eventually Iran, and then round two with Iran. In current day, Ukraine war is still ongoing. Gaza war is still ongoing. Europeans were heavily involved, obviously with what's going on in Ukraine. All the Gulf nations were attacked and defended themselves. In a version of this, we're really fighting a world war and defeating our enemies in detail, meaning that we're fighting our enemies individually. So this is all really going down one by one. So I think you can make that argument, especially given how close Iran and Russia have been exchanging military for their drones or what have you that the Russians have been using very aggressively. There's also information about Russia supplying coordinate details for US assets in the area.

Speaker 1:
[97:31] China sending weapons.

Speaker 2:
[97:32] Yeah, China sending at least fuel and gas. I actually asked-

Speaker 1:
[97:36] There were planes flying from China before the war kicked off after the 12-day war.

Speaker 2:
[97:39] I asked Secretary Hexeth about this actually last week about reports that during this ceasefire, China might be sending over weapons. Allegedly, the president and Xi Jinping had a conversation and said that that's not going to be happening. But given how involved we are with Ukraine and Israel and how involved China is with Russia and Iran and North Korea also being involved, I think there is a loose argument really to be made that we've been in a sort of loose world war for the past few years.

Speaker 1:
[98:04] I agree. And the argument now is that there's over 20 nations involved in this conflict with Iran. The start of World War II was not like one moment shot heard around the world where everyone said World War II has begun. It was a series of conflicts all over the world happening at once that escalated.

Speaker 2:
[98:18] I feel like we forget Ukraine's still happening.

Speaker 1:
[98:20] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[98:21] Nobody really gives a shit. We don't really talk about it.

Speaker 1:
[98:23] The Russian economy has transformed completely in the past five years.

Speaker 2:
[98:26] Four years and there's just thousands of deaths a month. Nobody even gives a shit about the drone footage which I still watch. I know we really like to see all the gore coming out of Israel, Gaza and the war that happened there, but there's a ton of drone footage. They record all of their stuff on their FPS drones. Some of the most morbid shit you could see online. I don't even see it on Twitter. People, you really have to seek it out. And this is still ongoing. Nobody really seems to, it's not in the news. The president kind of gave up on the peace deals early on in his administration. Didn't seem too interested in them. And it is really a war of attrition out there. And nobody gives a shit.

Speaker 1:
[99:02] We're going to go to the Rumble Rants and Super Chats. So smash the like button, share the show and all that good stuff. The uncensored portion of the show will be at rumble.com/timcastirl at 10 o'clock. Don't miss it. Not so family friendly, but always fun and funny. All right, we got Super Poopers. He says Southern Poverty Law Center needs to be nuked. And then says a disparaging term I can't read on the internet. We got Gigi Will says sounds just like the Nancy Pelosi wrap up smear. Which one does? What sounds like that? I don't know what that's referenced to. This is a good one. Let me pull up the New York Times real quick. And I want to grab the, here we go. McCarlson says that district in Virginia isn't a lobster, it's a scorpion. Notice the tip of the tail is filled with venom. And here you can see the seventh, it's like a lobster, but the tip of the tail is filled with venom.

Speaker 2:
[99:55] I think when he was talking about the wrap up smear, he was talking about the SPLC stuff, about feeding them the story and them repeating it.

Speaker 1:
[100:00] Oh, right, right, right, right, right, right. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[100:03] They get the inside scoop.

Speaker 1:
[100:05] Yep, these people are evil, man. John Rambos says, I remember around Trump's first term, SPLC was tracking black nationalism statistics as well. It more than doubled white nationalist hate groups. They purged it. I took screenshots of the old data. Interesting.

Speaker 2:
[100:22] What's going on with the black nationalists and the black Jews?

Speaker 1:
[100:25] Black Hebrew Israelites?

Speaker 3:
[100:26] Black Hebrew, they're crazy.

Speaker 2:
[100:28] Is that common in your community? I don't know. I do see some people. I like going to Jamaican restaurants and I'll see just dudes with the Star of David. I don't know if they'd fuck with me or not, but.

Speaker 3:
[100:38] No, they don't like me. I have a funny story, but I'll tell it later, but I ended up going to what was called a Bible study. My friend brought me and I started noticing weird things and I realized later, it's a black Hebrew Israelite place. And there's like the four women were actually the guy's wives. The dude was just crazy.

Speaker 2:
[100:56] How common is it in the black community?

Speaker 3:
[100:59] I think it's becoming more popular, especially as like a lot of the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist stuff. It's like, oh, wait a minute. Oh, they're fake Jews. We're the real Jews. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[101:08] Do they believe in, was it Yaqub?

Speaker 3:
[101:11] Yaqub.

Speaker 1:
[101:12] Is that what they believe?

Speaker 3:
[101:13] I guess. I know there's a lot of weird stuff with like Agartha and even the white national circles, they talk about Yaqub.

Speaker 2:
[101:21] What's up with black people and just converting and becoming extreme in these weird, I know some are, they go to jail and come out.

Speaker 1:
[101:28] Islam?

Speaker 2:
[101:28] Yeah. They go in Jamal, come out Muhammad.

Speaker 3:
[101:32] Yeah. No, there's definitely a bit of a rise.

Speaker 2:
[101:34] It's either Jew or Muslim for these.

Speaker 3:
[101:35] Yeah, yeah. There's definitely been a rise in that in the black community. I've definitely noticed it, especially in the cities. You'll see them patrolling around and it's weird stuff going on.

Speaker 2:
[101:44] It's the religious resurgence among the black community. I don't know. Maybe there are just as many Catholics and Christians that just get a lot less attention than do the Hebrew lights and black Muslims.

Speaker 3:
[101:55] Yeah, they're trying to find like, they're trying to search for a purpose. You know, they cling to this stuff because it gives them like almost like a finding.

Speaker 2:
[102:02] Gives them an identity, which is important.

Speaker 1:
[102:04] Do you think Trump is the antichrist?

Speaker 3:
[102:06] I think that it's way more likely now, but not for the same reasons that Tucker Carlson and all them say. And like, I want to say too, I think I might have even influenced Tucker a little bit. I mentioned a little bit earlier on the show before, one of my friends, Darrell Cooper, mentioned me to Tucker a couple years ago. And so I don't know if there's maybe some influence there, but Tucker Carlson and all these people completely missed the mark about the anti- because they associate Israel and antichrist. And they're like, oh, the antichrist is pro-Israel, but it's like biblically, yeah, temporarily, but that's supposed to shift. That's a short, that's a temporary time.

Speaker 1:
[102:45] So you're saying Tucker is the antichrist?

Speaker 3:
[102:47] Well, who knows? No, but seriously, Tucker Carlson and all these guys-

Speaker 1:
[102:53] He's got a fake right eye and his right arm is withered.

Speaker 3:
[102:56] Does he actually?

Speaker 4:
[102:57] No, I'm not.

Speaker 2:
[102:58] Wide hand is always dabbed fully with makeup. Not always, but very often.

Speaker 1:
[103:04] Yeah, Trump's got this spreading.

Speaker 2:
[103:06] It's already obvious and it's very obviously how aggressively it's covered up too. Oh yeah, it's spreading.

Speaker 1:
[103:12] It's getting bigger.

Speaker 3:
[103:13] Yeah, that's prophecy. It talks about his right arm shall be withered.

Speaker 1:
[103:17] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[103:18] It's pretty interesting, right?

Speaker 1:
[103:20] We're watching it. It was never going to be like you wake up one day and Trump's like, my right arm withered and my eye hurts. It's going to be a slow gradual thing.

Speaker 3:
[103:27] Slow thing.

Speaker 1:
[103:27] What if Trump announced like he's having cataract issues and his right eye is going?

Speaker 3:
[103:33] I mean, that'd be crazy, wouldn't it?

Speaker 1:
[103:34] But the injury, the bullet to his head, some say lines up with the prophecy about the...

Speaker 3:
[103:39] Yeah, some people say that. I think it's more of a foreshadowing almost, almost like a symbolic type of thing. I don't think it's like a literal fulfillment of Revelation 13.3. I think it could be like a foreshadow.

Speaker 1:
[103:52] Do you think AI is the beast? I do.

Speaker 3:
[103:55] Maybe not the beast, but I think AI could probably have a big part in... Because Trump's pushing the AI thing pretty hard, isn't he?

Speaker 1:
[104:03] And the beast describes what, like seven heads with like 10 crowns or something like that? Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[104:07] Well, you know, actually in the Bible, it talks about how there's an image, that there's an image of the beast and it's given a mouth to speak. And I think that could be AI. It's AI, bro.

Speaker 1:
[104:19] Yeah. You can't, unless you have... Everybody has a cell phone and you can't buy or trade. You go to stores now and they're cashless. I was saying, you go to the airport, you can't even get your ticket unless you have a phone. You go to a kiosk and say, print my ticket. Nope. It says, we'll email it to your phone. So you have to have one of these network devices. That's the beast, bro. The phone is the mark of the beast. Then it's going to be Neuralink and everyone's going to have it on their heads.

Speaker 3:
[104:42] Yeah, the Neuralink thing.

Speaker 1:
[104:43] Wasn't it like your right hand and your head or something like that?

Speaker 3:
[104:45] Yeah, your right hand or your forehead. Yeah. The Neuralink thing and like, there's a lot of weird things. And you talked about earlier about like the Trump world order, like something about cryptocurrency. Like, I'm wondering, like could cryptocurrency play a role in all this?

Speaker 1:
[104:59] I think it's just AI in general is the beast. It's all happening.

Speaker 3:
[105:04] It is, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[105:04] Yeah, the Earth actually is only about 50 years old. We all were created at the exact same time. Memories we have, all fake. That Earth was created the day Ian was born.

Speaker 4:
[105:15] Dude, you're making me feel like I'm 27 again. I was psychotic for like a year of my life, believing that for real.

Speaker 1:
[105:21] Only a year, huh?

Speaker 4:
[105:22] You can track it on YouTube. I made YouTube videos almost every day going through it. I thought I was creating reality. You are creating reality, but you're also part of a reality that's being created by others. That's what I had to figure out.

Speaker 1:
[105:32] It would be like the funniest thing imaginable if it turned out that like Ian was some prophet and like religious folk had to accept it. They were like, no, not that guy. He said too much weird things about my religion. It's like, God's miracle proves it. It's Ian, he's a divine prophet.

Speaker 4:
[105:51] People were like, hey, when Jesus comes back, I think they're all like, they think he's gonna be a good guy or be like really cool, but Jesus talks mad shit about Judaism. Like he was on the outs with the mainstream.

Speaker 1:
[106:02] Did you see the view when that lady was like, Jesus never went around claiming I was the Messiah.

Speaker 3:
[106:08] I saw that.

Speaker 1:
[106:10] And then other lady was like, yes, he did. And she was like, no, that would make him a narcissist. It's like, no, it wouldn't. He literally did this.

Speaker 4:
[106:17] My last name's Crossland. And I started to get a Messiah complex around that time when I started doing YouTube. I was like, oh my God, I'm the center of everything. But I feel like if I believe, because I want to help the world, I'm like, what if I could be the second coming? What if I could be that guy?

Speaker 2:
[106:29] Why can't you just help the world without being the second?

Speaker 4:
[106:31] Exactly, because if I start to believe this philosophy of the second coming and the end of the world and the anti, that it will become reality. And there will be a horrible war that kills whatever person.

Speaker 5:
[106:39] You don't need to become a cult leader.

Speaker 4:
[106:41] Yeah, and I don't want that. I want to actually help war.

Speaker 1:
[106:44] People don't know this, but Ian's right eye, it's a glass eye and his arm has actually got a metal rod in it. What if Ian was the anti-Christ the whole time?

Speaker 3:
[106:51] The whole time.

Speaker 1:
[106:52] Now the Christian is like, yeah, I believe it.

Speaker 4:
[106:54] I think we're all capable of it.

Speaker 2:
[106:55] Well, he doesn't age, so.

Speaker 4:
[106:56] Dude, everybody could become the anti-Christ in the heat of the moment when it's all on the line. If you choose evil, if you choose sin.

Speaker 2:
[107:03] Can somebody explain to me, I feel like people use anti-Christ in so many...

Speaker 1:
[107:06] Yeah, because Ian's in the wrong...

Speaker 2:
[107:07] .figurative literally.

Speaker 4:
[107:08] I don't know what we're calling it.

Speaker 2:
[107:10] I don't know.

Speaker 4:
[107:10] In the Bible, it's a guy.

Speaker 1:
[107:13] Let Donnie describe it, because he's the expert.

Speaker 4:
[107:14] Explain that, but my take is like, maybe it's a way people can be. You can be Christ-like or you can be anti-Christ-like.

Speaker 1:
[107:20] Anyway, Donnie, take it away.

Speaker 4:
[107:21] Donnie's got the word.

Speaker 3:
[107:22] So, anti-Christ, okay, so there's the spirit of anti-Christ, right? So there's been many anti-Christ throughout history, whatever, but in the Revelation, it talks about the beast and people call him the anti-Christ. So in Revelation, it doesn't actually say the anti-Christ. It says the beast and the beast is this guy, right? He's a strong, gentile warrior from the West who helps Israel and defeats their enemies and is speaking great, boisterous things. And then the Israelis are like, wow, this is our guy. This guy is so awesome. He's defeating our enemies. He's doing what we want. And then at some point, he allows them to build their temple and he allows them to do their sacrifices. And then he flips. He flips, he takes control over the holy city, over Jerusalem, Revelation 11, 11 to the Gentiles will trample the holy city for 42 months, right? So three and a half years of the tribulation and launches the biggest persecution of Jews. So bad that according to Zechariah, two-thirds of Jews will die. And the last third of them will literally cry out to God. And all of their, all of their, their hope and pride and their military and their human might will be crushed. And then in that moment of humility, they'll cry out to God. And then that's when Zechariah 12 says that they will mourn for the one they pierced. So they'll recognize Jesus as the Messiah. That's when Jesus comes back. He defeats all the Gentile armies of the world. He dashes the kingdoms with the breath of his mouth. And that's when he establishes his kingdom in Jerusalem. That's like basically like the short version of Revelation. And then that's when the Thousand Year Kingdom.

Speaker 2:
[109:01] In practice, when people are talking about antichrist and reference this, it's just a euphemism for people you don't like?

Speaker 3:
[109:08] A lot of people use it like that.

Speaker 2:
[109:08] Is that what it comes down to? I'm trying to really understand.

Speaker 3:
[109:11] A lot of people use it like that.

Speaker 2:
[109:12] Yeah. Somebody sucks as a communist is antichrist. Oh, I used to like this guy and he's manipulating me, antichrist.

Speaker 3:
[109:17] Yeah, I don't like that people throw out the term so much to the point where it means nothing anymore. Kind of like the word Nazi or something.

Speaker 2:
[109:24] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[109:25] It just doesn't mean anything. But it's like, biblically speaking, it means a very specific thing. And then when we're talking about eschatology, and we're talking about the beast, then we're talking about an even more specific thing. And that's why it's like when people like Tucker Carlson and all these people like talk about, oh, I think Trump's an antichrist or the antichrist, it's like, I don't really think he has a good understanding of what that means and why, right?

Speaker 2:
[109:47] I think he's just using it because it sounds.

Speaker 3:
[109:50] Sounds good. And it's-

Speaker 2:
[109:52] Provocative, it gets the people going.

Speaker 3:
[109:53] Yeah, and it's really a dig at Israel, like I think is really the heart of it. It's like, you know, cause like the whole thing is like, oh, like, you know, they hate Jesus and like that's, you know, antichrist.

Speaker 2:
[110:04] I see.

Speaker 3:
[110:05] So that's kind of like how they're using it, right? But like biblically speaking, the antichrist is, you know, a gentile king who allies with Israel for a time and then flips on them. So if Trump is the antichrist, that would mean there would come a point in time that he flips on the Jews. Where he flips on them. Exactly.

Speaker 2:
[110:24] So wait, doesn't he want that? Doesn't Tucker want the...

Speaker 3:
[110:28] Well, I don't think Tucker understands. Well, I don't think Tucker understands it. I don't think anyone, I don't think anyone thought deeply about it.

Speaker 2:
[110:34] They just hear anti-Christ. Oh, you're not Christ, you're against Christ. It makes you bad because I love Christ so much.

Speaker 3:
[110:40] Yeah, a lot of people just associate anti-Christ with Israel. And it just feeds what they already believe about things. And they're not really using the text or anything to kind of discern that.

Speaker 1:
[110:53] Let's grab some of these chats. We got Mariusia says, Tim, please read the book, The Red Amendment, about the evil implications of 14A beyond just birthright citizenship in terms of eroding our rights and state sovereignty. Also look into the maxims of law. Interesting. All right, Mariusia also says, read a post talking about how early settlers came to America for abundant wild meat in a time when most lived on veggies and grain. Subsistence peasants would risk much to live like lords, plus it helps to raise IQ. Interesting. All right, Missy Kinn says, Tim, now do you believe that VICE News and L. Reeve were likely partnering with ACLU to embed and provoke Nazis in Charlottesville to build their narrative? I don't know. I mean, maybe she works for, does she still work at CNN? I don't know. I don't know. I think a lot of these people are CIA. The way it works is that the CIA will go to like a 22 year old like intern and say, hey, I'm going to be your source. Go to your boss and tell them you've got a source in the CIA and the FBI will feed you stories. They go to their boss. This is how they cultivate a journalist. They can then leak information to the young. Journalist is really excited to be like, I have a source in the CIA. Then the news organization loves it because they can't be sued because they have a source in the CIA who's claiming these things. And they'll be like, shield laws. You'll never figure out who the person who's leaking to us is. And they're probably lying, but so what? You can't sue me. And they're your goal. All right. What's the King Salami says? Tim slept on his friend's couch for a bit. Indeed, I did. And as I was sleeping on my friend, I was working at Vice, starting Vice News while sleeping on a couch. Shout out to Harrison. What up, brother? Sleeping on his couch. And there were other people who had their own apartments and were saying like, I wish I could do what you're doing. And I'm like, well, instead of running an apartment, I spend a couple hundred bucks on a couch. And then I put the rest of the money in my savings account. And then I travel around with it. And you know, what are you going to do? Let's see. Bamboo says, a Republican government that does nothing for you is much better than a Democrat government that actually oppresses you. Right. And that's ultimately the point. The unfortunate reality is it just means you can have tyranny now or later. And it's like later, I guess.

Speaker 2:
[113:17] Like, okay.

Speaker 1:
[113:18] And that's what's happening. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[113:21] Later, I guess.

Speaker 1:
[113:23] Do you think this is the end times?

Speaker 3:
[113:25] Yeah, I think so. Oh, yeah. Yeah. How much longer do we have? Well, well, I was just talking to Chris about this, but if anyone's interested, they should watch Messiah 2030. It's a really, really good thing on YouTube. Really? Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[113:39] 2030. I feel like there's a long history of people making a lot of buzz about the world about to end. You know, if you really want to get people going, you really want to scare the fuck out of people. Oh, guess what's about to happen in five years? Guess who's coming back? Or guess the world's ending?

Speaker 3:
[113:55] All that stuff, yeah. But this one is really interesting for a lot of reasons. But, you know.

Speaker 2:
[114:01] No, I'm sure it's...

Speaker 1:
[114:03] So is it gonna end or not?

Speaker 3:
[114:06] Well, technically, in Revelation, I mean, Jesus coming back isn't really the end of the world, but it's sort of a new beginning, right? Because like Jesus comes back, it's basically the beginning of a new world order, really, because Jesus is supposed to come back and he's supposed to basically take over the world and establish a new government over all the Gentile nations, right? From Jerusalem. So like, that's really the whole point.

Speaker 1:
[114:30] A one world government?

Speaker 3:
[114:33] Yeah, absolutely. And my theory is that all the conspiracy theorists and all the people who talk about the new world order are actually falling into the deception because they're unwittingly being set up to oppose Christ's return and reign when he does come.

Speaker 1:
[114:48] So you think he's coming?

Speaker 3:
[114:50] Oh yeah, he's coming.

Speaker 1:
[114:51] But do you think like in our lifetime we will see?

Speaker 3:
[114:54] Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 1:
[114:55] What if Trump's actually the return?

Speaker 3:
[114:57] If Trump is?

Speaker 1:
[114:58] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[114:59] That would be crazy. Well, I don't think that's, because Trump is like the embodiment of like everything, like that's anti-Christ.

Speaker 1:
[115:06] Anti-Christ.

Speaker 3:
[115:07] Yeah. I mean, and not in a way where like, people accuse me of being like a Democrat or something, by no means, but like, you know, he's very like, he exalts himself. He's very like into his ego. Like he's very, he hates forgiveness, right? Even at, we were talking earlier, but even at Charlie's funeral, he, you know, he talked about how he hates his enemies. He did, you know, it's just like, it's just like the polar opposite, right?

Speaker 1:
[115:30] Yeah. So, man, you know, I feel it a little bit. I do. Like, I think there's a lot of things that are undeniable that could be, well, I'll put it this way. We are not wet robots in a different universe. That is just not true. And anybody who actually paid attention to what was going on in the world, like, bro, our last studio was across the street from Sandy Hooks Avenue. Like, you know, it's like we're in Harper's Ferry, like all of these things just...

Speaker 4:
[116:03] Yeah, we're training AI for the next generation of governance, which might last a thousand years. And like, I think what sets the United States apart is its morality, the people's morality that we've extrapolated laws, which comes from Christianity. So to have a profuse speaker that exalts or extols the virtue of morality through the United States lens, because I've always been like, you know, my three dudes are Jesus Einstein and George Washington. Like we need a George Washington that's like Jesus.

Speaker 1:
[116:31] Alex says, Tucker is fake and gay. Kinzinger is fake and gay. They make it so easy just to say Trump is right, even if we disagree with them because they are such psychos. Let's see, OJP says, the most ideal move for the US and Trump in regards to Iran is to send Israeli troops as a proxy. Both right and left would agree to this. You see, that's the thing, Ian. If that was really the case, Israel will be doing all of it.

Speaker 4:
[116:55] If what was really the case?

Speaker 1:
[116:57] The goal was to have Israel take over the Middle East?

Speaker 4:
[116:59] No, apparently someone's going to fight their wars for them and that person is going to be the antichrist.

Speaker 3:
[117:04] I don't know what's going on.

Speaker 1:
[117:06] So, this would mean that Jesus would have to be alive right now?

Speaker 3:
[117:10] Well, the whole thing is he resurrected, so he's seated at the right hand of the Father.

Speaker 1:
[117:16] He's been alive the whole time, so he comes back.

Speaker 3:
[117:18] He comes back, he descends on the earth, and he doesn't come as the suffering servant this time. This time, he comes as a warrior king.

Speaker 1:
[117:24] Ripped. I don't mean that derisively. Is he going to be a very strong warrior looking dude with armor?

Speaker 3:
[117:29] Well, it says that he actually has a white robe dipped in blood, and he's got a sword coming from his mouth.

Speaker 1:
[117:35] What?

Speaker 3:
[117:36] Yeah, and that's when he's going to come, and he's literally going to kill a lot of people according to Revelation. It says he's going to dash the kingdoms of the world with the breath of his mouth. So the West, a lot of these nations, according to the Bible, all these kingdoms are going to basically fall and capitulate to Jesus and his kingdom.

Speaker 1:
[117:58] Bro, I've seen a character in a white robe with a sword coming out of his mouth before.

Speaker 4:
[118:03] This whole dashing the kingdoms of Earth is like getting rid of national governance for corporate governance.

Speaker 1:
[118:08] You don't know who that is?

Speaker 4:
[118:10] No.

Speaker 2:
[118:10] From Naruto?

Speaker 1:
[118:12] Yes. It's Orochimaru.

Speaker 3:
[118:14] Oh, wow. I wonder if there was some inspiration.

Speaker 1:
[118:16] Well, the inspiration for Orochimaru is based on a Japanese folk tale about, what is it, Tsunade, Orochimaru and Jiraiya, the valiant Jiraiyan knight saves Lady Tsunade from Orochimaru. And then they just use that. This is what they do in Japan. People don't understand that Goku from Dragon Ball Z is actually just the generic monkey god they have 50 million versions of. And then they just, you know.

Speaker 2:
[118:44] I thought it was generic white guy.

Speaker 1:
[118:46] Goku? No, Goku flew in a nimbus cloud and had a staff that extended and a monkey tail. That was the original from Dragon Ball. And there's a bunch of different versions of that same character. Like an old folk tale in Japan or whatever. Interesting. Yeah. And then Naruto, like the nine-tailed fox. It's just like reiterated versions. Like in Pokemon, nine-tails is a fox with nine tails. It's regurgitated the same thing over and over again. All right, my friends, we're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life. It's going to be at rumble.com/timcastirl. Donnie, do you want to shout anything out?

Speaker 3:
[119:21] Yeah, just shout out, shout out. If you want to learn more about what I'm talking about, go to my ex account at Donnie Darkened and go to my highlights. And there's a lot of material for you to look at and also watch Messiah 2030. Shout out Messiah 2030 and that's it.

Speaker 1:
[119:36] Right on.

Speaker 2:
[119:37] Good evening, everybody. Thanks for tuning in. I am Elaad Eliyahu, the White House correspondent here at Timcast. You can find me on social media at Elaad Eliyahu. Thanks for tuning in. What's up, Ian?

Speaker 4:
[119:46] Just drinking some water, man. Ooh, I changed the pacing. I liked that. I was in full control for a moment. Hydrate, take care of your body. Donnie, thanks for coming. Great to see you again, Elaad.

Speaker 2:
[119:55] See you as well.

Speaker 4:
[119:56] I met Ian Crossland. Follow me on the internet, Carter Banks.

Speaker 1:
[119:59] Great to see all of you. Thank you, thanks for coming, Donnie. I'm gonna be watching Messiah 2030 on YouTube tonight, for sure. Yeah, I'm gonna check that out. How long is it? Chris watched part one, so there's three parts. All together, it's six hours, but you can just watch part one. But you can just watch part one, it's like two hours. Chris watched it last night, he told me, his mind was blown. Oh, man. I definitely gotta watch it. The whole car ride. Wait, how long was it, part one? Like maybe like two hours. Oh my, two hours? I don't have two hours. Or an hour and a half. I'll watch it tomorrow. Anyway, you can follow me at Carter Banks, on X and at Carter Banks official on Instagram, everywhere else, at Trash House Records, on YouTube. We'll see you all at rumble.com/timcastirl right now.