transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] So last night, we were talking about how in Virginia, 51% of residents voted to strip away the Democratic voice of the other 49. That's right, they passed a referendum saying they're gonna redraw the districts of the state so that five districts stretch with tiny little strips into Alexandria and Fairfax, which basically eliminates four Republican seats. Well, not even 24 hours later, a court has ruled it unconstitutional, barred it and refused to issue a stay pending appeal. The AG is pissed. He's like, well, we're gonna appeal this. And the judge is like, yeah, go ahead and do it. Basically, they went through all of that just to flop onto their faces. Wow, I was a little blackpilled the other day seeing this happening because it's like the deep state literally is taking over Virginia as their last bastion after being crushed by Donald Trump, but they're even struggling to get it done down there. So, okay, wow, it's gonna be a good day. We'll talk about that. And of course, Ilhan Omar, she's in the news because she revised her, what is it called?

Speaker 2:
[01:06] Her- Financial disclosure.

Speaker 1:
[01:08] There you go, Nick Sortor, he knows what I'm talking about. The financial disclosure, because apparently she's not a millionaire. She just accidentally claimed she was for some reason, and we'll talk about that. And then we'll talk about the war for some reason, because I guess war and stuff. But Hagsteth has fired the secretary of the Navy which is big news, we're going to know all that. Before we get started, we've got a great sponsor for you. It is the state of Israel, who's probably supposed to... I'm kidding, guys, we were joking before the show. That's going to get clipped. Sponsored by the state of Israel, just to antagonize as many people who hate Israel. No, it's Casper Coffee. In fact, it is but a humble, Casper coffee, where we have delicious coffee, we've got Appalachian, Knights Pie, the best coffee you will ever have in your life, I guarantee it. And my lawyers tell me I'm allowed to do that but it's an opinion statement and you can't tell me I'm wrong. In all seriousness though, I really should try it because it actually is the best coffee I've ever had because I made it. I did. I got a bunch of samples, mixed the flavors that I liked together. And we didn't actually expect Appalachian, Knights to be our flagship coffee, but it started selling like crazy and that's our best seller. So definitely check it out. But we got our influencer lineup as well. All these different individuals got their different flavored coffees. You can pick those up, of course, you get Ian's Graphene Dream, all that good stuff. Don't forget to also become a member at timcast.com. As a member of our Discord community, you get access to the Discord community and the uncensored call-in portion. Meaning, if you want to watch the uncensored call-in portion, it's at rumble.com. But if you want to call in, you join our Discord server and you can talk to us and our guests Monday through Thursday, 10 p.m. The most important thing is it's not what you know, it's who you know. And as a member, you're part of this massive network of tens of thousands of people sharing information, building new things. And it's a great place to get started if you want to make a new project. Most importantly, it supports the work we are doing right now. If you like this show, you appreciate what you do, sign up at timcast.com. And don't forget to give a little love tap to that like button. And then share the show right now, go on every social media platform, just blast it out there. Call your best friend from college you haven't seen in a few years and be like, bro, you got to watch Timcast IRL right now. He's talking about you. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is you already figured out, because I asked for his help, it's Nick Sorter.

Speaker 2:
[03:20] Thank you for having me again, Tim. Appreciate you.

Speaker 1:
[03:22] Who are you? What do you do?

Speaker 2:
[03:23] I'm an independent reporter and unfortunately, I'm spending a lot more time here in the DC area because there aren't as many ice deportations happening. I guess we'll maybe talk about that at some point.

Speaker 1:
[03:33] But you got to get in this fraud train.

Speaker 3:
[03:36] There's so much everywhere.

Speaker 2:
[03:37] Like, where do you start?

Speaker 1:
[03:39] You know, throw it, throw it, throw it, darted a map, hop on a plane. Wait, wait. No, it's got to be like, you got to get all of the all of the Democrat cities and states and put them in a big hat and then just pull one out. I bet you'll find crazy fraud.

Speaker 2:
[03:52] I mean, I look at my messages every single day and people are like, oh, my God, I found fraud here in this state. It's like, OK, I'll add it to the list. I think we're getting close to 50 at this point.

Speaker 3:
[04:00] You're like in a holding pattern for deportations right now, where you're kind of got your ear to the ground kind of. So you're that's why you haven't developed like dove into any other stories.

Speaker 2:
[04:10] Well, yeah, because I think that mass deportations are if we go away from that, then like me as well just give up the country at that point, because we've got the official number has been 20 million for like 30 years now. And so we're saying that no illegals came in under Joe Biden. The numbers are BS, we're not deporting nearly enough people and worst of the worst is code for amnesty.

Speaker 1:
[04:33] Indeed, well, Ian is obviously here.

Speaker 3:
[04:35] Yeah, thanks Tim. At Ian Crossland you find me on the internet, but I also got the real Tate Brown.

Speaker 4:
[04:39] It's true, it's true. I'm the real one and I am here and I'm happy to be here. We also have-

Speaker 5:
[04:42] There's only one of them and he's the real one and I'm Carter Banks. And let's get to the news, man.

Speaker 1:
[04:48] We got big, big news, big news. Some say too big. CNN says, Judge Barr's certification of Virginia redistricting results. State AG promises appeal. Well, heavens me. They say a judge in rural southern Virginia on Wednesday ordered the results of Tuesday's vote not be certified on several grounds, including the state lawmakers did not follow their own rules in passing the redistricting referendum. Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley also called the ballot language put to voters flagrantly misleading. I just want to stress, you're like a conservative leaning guy in a rural area being told that 51 percent will strip you of your voice and you're a judge. You're going to be like, I bet this dude was sitting there watching it happening. He's like watching this show being like, I can't wait to get to work tomorrow.

Speaker 4:
[05:34] Oh yeah.

Speaker 1:
[05:34] I am going to rubber stamp this thing so fast.

Speaker 4:
[05:37] He's got a point. I live in Virginia and when I went and voted in this, I knew exactly what I was going in to vote. I had to reread the language for a second because it was like, we want to reissue fairness for the upcoming elections. I was like, yeah, I'm in favor. Wait a second.

Speaker 2:
[05:54] How do you vote no on that? That's the entire thing. So you go in there not knowing about it and being the fact that we decided that we were going to spend, and not we, I'm sorry. Let me take that back. Not we. The RNC decided that they were going to dump $100 million into John Cornyn's race instead of this much more important race down in Virginia. A lot of people didn't know what they were even voting on. They're going out to the polls. You read the question that was super misleading. It's not like you got a map on the ballot. It was, did you guys read the question out last night?

Speaker 1:
[06:26] We did. Yeah, I'll pull it up. Virginia.

Speaker 4:
[06:31] It's so funny. That's got a one-shot, like kind of uninformed voters. There's no question about it. Because again, you read the language. And again, if you have no idea what's going on, you're like, oh.

Speaker 1:
[06:38] Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?

Speaker 3:
[06:53] And so many people read, restore fairness? Yeah, that's a good thing. I'll vote for that.

Speaker 4:
[06:58] I mean, it's unbelievable to your point, Nick. I mean, like the fundraising gap was what, 60 million, something like that. And that ballpark.

Speaker 2:
[07:05] Three to one.

Speaker 4:
[07:06] Three to one. Utterly ridiculous. And then you have like, again, John Cornyn getting his pot defended. You have like Chris LaCivita coming out on Twitter. And like, instead of showing you a little humility and being like, yeah, okay, maybe I fumbled this. Instead, he's like attacking like random guys on Twitter, just out of nowhere.

Speaker 2:
[07:19] Well, Chris LaCivita wasn't being paid to help with it. He's being paid to try to force a rhino. And keep in mind, this is a really big point here. It's not just about getting, what's his name? John Cornyn re-elected. It's not like he's in a close race with a Democrat. They're trying to get John Cornyn to beat another Republican, a better Republican. I mean, it's just money thrown into a hole and burned.

Speaker 1:
[07:44] I want to throw this map up there and just tell you. So here's what happened. I'm sitting on my couch watching Bret Baier as one does. He's a fantastic newsman. I mean that sincerely. I'm not a joke. He's great. And right at the top of the hour, he goes, a Virginia court has struck down the redistricting efforts and is refusing to issue a temporary state pending appeal. Then they give you some of the context. And I was just like, holy, it's not even been 24 hours. And the deep state attempt to turn Virginia into a vassal of the deep state has failed. Amazing. I want to show you, you all need to understand, see where we are. Let me zoom in. Why zoom in on this image right here? And I'm going to tell you, see number six and number 10? We are like right here. That's where we are right now. That means I go to Virginia for lunch. As Tate mentioned, he lives there. We are probably a couple of minutes, depending on the studio, from Loudoun or Frederick County, Virginia. This whole block right here, number six, quite literally is where we get lunch relatively often. 10 is Loudoun. And I go there for Korean barbecue at Gogi 92. Shout out, it's like the best Korean barbecue ever. Ian knows it. He's got this look on his face.

Speaker 3:
[08:58] I don't know if I've had it yet. I want it right now, though.

Speaker 1:
[09:01] We've been there. Oh, it's the best. Plus, the guys dress up like Akatsuki from Naruto. So I will always just prefer to go there over anywhere else for Korean barbecue. Like they'll be, they're walking around just like anime characters, just randomly one day. I don't know why, but I'm a fan of Naruto, so I liked it. So check it out. Here's what they've done to the districts that we live in, our crew here, and where we go for lunch and hang out. They've turned Winchester, where we go for lunch, and Loudoun into one congressional district, basically, lumping Winchester, which is blue, with Loudoun, which is deep blue, eliminating all of the conservatives. It's a deep conservative area. If you take a look at the, let me pull up the redistricting vote. Let's get the results, VA. Because you can actually see, check this out. I'll show you exactly what they did. So this is what I'm talking about right here. In Fairbrook County, it voted no, right? You take a look here at Shenandoah County, you take a look at Warren County, you take a look at Clark County, they all voted no. And the Democrats were like, yeah, let's eliminate that. Let's take away their voices. These people said no to this map, and it was thrust upon them by this tiny little, little piece right here. Here you go, this is what it is. Alexandria, about 50,000 yes votes. Fairfax County, 140,000 yes votes. That's what basically throws this into yes territory. It's 130,000, what is it? It's not even, it's 90,000. And they get that from just Alexandria, just Fairfax, and they eliminate all of the little orange spots in the state, lose their voice. Well, they got crushed, good riddance.

Speaker 2:
[10:36] Well, I mean, you probably saw, I don't know how closely you were tracking this last night, but of course, Fairfax County was the, it was over an hour after the polls had already closed before they even counted one vote in Fairfax County. And you're like, okay, well, why, why is that?

Speaker 1:
[10:50] Because it's the deep state.

Speaker 2:
[10:51] Because it's the deep state. That is the deep state capital of the United States, is Fairfax County.

Speaker 1:
[10:55] No joke, literally it is. And I will tell you exactly what's going on right now. Actually, I'll put it this way. I have some theories and I'm probably wrong about everything. That being said, with the move against the SPLC, this is in my opinion, one of the NGO, it's a nonprofit, we call them NGOs, when they're at the international scale. The government through USAID and these crony legal schemes were funneling government money to various lawyers and NGOs that were being used for political purposes and manipulation, running ad campaigns, propping up law firms that were fighting for political causes, finding their way through various donation platforms to get Democrats elected. Trump crushed USAID. He basically took a sledgehammer to the deep state. The roaches of the deep state crawled like the scum they are into, well, they always lived in Fairfax, to be honest, and they're trying to form a last bastion in Virginia. The remnants. You know what I would say this to all of my liberal friends who can only understand politics through the lens of popular fiction like Harry Potter or Star Wars. I would say the deep state is the death eaters, Voldemort's henchmen trying to come back together or the First Order from the sequel movies you all like despite them being miserably bad movies. Now that you understand what we're talking about, you know why we don't like these people.

Speaker 4:
[12:22] Yeah, well, what's interesting at least, I mean, look, turnout, this record high turnout, if you compare it to the last gubernatorial election, I mean, Winston Sears got spanked by Spanberger. So I think going in, I was anticipating a yes vote. I actually ended up being a lot closer than I thought it was going to be. I expected like a five point spread because I'd seen the fundraising numbers. And in addition to that, I guess I do live in Virginia. I won't say which county, but closer to DC. And I was just getting like Obama ads on every YouTube video is Obama ads nonstop, didn't see any Republican ads. So I was thinking like, we're going to get spanked a lot closer, which is just interesting, honestly. But in addition to that, okay, this court, this judge has struck this down. The Virginia Supreme Court actually tilts conservative. This is according to Ballotpedia, a few other sources. It actually tilts conservative. So, I mean, there is a situation in which this escalates quite quickly. It just depends on how much fight the GOP has made. Are they going to clean up their mess here? The National GOP owes it to the Republicans in Virginia to clean up this mess.

Speaker 2:
[13:23] Yeah, absolutely. Well, they should have been, you know, helping out a lot more weeks ago, but you know, I digress on that. But there was actually a really good constitutional argument here. The judge today that struck this down so quickly literally called it egregious, right? Because when you call, this was passed through a quote unquote special session. When the governor calls a special session, it is done for a specific reason. And what they pass through that is limited to that reason. Right? In this special session, they decided to, it was supposed to be for a limited budget matter. And that's when they rammed these maps through here. So, if we have any semblance of a fair judicial system left, this will get thrown out in May.

Speaker 3:
[14:09] There's a theory that they let them, I don't know if you guys heard this theory, that they let the Democrats spend tons of money on this just because they knew it wasn't going to be crushed.

Speaker 2:
[14:17] We're not that good a 40 chest man, I'm just saying.

Speaker 1:
[14:21] Let me put it this way. I actually am not entirely sure. I was interviewing Sepp Gorka last year, and I asked him if the deep state had been crushed. He says, no, absolutely not, they're still there. And he's not wrong. What I see here with the move against the SPLC, their deep state. I mean, they are now being, according to this indictment, they funded part of, I'm not going to be as hyperbolic as some of these outlets. They were providing resources to one of the organizers who helped secure transport for many people who showed up. This was the SPLC, according to the indictment, helping to foment, unite the right through organizing, so they could then come out and fundraise against it. And many other nonprofits fundraised against it as well. What I will say is, I'm going to make it as personal as possible, is that the SPLC tried accusing me as well as several others in 2018 of being Russian assets, of being orchestrated or directed by the Russian government. And it didn't work. I have talked about this before. After my coverage in Sweden, I received several emails from Russia Today trying to license my footage. Despite the fact it was all fair use and you didn't need to license it. So I rightly ignored their emails as I'm not going to take their money. Then I had people hit me up who were friends being like, oh, by the way, Russia Today wants to buy the footage from you. And I said, finally I snapped and I said, why would they buy footage that's free to use? This makes no sense. F off. Then finally Merrick Garland got came out and he got his wish. And he falsely accused me and many others of taking money from the Russian government. They can't malign me in any other way. They can't call me far right. They can't call me a white supremacist. They had nothing. So the SPLC strangely along with eventually the smear they got through Merrick Garland was trying to call me and many others as coordinated by the Russians. And the reason why this matters, the article that they wrote, which they did have to retract, was pointing out that leftists, like at the time in 2018, I'm like a liberal guy. I was like a pro Bernie guy before that. It was me, Ronnie Akalek, Ben Norton, Max Blumenthal, all very clearly on the left. And they could not call them fascists, and they could not call them white supremacists, because they were well-known communists. Like, not all of them, I'm just saying like, they're all pretty much on the left, easily. Similarly, Jimmy Dore. So they tried maligning us as Russians, and it didn't work, but they eventually did get their stupid play two years ago, which is fake. These people must be crushed. They did the same thing to Tulsi Gabbard and Cash Patel, and I hope, I beg and I pray that these people are utterly destroyed. You know, because I will just say this. I never did anything to these people. I didn't know these people. Literally, at the time in 2018, I'm just some random guy who worked at Vice, and I went to Sweden. And I was like, I'm going to film stuff for a vlog. I had no idea what was going on. I wasn't promoting Trump. In fact, I said, I'm going there to prove Trump wrong. And these people tried to destroy my life. They put out these fake reports claiming that, of all people, Chris Reagan, who does comedy sketches and plays video games, had collaborated with Richard Spencer. They put me in the center of this nexus of the alt-right networking with their alternative influencer network. And I'm sitting here being like, it is the weirdest experience in the world to have academics, NGOs, start accusing you of being a white supremacist and a Russian. This is back in 2018. And I'm like, I only had like 100,000 subscribers on YouTube. I'm sitting here being like, what is this? Why are these people coming after me? They are evil, deranged lunatics who must be crushed.

Speaker 3:
[17:58] I think it's the system is being dismantled. That's the most important, because the individuals will come in and then leave and come in. And it's like hard to track who's who, who's doing what, who's calling what shots. But that system of globalization, that it's basically an international banking system, that's through the Federal Reserve has tried to take the United States for 100 years, is trying to malign people that are like, no, American property rights, gun rights, free speech, fuck the corporation, pardon my language, but welcome to America. And that's the system that is like, so, but I do like that they're working on it. I mean, what did Cash do yesterday? Oh, the indictments. Yeah, this is, it's looking very good.

Speaker 4:
[18:40] Yeah, I mean, like, look, first of all, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Committee for Charlottesville. I mean, it's very odd. People have been saying it for years that it was riddled with feds. Everyone kind of knew that implicitly. And now we have like hard proof that that's the case. They literally put names out. In addition to that, I mean, there's something to be said about the fact of, did the SPLC try to control, again, like voices that were sort of dominating the mainstream, pushing the mainstream in different directions. No, they go after like dissident policy. They infiltrate sort of the dissident sphere, because again, that's where they can play around. That's their playground, that sort of thing. That's just kind of proof to me, it's evident to me that really the mainstream, the people that are careful, the people that keep their noses clean, is actually where all like the decision-making process. I think Charlie Kirk sort of exemplifies this perfectly, is why did they target Charlie Kirk? People made this point after he was shot, they were like, oh well, why would they shoot him? Why would they kill him? He's not even like far right. It's like, that's the point, because he is the guy that stepped into the mainstream and then pushed it in the correct direction. That's why they target effective people. And the SPLC, this is just evidence. It's like dissident nobodies, and it's just entrapment, they're entrapping vulnerable people. Everyone's known this for years, so it's great to finally see some movement on it.

Speaker 2:
[19:53] I mean, they were paying a committee, hundreds of thousands of dollars to these people. It's not like they were cutting them a $500 check and telling them to go out and start a riot. I mean, hundreds of thousands of dollars. This isn't chump change that they're playing with.

Speaker 1:
[20:05] You guys ready to have your minds blown?

Speaker 2:
[20:07] Frequently.

Speaker 1:
[20:08] You ready to have your minds blown? Welcome to Timcast IRL, my friends. First, Daily Wire, lefty anti-hate group paid white supremacists to plan infamous Charlottesville rally indictment. Y'all heard the news yesterday, right, that the SPLC was indicted because they were providing resources to a bunch of white supremacists, including an individual who was an organizer to unite the right, according to the indictment, was providing the transportation for these people, some of them, to arrive. How about this one? Georgetown Law, witness to tragedy, a victim of fake news conspiracy sues Alex Jones as well as others. And what did this man sue Alex Jones for? Gilmore is suing Alex Jones, Infowars, former congressman Alan West and others for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, for branding him a murderous deep state shill and mobilizing an army of followers to pursue a campaign of harassment and threats against him. That continues to this day. From Sandy Hook to Pizzagate to Charlottesville, Las Vegas and now Parkland, the defendants thrive by inciting devastating real world consequences with the propaganda and lies they published at Gilmore. Today, I'm asking a court to hold them responsible for the personal and professional damage their lies have caused me and more importantly to deter them from repeating this dangerous pattern of defamation and intimidation. Gilmore, a Charlottesville area resident, on leave from his career as a foreign service officer, had his phone camera running when a neo-Nazi, James Alex Field Jr. barreled his Dodge Challenger to a crowd of peaceful counter protesters. After hearing some media characterize the attack as an accident or act of self-defense, and fearing that other attacks might follow, Gilmore posted the video. They say Gilmore was contacted by media outlets to discuss his personal experience and soon became the target of elaborate online conspiracies that placed him at the center of a deep state plot to stage the attack and destabilize the Trump administration. Now, I don't know who this guy is. I don't know what Alex or anybody else said about him. The interesting thing, however, as many people are pointing out, Alex Jones made the claim at the time that Charlottesville was staged by the SPLC that these people are actors and Democrat shills coming out to make these fake events. Everybody right now is praising Alex Jones. Can you put Ian on camera real quick? You can see, we can actually see it, but just behind Ian is an Alex Jones was right jar. The issue now is, according to the news, Alex Jones and others settled with this person. I will say this first and foremost. I don't know if this guy is. And if he was falsely maligned and is not involved in whatever the SPLC was doing, then yes, you defamed some random guy who was just filming. Don't do that. However, it is interesting that the lawsuit is predicated upon the theory that the SPLC was organizing and fomenting this conflict when in fact now an indictment alleges just that.

Speaker 3:
[23:02] I wanna bring this to frame because this did get mentioned before. I think I might shift the frame around so it's in the shot behind us. We've had this for a while, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[23:10] And it's just real quick, I mean, it's so obvious what's going on here. Again, the collaboration between the SPLC and the Democratic Party. Because think when Joe Biden ran for president, when he announced his campaign for president, what was it predicated on? Why did he say he decided to run for president? He cited Charlottesville. He cited Charlottesville. He said, that's the reason I ran. When I saw that happen, I knew I had to run. And then in his announcement video, it was literally all footage from Charlottesville. This is all like the SPLC aren't idiots. We're not just throwing money around in dissident circles and like just trying to defame random people. No, this is all calculated. There's collaboration between them and the DNC. And it's abundantly clear, the entire Biden presidency was predicated on Charlottesville.

Speaker 1:
[23:45] It'd be the crazy, we don't know who the, do we know who the informant was for Unite the Right? It was just code name F37. It'd be really wild if it turns out to be this guy.

Speaker 2:
[23:56] I mean, but it brings up a broader fact as well. It's like these people that go out and, say Alex Jones makes an accusation and then all of a sudden he's being sued for it. You have to ask yourself, a lot of these attorneys, it's like $2,000 an hour to pay civil litigators to represent you when you're suing somebody unless they're doing it on contingency, which actually is less common than people think. Who is funding that? There's a huge rabbit hole that hopefully the FBI is going to go down. I'm hoping that we've just basically hit the tip of the iceberg at this point, and they can dig further down, down, down, down, to figure out who is enabling them to do this via really expensive, high-powered lawyers.

Speaker 3:
[24:43] Are you saying we're supposed to audit the Federal Reserve?

Speaker 2:
[24:46] Absolutely, yes.

Speaker 3:
[24:47] I think that when you go down the rabbit hole, you start to, first you go through the Federal Reserve, and it's like, oh, this part of the realm, and then you get to the Bank for International Settlements, and you're like, oh, God, the money is coming from Switzerland? I didn't know. Maybe, that's my guess. But I mean, you're asking more granularly, who's that money going to, that's going to, that's then going to the NGOs, probably. I'm sure it's laundered like crazy. Who knows? What do they have? The Panama paper, like the Panama papers, all those banks in Panama, I don't know, man.

Speaker 4:
[25:17] It's all a redistribution racket. Look at what the Biden administration pulled off. You talk about PPP, you talk about all these different apparatuses that were set up to extract money effectively from patriots and redistribute it among a lot of newcomers, a lot of people that are sort of in the patronage network for the Democrat Party. They set the table with Charlottesville. That set the table. It stoked racial grievance among Americans and it made it quite clear for everyday people that, oh my gosh, this is like there's an insurgency of white nationalists in this country. I need to head to the ballot box and vote for Joe Biden. And then what did Joe Biden do? Just put money right back into the patronage network. He got Kataji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court. Like all these different things that we now have to deal with. You know, everyone talks about, you know, Trump was able to overturn all of executive orders. That's true, but there's a lot of systematic damage that Biden did. It was all calculated. It was all set up. The SPLC aren't idiots. You can go look at all these names. These are like high powered influential people. These aren't just like random activists like we're used to seeing with like BLM. These are people that like know what they're doing. Again, they're being very cautious, being very prudent, being careful how to get the money moved. Again, from point A to point B, that's how you do it. You set the table for a Biden presidency.

Speaker 2:
[26:20] So this, you know, we're talking about the deep state lawyer type thing as well. Allegedly, okay, let's be clear. I'll say that to the camera right now. That's the operating word for everything I'm about to say, allegedly. I don't know if you just saw today the Blaze media guy, I guess, former Blaze media guy, the, what was his name, Steve Baker? Steve Baker with the Blaze, you know, the one that came out with this big elaborate story on who the actual capital or attempted capital bomber at the RNC and the DNC was, and it was this, I guess this former capital police officer that now works for the CIA or whatever. There's this firm, Clare Locke, right? That has now decided that they're going to jump in and represent her in a defamation suit against Steve Baker and the Blaze. And then you go back and look to see who else they have represented. Dominion voting systems, the president and first lady of France for, you know, the, Bridget McCrone is actually a dude case. Bill Gates, that's a big one. And you're like, OK, so again, who is paying for that? I'm not going to for a second believe that a police officer is able to pay that $2,000 an hour rate.

Speaker 4:
[27:40] So well, and I want to hit on the point again. And that's so true. And I want to hit on this point again. I made it earlier. But it's like people need to remember this and like look out for this in the future. As again, there's a reason why the SPLC wasn't paying guys like, I don't know, Matt Walsh or paying guys like Charlie Kirk, because those guys can advance right-wing ideas successfully. And they put like a single-handedly change the zeitgeist. They single-handedly move the Overton window, move the mainstream to where they want it to be. Again, they paid off these kind of dissident guys because again, they're not threatened by them. You wouldn't give money to someone you're threatened by. You would give money to people that you're not threatened by. And like seriously, like base guy number 454, who like spurgs on Twitter all day, that's not threatening to the mainstream in any way. We just saw evidence of that. They're paying them directly because again, it foments an environment that is actually bad for the right wing to actually succeed, for it to actually thrive. And that's why if you go to the SPLC, you'll see the guys that are actually movers and shakers are listed on the website as target number one. And the SPLC is moving money to sort of apparatchiks that actually harm those guys, that target those guys' family, that take pot shots at them if you follow the money in a lot of situations. So it's very obvious what's going on here. And again, it's really great. Let's see a super base guy on Twitter, drop a Truthnurk or whatever. But it's like, these guys aren't actually threatening to the mainstream order. They're not threatening the liberal regime as it stands. It sounds kitschy and corny to say, but guys like Charlie Kirk were effective at doing so. That's why they were put in the crosshairs of the SPLC, and that's why they weren't getting paid off by them.

Speaker 2:
[29:03] And there's actually much bigger ROI than just power that SPLC got by allegedly going in and helping to foment the Charlottesville rally. Their fundraising after Charlottesville went up tens of millions of dollars. So power, the narrative and money, great ROI for them. It all makes sense.

Speaker 4:
[29:24] And a president out of it.

Speaker 2:
[29:25] And a president, yeah. A puppet president at that.

Speaker 4:
[29:28] Yeah, exactly. Well, that was the best part, is it was a puppet president. Guess who was staffing a lot of the Biden administration? We all know now that the Biden administration was actually sort of being run and operated by a lot of his staff. A lot of those staffers came out of activist networks. We know this. You can go to their Lincolns and look at their job history. I'm not making this up. Again, they came in the activism world, again, the NGO, the nonprofit world, and then jumped into the White House. And the PPO office during the Biden administration was literally rubber stamping activists that come into the administration. At every, we're talking like labor, we're talking USDA. Everywhere you looked in the Biden administration, if you'd go through their Lincolns, again, and I'm not saying this harm these, no, you shouldn't do anything to these people. I'm just saying, look at their career history. They came out of these activist networks. That's all this was. It was one giant patronage network for the left. And honestly, the reason I am not super angry to some degree is because we should be doing that. We should be creating patronage networks for our guys. And the Trump administration is doing a great job of that. But like, let's put this in, let's kick this into overdrive. If we're going to clear out the deep state, let's fill it with patriots who have the best interests for this country in mind.

Speaker 1:
[30:31] Let's pull up this. We got it from McCormick.house.gov. Hey, there's a congressman who's trying to make DC a square again, and I'm actually in favor of it because Arlington should have never been separated from DC to begin with. However, I will also stress this will give the deep state the federal government. So the big counter to what happened in Virginia where they basically turned one small jurisdiction into five congressional districts, eliminating four Republican seats, many people have said, okay, first a court struck it down, but if they want to play hardball, then why don't we turn DC into a square and drag Arlington back into DC, eliminating that part of Virginia, excuse me. However, I will stress this, as much as we have Congressman Cormac here, proposing it as well as many others, that would mean that all of those Fairfax County deep state individuals would now be residents of Washington DC. They'd live in a federal jurisdiction. I don't know that we want to allow them to fight for representation to the federal government directly. But I'd still argue functionally, it's the right thing to do outside of any cultural issue.

Speaker 4:
[31:32] I think people shouldn't put too much stake in this. I'd love to see this. I understand the counterarguments, but I think this would actually solve a lot of our problems with the current situation. Again, I wouldn't put too much stake in this because there's two things that you could do to make DC square again. There's one, again, through congressional approval, because if you want to move state borders and you have to get congressional approval, not going to happen, especially if it gets spanked in the midterms. Okay, well, what's the other option? Trump issues an executive order, Virginia rebuffs, and then we use the DOJ to go after Virginia. That's going to go to the Supreme Court. Again, the Supreme Court's not going to uphold a DC square again. So I'm just like, I think it's fun to... But the reality, we should be more angry at the GOP. And the fact that Trump even has to even take a look at cleaning up their mess is what really the scandal is. Because I don't think there's really any chance that this could happen.

Speaker 2:
[32:15] So the, I agree, initially DC was, when they created the federal district, it was 100 square miles. It's now down to like 60 something square miles. And that's because the Congress, and there is an argument to be made that when Congress did this back in the 1800s, that it doesn't pass the constitutional muster for giving up part of the federal district, but it has never been challenged in court.

Speaker 1:
[32:38] Check that out.

Speaker 2:
[32:39] So yeah, that's exactly how it, Wow. And that's the way it should be right now. It's still on the Maryland side, it's still the same, but on the Virginia side, they ceded it over to...

Speaker 1:
[32:50] Yeah, how does that make sense?

Speaker 3:
[32:51] So that would be the city of DC, or the district would be, so then they could, because in DC you're allowed to have federal groups.

Speaker 1:
[32:58] And notice how it's lined with Washington monuments.

Speaker 4:
[33:01] It's true.

Speaker 3:
[33:02] Yeah, it probably wouldn't happen.

Speaker 1:
[33:03] That would be based. Yeah, you'd see obelisks just all around here.

Speaker 4:
[33:07] Yeah, if you can go and they're just like, you can find these monuments. They're still there.

Speaker 1:
[33:10] Oh, they're really still there?

Speaker 4:
[33:11] Yeah, look it up, there's like little stone pillars.

Speaker 1:
[33:13] George Washington.

Speaker 2:
[33:14] Really?

Speaker 1:
[33:14] Yeah, yeah, they're still there.

Speaker 4:
[33:15] Interesting. Now, the thing is, the Supreme Court's gonna give us a heat check on this.

Speaker 2:
[33:18] They're usually in areas, though, where you really don't wanna go.

Speaker 1:
[33:21] Oh, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[33:22] Yeah, they're in the hood.

Speaker 2:
[33:23] They're always in the hood.

Speaker 1:
[33:24] Are they? Yeah.

Speaker 4:
[33:25] Yeah, yeah, they're still there. Now, the Supreme Court's gonna give us a heat check on this.

Speaker 1:
[33:30] I was saying, like, gigantic. Oh, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[33:32] That'd be base. We'll get a heat check for the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship, because that also pertains to slavery-related issues. So, again, if they rule in favor of that, let's push with this, because the whole reason the Alexandria and Arlington receded back to Virginia was because Pocl was trying to basically pass abolition.

Speaker 1:
[33:50] I don't like that guy. He gave back Mexico.

Speaker 4:
[33:53] Yeah, yeah, and he was trying to ban slavery in DC, so that was kind of the concession he had to make is to give basically Alexandria and Arlington back to DC. So the Supreme Court is going to give us a heat check with birthright citizenship. If they're saying no, like some stuff pertains to the slavery era and then not, we're actually going to get a little closer to determining if this could even be viable to make DC square again, but I just don't think there's a chance in Haiti.

Speaker 3:
[34:13] No, I don't think so. It would mean that you made Arlington like federal jurisdiction, which would mean you'd see National Guard on the street corners in Arlington. I don't think the citizens of that city want to go back to that.

Speaker 4:
[34:25] Well, it's not up to them. It's up to how hard Virginia would fight it and they would fight it pretty hard as long as the hamburger is in power. You know, you could have done this when Yonkin was in charge. It actually was a little bit more viable. But no, the DOJ is going to have to go after the state of Virginia. You're losing that in this room court. There's not a chance. I don't know. Maybe there's some lawyers in the crowd that have a constitutional argument I didn't think about. But pretty much everyone I've talked to in the legal realm has said, yeah, it's pretty open and shut case. To your point, Nick, no one's even tried to challenge it in court because it just hasn't been.

Speaker 1:
[34:52] For those that don't know, under Polk, we won this massive war against Mexico and basically took everything over. Then he negotiated with them to take everything up to California and then have the Rio Grande be the barrier. But we could have actually taken large chunks of Mexico. Depending on who you ask, they'll give you different answers. I watched a documentary about it where the American people largely were ambivalent and then he decided we don't want it, so we're going to draw the Rio Grande and that's it and the war is over. And then we could have had more.

Speaker 4:
[35:23] Yeah, and that would have been an interesting situation because that would have given the Confederacy quite a bit more resources in their war. Who knows what timeline we would be in right now?

Speaker 1:
[35:30] Well, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[35:31] They probably, to say the relationship between the Southerners and the Mexicans would have been frosty would be an understatement.

Speaker 1:
[35:37] You couldn't have blockaded the Confederacy if they had more Mexican territory.

Speaker 4:
[35:41] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[35:42] Texas only joined the Confederacy due to proximity. At least that's one of the historical arguments. And then the North staged a blockade on Southern ports, which they could have shifted either in the Gulf or to the Pacific.

Speaker 4:
[35:53] Yeah. I mean, it would have just been a mess, because you would have incorporated millions of Mexicans into the country at the time. I mean, some people think that the country has always been 20% Mexican. That's actually a really recent thing. The amount of people who the border crossed was actually very minimal. Most Mexican Americans now can trace their lineage to the last few decades of more recent arrivals. In addition to that, Polk, I think he wrote this actually, or said this, is that occupying Mexico City would have been a nightmare. The amount of guerrilla resistance you would have seen in Mexico City would have just been, I mean, have you seen Mexico City now? It's already an exceptionally violent place. Could you imagine when they're angry?

Speaker 1:
[36:27] Actually, Mexico City is pretty nice. When you say Mexico City is violent, it's true in the sense that Chicago was also a very violent place.

Speaker 4:
[36:34] Yeah, but Mexico City, the cops are super corrupt too. That's the biggest problem I've heard from Westerners that live there. The cops shake you down all the time. They're more scared of the cops than they are the locals.

Speaker 1:
[36:42] I can only speak for personal experience, so you're probably right, but I would say my experience in Mexico City has been they treat wealthy Americans like royalty. I don't mean wealthy in my sense, I mean a middle class American is wealthy when you go to Mexico City. You go to the finest restaurants and the attitude that I've found and the people that I've worked with have found is cartels and police will flay a man alive for attacking a tourist. Because the story goes, there was this somewhere in the Yucatan, there was a resort town with a casino and two dudes, I think they kidnapped, raped and murdered some young women. And then all the tourists stopped. State Department issued a warning saying, don't go here, it's dangerous. So the cartel caught these guys and I believe they flayed them in public. Because after these two dumb guys murdered these women, the cartel lost $100 million a year in all the tourism money. So they were like, we're gonna make an example of anybody who would hurt a wealthy American coming here. And so, if those aren't familiar with flaying, I assume many of you are. They peeled their skin off in front of the public.

Speaker 4:
[37:49] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[37:49] Well, did you see, what was it, Puerto Vallarta? Not even that long ago, where it was like this, people were saying, oh, it's gonna be, the cartels are about to bomb the entire city of Puerto Vallarta at this point, because one of their leaders ended up being killed in a raid or something. That would be a very bad idea for them. And it's like, that's not in their interest, right? So it's, I know a lot of people were pushing that, but that was...

Speaker 4:
[38:12] We'll really see, because the World Cup coming up this summer, they're playing seven or eight games in Mexico and Guadalajara, I think Monterrey and Mexico City. I mean, the police there are going to have to be on lockdown. Cause if any of these cartels are wanting to send a message, this would be the time to do it. The interesting about Mexico is basically, because of its proximity to us, we I think correctly so view it as a quite a rough place. But on the global scale, Mexico is actually quite developed when you compare it.

Speaker 1:
[38:37] Oh dude, Mexico City is based. And I just find when you watch a movie and like Mexico is always sepia toned, like clearly you've never been to Mexico City where it's got like bright neon lights downtown.

Speaker 4:
[38:47] And it's also colder than a lot of American cities.

Speaker 1:
[38:48] Exactly. It's elevated and cold. And in the summer when it's like 90 degrees in Chicago, it's like 70 in Mexico City because it's elevated. And they have Buffalo Wild Wings. So spare me, Mexico City is based and fun.

Speaker 3:
[39:00] Is it the old Aztec capital?

Speaker 4:
[39:02] Yeah. Yeah, it is.

Speaker 1:
[39:04] But we don't say that anymore. That name is...

Speaker 3:
[39:06] Mexico.

Speaker 4:
[39:07] Mexico City.

Speaker 1:
[39:08] You see that?

Speaker 4:
[39:09] The Roman neighborhood there is lovely. I mean, there's some really nice places, but the thing is the rent there is getting driven really high because a lot of Americans that work remote are moving out of Mexico City. And there was this video that went viral a few years ago. There's a native sentiment, like getting stoked to Mexico City. Because a lot of people, Mexican people are like, what are all these foreigners doing here?

Speaker 3:
[39:27] Get them out of here.

Speaker 4:
[39:28] I'm sick of these foreigners. I'm like, all right, kind of based. But no, I don't know. I'm split.

Speaker 1:
[39:32] I agree with them.

Speaker 4:
[39:33] I'm split.

Speaker 1:
[39:34] Like Americans are going down there and asking for tacos. They give them soft shell tortillas because they don't have hard shell tortillas. They're like, I want Taco Bell. And then they're just like, a what?

Speaker 4:
[39:44] That'd be me.

Speaker 1:
[39:45] You're like, I would like a hard shell taco with cheddar cheese. They would go, we have neither of those things.

Speaker 3:
[39:50] I just need corn.

Speaker 1:
[39:52] They have that. They have that.

Speaker 4:
[39:54] Doritos, Locos, taco.

Speaker 1:
[39:55] And tortillas are thicker down there. The other thing people didn't understand is that Mexican food, we call it Mexican food, it's Tex-Mex.

Speaker 4:
[40:01] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[40:01] You go to Mexican food, you order Mexican food, you're going to get chicken and rice.

Speaker 4:
[40:05] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[40:05] And then you're like, I want a burrito. And you're going to be like, you want a little donkey?

Speaker 4:
[40:08] Right. And the people there are thicker too. They have a higher obesity rate in the United States. A lot of people don't know that. And in addition to that, another funny thing about Mexico is you remember that craze for a while people were like, you got to buy Mexican Coke. You know, Mexican Coke. Oh yeah. Yeah. It's the only other country on planet earth that also used high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. People were importing a bunch of it. I mean, some of it was cane sugar, but a lot of people were importing cans, like in California and they'd get it. And they're like, oh.

Speaker 1:
[40:34] Well, because it's the coke in a bottle that's specifically manufactured with cane sugar. If you go to Mexico City and grab a bottle of coke, it's high fructose corn syrup. There will be a plastic bottle in Spanish. You'll grab it, el high fructose corn syrup-o.

Speaker 4:
[40:48] Yeah, but you know where you can get it with cane sugar? Canada. So we should have been importing Canadian Coca-Cola the whole time.

Speaker 1:
[40:53] No, no, no, no. I don't trust Canadians.

Speaker 4:
[40:54] I think people got confused ordering Mexican coke in Los Angeles and Benders.

Speaker 1:
[40:57] Snowback offensive. Is that racist?

Speaker 4:
[40:59] I don't think so.

Speaker 2:
[41:01] Snow Mexicans, they really get mad at us.

Speaker 4:
[41:05] People call them frost monkeys.

Speaker 5:
[41:08] It's so loud because they're white.

Speaker 4:
[41:11] I love Canadians. I'm one of the few people in the conservative commentary that backs up Canadians, but that is really funny.

Speaker 1:
[41:16] I will give them poutine. And I don't mean generic poutine. I mean like legit poutine restaurants where they got all the fix-ins and there's different flavors. Like the way I would describe it, having, I hung out in Montreal quite a bit and sometimes Toronto. Poutine is like saying nachos. You know, so it's like if you tell someone nachos, they're imagining tortilla chips with cheese on them. But you can get like barbacoa nachos, you can get jalapeno and sour cream or salsa or pulled pork. That's what poutine is like.

Speaker 3:
[41:44] Poutine is the vessel.

Speaker 4:
[41:45] And I kind of had to have a go-off moment too. This is my gripe with people that just like dunk on Canada all day. It's because it's safe. It's not threatening to like liberals at all to like make fun of Canadians or French people or British people because they're also white people. That's fair game. But people will like chest beat on all day about Canada or Britain. And then when India comes up, all of a sudden, they have nothing to say whatsoever. And it's like, if you ask people in Middle America, which country is like, which nationality is like actively destroying their standard of living, they'll point to India. But yeah, people will just go off all day about Canadians. And then like as soon as like a third world country comes up, nothing to say.

Speaker 2:
[42:17] Have you seen the population, the demographic makeup of Canada recently?

Speaker 4:
[42:22] It is getting, you know, to the point where the location feature on Twitter is kind of useless because I'm like, I think I'm debating a Canadian, but I'm not sure.

Speaker 2:
[42:29] Yeah, no, it's wild. And that's why I honestly, I think that we should be, after we get this southern border wall done, maybe we try a northern border wall because I mean, don't let anybody in at this point. It's wild. The, how far down the country has gone in such a short amount of time, actual Canadians are going to be a minority sooner than later.

Speaker 1:
[42:51] Yeah, there is no Canadian. Remember? That's the ethos. That is the mentality of the Canadians. They just gave back that land in British Columbia. Remember that? There's a bunch of white Canadians who lived in this land and Native Americans sued saying that's their ancestral fishing, springtime fishing land and a court ruled correct. The land belongs to them. And now the people who live there actually live in a Native American reservation.

Speaker 4:
[43:16] That's just what happens when you have like undisturbed Anglo neuroticism. That's what you get in a country like Canada. Where America, like we had some other groups come in to like keep all the Anglos from going to like introspective. But when you leave them all alone up there and it's that cold, they start like really overthinking things and the next thing you know, they're like, we should bring 10 million Indians in. Like, let's just see what happens.

Speaker 2:
[43:36] Yeah. You know, what's really disturbing is the amount of Western countries that have been signed up into hating themselves.

Speaker 4:
[43:41] Yeah, literally.

Speaker 2:
[43:42] Like you go over and you're seeing videos increasingly come out of places like the UK. I don't know if you saw this video the other day with The Wall where this third-worlder was. He didn't climb over the wall, so he decided to start destroying the wall.

Speaker 1:
[43:54] I don't think you want to climb over it. I think it was just breaking up.

Speaker 4:
[43:56] It was like a Fortnite moment, you know?

Speaker 3:
[43:59] Why won't my pickaxe work?

Speaker 4:
[44:01] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[44:01] Why is it taking so long?

Speaker 4:
[44:02] You see Restore Britain's ad where they just, their entire ad was just the wall. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 5:
[44:07] It's like brilliant, brilliant.

Speaker 2:
[44:09] But I mean, like, how long until people are finally like, okay, you know what, maybe this was a bad idea.

Speaker 4:
[44:15] Well, there's still liberals in South Africa.

Speaker 1:
[44:18] The issue is this, we here all right now agree that we like being on Timcast IRL. If for some reason we made the mistake of inviting in seven people who are liberals and hate this show, we may then recognize it was a mistake to invite them in as they smash the cameras. Then when we all say, let us vote to remove these people, they look at us and say, and who and you and what army? And we're going to be like, well, it's our house. Not anymore. It's not, there's more of us than you.

Speaker 2:
[44:45] And that's why Nigel Farage flipped. That's why all of a sudden he's like, you know what, we're going to embrace all the Muslims and such.

Speaker 4:
[44:53] So why are you MPs from Bangladesh? Big deal. Yeah. What? What are we doing here?

Speaker 1:
[44:57] I mean, is British even really a word?

Speaker 4:
[44:59] Yeah, literally. I know. It's just like, it's totally ridiculous. And then to your point, when there's no limiting principle on liberalism, like look at South Africa, there's still white liberals in South Africa, as bad as things have gotten. They literally are just shy up to your point. They're literally, they have the cognitive dissonance among these types of people. This is why, I make the case, democracy inherently is flawed, because again, people just don't have a sense of self-preservation. They don't understand, again, how to maintain things that were built for them, how to leave the place better than they found it. They just don't have their propensity. I'd like to say it stems from something more esoteric, like they have deep self-hatred and they're taking that on their people. I think these people are just like the actual genuine believers that the system will work. I think it might be as simple as that.

Speaker 2:
[45:46] Is it not because they're trying to repent, because they're like, oh, you're such a heartless Germany, for example, right? These Germans, even the young Germans are taught that, okay, you know what? You still need to make up for what your grandfather did in World War II, and so you need to bring in all these third worlders and make up for it.

Speaker 3:
[46:05] Probably because the liberal economic order did win after World War II and just stole the world's wealth, they basically set up banks and everything. So I guess maybe there is that, like, okay, we do need to give back some of it, but the way they do it, like the problem with liberalism is, you're having your friends over for a party, I meet you for the first night, maybe, you come with Tim to the party, and he's like, hey, my buddy Nick's here, and I'm like, oh, hey, we meet, and you're like, come on in, man. Then liberalism's like, okay, now the next guy comes to the party, and he's like, got seven dudes behind him, and they're looking at the ground, you don't even know if they're not speaking, and then you're like, come on in, I guess, and you don't know who they are. That's the problem with liberalism on fucking steroids. So that's what's happened. People are like, well, if he's with you, I mean, I can't turn him away. And that's the thing, like at some point, the cops come in, they're like, where are those dudes?

Speaker 4:
[46:54] Literally someone will be walking through New York City, and then they'll see an Indian restaurant, and they're like, wow, I love Indian food. I'm so glad these people are all here. And then if they see a crime perpetrated by an Indian person, I'm just using any third world country in this example, they will say, well, that's because of failed Republican policies. The only reason they're behaving like that is because my system hasn't quite been flushed out. So they will accept the ones, I guess, upside, which is, wow, great, you have more food options. And then everything that's bad that comes out of that is because, again, these chuds are holding things up, they're holding up progress. If we could finally get them out of the way, then we'll have our Obama wholesome, chungus, post-racial democracy. And then it's just not the case. I mean, it's not the case.

Speaker 2:
[47:33] So I don't know if you saw today Chris Murphy who went out on the floor, the same guy that said that the whatever the story about ended up not being real. The story about Iran running the US Navy.

Speaker 1:
[47:43] Oh, right. The ghost ships. Yeah, the ghost ships.

Speaker 2:
[47:45] And so he was on the House floor or Senate floor today saying, you know, complaining that the Trump administration wants to send back a thousand Afghan, quote unquote, refugees and not send back, actually send them to the Congo. I mean, I guess you can go home and go to the Congo. Those are your two options. And, you know, I can't get over this fact. If I give you a bowl of jelly beans, 50 of them, and one of those jelly beans is laced with cyanide, are you going to eat any of the jelly beans out of the jar? No, of course not. And so he's trying to make the argument that even though, yes, there was one Afghan refugee that we brought in without any sort of vetting, and he may or may not have killed a National Guard soldier in Washington, DC., but, you know, the rest of them need to stay anyway.

Speaker 1:
[48:29] I'm not a fan of that argument, the poisoned M&Ms argument, because it can be applied in any circumstance of nuance. So you could say, you know, look, your kids might play outside. When you were little, you played outside, right? I would go out and ride my bike until the streetlights turned on, and then you come back home. Now there was a story where a kid was walking to a Dollar General one mile, and his parents got arrested for it. And they said, your kid is unattended. The kid was like 10 years old. And people are freaking out, being like, this is insane. Kids need to be able to go out. But I'll tell you this, not everybody, not every stranger your kid's gonna meet is gonna be a pedophile or criminal, but some of them are. Now imagine you had a ball of M&Ms, a hundred of them, and only one was poison. Go ahead, take a handful. You can let your kid go play outside ever again? Nope. See, that's why I reject that argument.

Speaker 2:
[49:20] But I would say that that is a totally different argument than what I'm making, though. These people do not serve any sort of benefit to our country.

Speaker 1:
[49:26] That's a different argument. What I'm saying is...

Speaker 2:
[49:27] We don't need to bring them here at all.

Speaker 1:
[49:29] That's fine. We never should have been here. But I think using the bowl of M&M's analogy is... It's used by feminists. It's used by... Like, woke for every single circumstance ever. They say the same thing.

Speaker 3:
[49:41] If I invited 15 people over and one of them broke stuff and I kicked everybody out, that would be crazy.

Speaker 2:
[49:45] I'd probably do that too. People are coming over.

Speaker 1:
[49:48] No, I actually, yeah. I agree with Nick on that one.

Speaker 4:
[49:51] Never have people over again.

Speaker 1:
[49:52] Maybe I shouldn't have get-togethers because people disrespect myself.

Speaker 3:
[49:54] Well, I might think that, but I wouldn't blame the other 14 people because that one guy.

Speaker 1:
[49:58] No, I would.

Speaker 4:
[49:59] I bring 15 guys over. One of the guys, I'm going to smash him up, Steve. He'd be like, I don't know which one's smashing up Steve.

Speaker 1:
[50:04] Which one of you did this?

Speaker 4:
[50:05] Don't come over.

Speaker 1:
[50:08] More importantly, the better way to describe it is, if you invited 15 people over for a get-together and one of them smashed your stuff, you'd be upset and say, maybe I shouldn't have get-togethers. It's actually much easier than doing that. As you pointed out with Smashing Up Steve, don't invite over a group of people called the Wrecking Bros, famous for going and smashing up people's houses during parties.

Speaker 3:
[50:29] So Steve gets deported.

Speaker 1:
[50:30] So be a little bit discriminatory in your invitations for your get-togethers.

Speaker 3:
[50:34] Smashing Up Steve would have to go, but the other 14 guys, I'd be like, well, I don't know, I'd be scared. So my imposter would be like, I gotta get all of them out.

Speaker 1:
[50:41] It's a really easy situation. Don't take a handful of M&Ms if one's poisoned. Run them through your poison detector before eating it.

Speaker 2:
[50:48] But we didn't do that.

Speaker 1:
[50:49] But we did not do that.

Speaker 2:
[50:50] So they gotta go.

Speaker 1:
[50:53] So when I invite 15 people over, I ask them, are you a part of the quiet and peaceful brothers or the wrecking brothers? We're wrecking bros. You can leave?

Speaker 4:
[51:03] Yeah, the vetting was quite, and it's still this way. Like for example, you apply to an ester to come to the United States. One of the questions on there is, do you plan to commit terrorism? We got them. It's like, dang it! Do you plan on committing any like mass genocide? You're like, yeah, you got me.

Speaker 1:
[51:21] You know that old trope where it's like, if a cop's trying to buy drugs, they have to tell you if they're a cop, otherwise it's entrapment. It's just literally not true. It's never been true. There's that movie, I can't remember which one it was, but the actor, I think his name is like, was it DJ Qualls or whatever? He's buying drugs and the guy's like, are you a cop? And he's like, no, I'm not a cop. Well, you got to tell me if you are. And he's like, he was like, right, I'm not a cop. It was okay, here's the drugs. He's like, freeze, don't move, I'm a cop. He's like, what? And he's like, bro, it's not a movie.

Speaker 4:
[51:48] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[51:48] Well, it was a movie, but you know.

Speaker 2:
[51:50] But I mean, so I know we, people have been probably, I mean, this was years ago now, the Afghan withdraw, where they brought over all these people on C-17s, just plane loads full. They were actually overloaded with people coming over from Afghanistan.

Speaker 1:
[52:07] You remember those planes were inflatable? You remember that?

Speaker 2:
[52:11] Well, the, and so we know that a lot of these people were not vetted. That's already been proven. DHS has come out and admitted that at this point, that these people were not properly, there was no way to properly vet them. I mean, that was a lie from the start. But when you look at these, the millions and millions of people that came across the southern border, what was the first thing they did when they crossed over the border? They ditched their IDs so that you wouldn't know what their actual names were. So there are millions of them that are here and they don't even know the names of. They just make up names.

Speaker 1:
[52:39] They were claiming that in the videos of Afghanistan, these were big inflatable fake planes to make it look like something was going on when it wasn't.

Speaker 5:
[52:47] It's like the fall of Saigon.

Speaker 1:
[52:48] Doesn't the bottom one look inflatable?

Speaker 4:
[52:51] The Afghanistan, they're like, OK, we're supplying our base. We've got to make sure we have our inflatable cargo jets. Just in case we got to withdraw and they try to jump on the plane.

Speaker 1:
[52:58] Loam up, boy.

Speaker 3:
[52:59] Did they fake the Afghan withdrawal? Is this like the moon landing?

Speaker 1:
[53:03] The whole country's still there.

Speaker 2:
[53:04] We told you we want to fake this. This was horrible.

Speaker 1:
[53:06] We covered this on the show.

Speaker 3:
[53:07] I wasn't here when we talked about it.

Speaker 1:
[53:09] Yes, you were. You were on the show as we talked about this, bro, in 2021.

Speaker 3:
[53:16] That's possible.

Speaker 1:
[53:17] I'm pretty sure you were like full time in the co-host chair when we were covering this.

Speaker 3:
[53:21] Possible, but I'm pretty sure.

Speaker 1:
[53:24] There's a lot of things you're buying on.

Speaker 4:
[53:26] Planes are pressurized, so they're all inflatable in theory.

Speaker 1:
[53:29] That's correct. Let's jump to the story. We've got major, major news here. So you know the story about the now, what is it, 13 scientists who have disappeared? Wow. Bro, something.

Speaker 2:
[53:39] Another one that came out today or something?

Speaker 1:
[53:40] Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think there is another one. It's just there's so many I've lost count of which ones do and which ones not. So I'm gonna attack onto this. I wonder if these people aren't actually dead. I wonder if they were recruited. The story with this woman is that she was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. However, according to conspiracy theorists, because I don't know if this is true, she was quickly cremated and the father just stopped talking about it. Which sounds pretty crazy and sounds like, okay, she had texted a friend, check this story out, saying, let me read you the quote. She said, if you see any report that I killed myself, I most definitely did not. If you see any report that I overdosed, I most definitely did not. If you see any report that I killed anyone else, I most definitely did not. She was texting a friend of his one month before she allegedly killed herself. Then according to, I say this according to his experience, because from the news, this is what we have. Then from threads and independent researchers, they said she was quickly cremated by her father and he just dropped the subject, he doesn't talk about it, he says there's nothing to see here. And maybe that's the case. I don't want to drag a dad over his dead daughter or anything like that. However, if you were going to recruit someone into black operations, they would die and then be cremated and their body is gone. Take a look at this. Colin Rugg tweets, a NASA nuclear scientist was found deceased in his Tesla after colliding with a guardrail, leaving his body so burned that he was completely unrecognizable, according to Fox News. 29-year-old Joshua LeBlanc, who worked on nuclear propulsion projects, died in a fiery crash of the summer. His family at the time said they feared he had been abducted when he left his phone and wallet at home. Every one of these stories has involved an individual who for no reason left their phone and wallet before disappearing. Dude, this is, who does this?

Speaker 3:
[55:31] This is like an epic story. This is like a movie. And it's, the movies are, they come from real life, where the government will come and say, we need your services. It's not, we're not asking. And they'll do whatever within the bounds of potential to make it real.

Speaker 1:
[55:45] The fact that their bodies are like cremated instantly or unrecognizable gone, that these people disappeared and their bodies are unknown, and all of them, all of them left their phones and wallets before disappearing, which, bro, when you walk outside, I thought your phone in your wallet and you're going, oh crap, what did I do?

Speaker 3:
[56:04] Yeah. And that means some untrackable.

Speaker 1:
[56:06] What I think, so one of the conspiracy theories, I tweeted about this. It's so funny because people are nuts. But one of the conspiracy theories is that this is actually people from the future. Not kidding. People actually think this. They think that the reason we don't see time travelers. So here's a theory. If time travel is possible, we would see time travelers because they'd be traveling all throughout time. Maybe we don't invent time travel for 1,000 years, but 1,000 years from now, they'll travel back to now. So the conspiracy theory is, and there's so many of these, but I love them, I love them. Future people came back in time and are fomenting their own future. So with advanced technology, we don't detect them. The average person does not see them because they know with time travel where to travel to that no one will find them. They can literally look in the time record and be like, if we go to this abandoned warehouse, no one will know. Then with advanced technology, they take over the government. Then Dan Bongino gets in there and he's all bright-eyed and his eyebrows are blinking and he's got a big smile on his face as he walks in the DOJ and says, it's time to expose Epstein. And then, a guy from the future appears and he hovers over to Bongino and says, no. And then Dan's like, I'm kidding by the way.

Speaker 2:
[57:15] But didn't he say at one point when he was on Fox, he was sitting inside of the Hoover building that he has seen things that has changed him forever? You know, things like that. I mean, I think that was one of the arguments that were made, like something paranormal or...

Speaker 1:
[57:29] I'm hoping that it's greater Earth, because I love that idea. The idea that the seven continents are surrounded by an ice wall on the planet and Earth is actually three times bigger.

Speaker 3:
[57:38] It might be like, I think time is a racket. I think it's a Psyop. You know, it's one way humans use to coordinate movement. But these entities are always here, whether they... And they see the entire battle, the entire thread. So like, they might be taking orders from another species that is throughout time.

Speaker 1:
[57:57] How crazy would it be if, like, extra temporal entities came to humans and they were like, we are going to destroy all of mankind. And then Epstein and Hillary Clinton were like, stop. You can't destroy humanity. And they were like, then cut a deal with us. You must deliver us children to eat. And Epstein cries and he's like, no, I'll never do it. I'm like, then all of earth will be destroyed. And he's like, stop. Fine. I'll bring you children.

Speaker 3:
[58:22] He was like, no, I'll blackmail every one of them. Let's get them.

Speaker 1:
[58:26] He blackmails all the extra temporal beings.

Speaker 3:
[58:29] And now they're like, we can't release the fight.

Speaker 1:
[58:31] Hillary Clinton, she's like, no. And then she's like, Jeffrey, you'll be hated forever. And he's like, but I'll do it to save humanity.

Speaker 2:
[58:38] I do what I must. But did you see today, there was another paranormal researcher, a UFO researcher that specifically tweeted in 2022, December 11th of 2022, I plan on living, not suicidal at all, just concerned about David Wilcock.

Speaker 3:
[58:58] Wow.

Speaker 2:
[58:58] I plan on living, not suicidal at all, just concerned about what happens when you prove God is real. And today, police say he killed himself.

Speaker 3:
[59:07] This was a sad one. I think they say he was standing outside his house with a weapon. And when the police approached him, he used the weapon on himself.

Speaker 1:
[59:15] Yeah, but was he going, I can't stop, please. Extratemporal beings could move you, you know.

Speaker 3:
[59:25] Bro, David, I was sad about him on the drive over because he was kind of a well-known, under-the-radar, fringe researcher talked about.

Speaker 1:
[59:32] I don't know what's happening. You know what's really crazy is Jeremy Reese was on the call with Amy Eskridge when she was talking about how they've already discovered anti-grav tech.

Speaker 3:
[59:39] He actually texted me like five days ago. He's like, there's a lot going on.

Speaker 1:
[59:41] We should bring him back. He hasn't been on for a couple of years on in 2021, I think.

Speaker 3:
[59:46] Yeah, something like that. Now's pressure. I'll tell him.

Speaker 1:
[59:49] Oh, we got to bring them on. Yeah, the alien was an scientist.

Speaker 3:
[59:52] Yeah, Jeremy risk the alien scientist on YouTube. He's been doing deep, dark research in research into dark things for about 16 years. The guys he inspired me in 2010 to get more involved.

Speaker 1:
[60:02] But I mean, dark things like Ashton Forbes was checking her two years ago.

Speaker 3:
[60:06] And that'd be fun to get them in a room together because they had beef and they're both smart guys.

Speaker 1:
[60:10] And then we disappear.

Speaker 3:
[60:13] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[60:14] But I just want to make sure. Listen, listen, if there's any future people out there or lizard people or Tartarians or Atlanteans or aliens or whatever, it was all Tate.

Speaker 3:
[60:22] But the question is, if you got the call, the government's like, we need you now. Would you go?

Speaker 1:
[60:28] Actually, the CEO of the company isn't, it's Canary M. Burns.

Speaker 3:
[60:35] Canary M. Yeah. Because, okay, once you go.

Speaker 1:
[60:38] You guys are just so uncultured. You get a pass because you're like 17.

Speaker 3:
[60:42] I think he was talking about the Simpsons.

Speaker 5:
[60:44] I have not seen all of them either.

Speaker 3:
[60:45] Do they let these scientists out later? I think they do.

Speaker 1:
[60:48] And it's like, come on, you guys. The CEO of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant was Mr. Burns' Canary. So that when he got in legal trouble, he said, actually, it's not me, it's the Canary. It's genius. Canary M. Burns. So when they look for CM Burns, they're like, that's not me.

Speaker 3:
[61:09] I wonder if the next phase of life is working for the government. And I don't want to...

Speaker 2:
[61:13] That sounds horrible.

Speaker 5:
[61:14] What are you talking about?

Speaker 3:
[61:16] I want to help humanity. Obviously, government's a great way to do that.

Speaker 4:
[61:20] The post office is hiring.

Speaker 3:
[61:22] Post office? I mean doing deep quantum teleportation technology.

Speaker 4:
[61:28] It's not my package. I don't know where it goes. And it appears on my friend's Porsche.

Speaker 5:
[61:31] Could be a quantum thing.

Speaker 4:
[61:32] Amazon, I don't watch them. I don't know how it works. It just shows up. It could be going through some sort of anti-gravity.

Speaker 3:
[61:38] Yo, they're in a race to do anti-gravity right now.

Speaker 4:
[61:40] To get packages delivered.

Speaker 1:
[61:41] They already have it.

Speaker 3:
[61:42] I wonder.

Speaker 1:
[61:43] That's what Amy Eskridge was saying. They already have independently discovered it. And apparently the story is she was offered black ops. They came here and said, come work for us. And she was like, no, we're going to make this public.

Speaker 3:
[61:54] Yeah, you can't. Why would you do that? That's the problem. There are some things you just don't make public. It's like the Manhattan Project. You really want to help the world. Don't give the Chinese access to anti-gravity technology.

Speaker 1:
[62:04] Yeah, but it's because the greater... Okay, joking aside about greater earth, because it's a fun conspiracy theory. And the reason why it's so fun is that it means there's many more places to go. You don't got to go to Mars. You can actually go to outside of the planet. There's more continents there. But outside of that, the general idea is just that there is an overarching cabal government that we're chickens in a chicken coop to them. China, Russia, Iran, all of this is meaningless. There is a global power structure that actually runs the show, and if you defy their technological supremacy, they kill you.

Speaker 3:
[62:38] That's what Alex Jones said is called the shadow government. I asked him the difference. What's the difference between the deep state and the shadow government? He was like, well, the deep state, we all know what the deep state is, the bureaucracy that tries to run. The shadow government's in place in case of thermonuclear war. Everything goes down. There is a government ready to go, according to Alex.

Speaker 2:
[62:54] But don't you think, like, look, I know people, I'll wear a NASA hat every once in a while, right? And I went to the Artemis II launch, and people are like, you know, this is all fake, right? I'm like, look, seeing the inside of the government, I honestly think these people are much too incompetent to be able to fake all of this stuff. It's actually more likely that they did just orbit the moon and come back than them be able to successfully fake it.

Speaker 4:
[63:22] Yeah, I know. I mean, like, if you go back and look at the initial Apollo missions, the people that were like the most vocally angry and speculated didn't even happen were like Soviet sympathizers. And I'm not trying to go full McCarthy here, but also it was like leftists in America. They like were furious. You remember all the signs they would hold at like civil rights marches and they'd be like, all this money for Rockets, but no money for like black youth. And it's like, I think that's kind of like what drove a lot of it.

Speaker 2:
[63:48] We've given plenty of money to black youth.

Speaker 4:
[63:50] Yeah, I know. And I always think like the, again, I'll play hardball here. I think the most of the shadowy government stuff is kind of cope because horrible things happen and they tend to happen for no reason. Like it's comforting for people to think, well, at least someone's in control, even if they're like my direct opponent, even if they hate me, at least they're in control. And I'm sort of like the world is very chaotic and the reality is no one's really in control, at least on earth. I mean, I do think God is obviously in control. But like, as far as like in our physical realm, no, actually, the world is very tenuous, the world is very chaotic, and it actually is kind of comforting to think, well, you know, this is all planned by this shadowy cabal. I'm like, I don't think it is. I really don't. I mean, one, I don't see any evidence really. But secondly, it's just like, no, I think what's more likely is what we're seeing is pretty close to reality. I mean, to your point, when we get close to like power structures, you feel the heat of actual power structures. It's a lot of incompetence, a lot of people that can't keep their mouth shut. You see leaks all the time. Just it's people that are a bit smarter.

Speaker 1:
[64:48] How would you guys feel if we actually were like North Korea? The world that we live in and the technology we consume, the internet and all that stuff, is actually just an isolated region of the planet. We think we're free. We think this is the planet, but we've actually never seen real human technology.

Speaker 2:
[65:05] But does that mean nobody here has seen it?

Speaker 1:
[65:09] It means that there are people outside. So imagine there's like 12 billion people that live normal human lives, advanced technology beyond our wildest dreams, and the inner continents are just a slave portion where we mine cobalt and stuff.

Speaker 2:
[65:25] I feel like somebody would have given some evidence of it.

Speaker 4:
[65:29] That's what the third world thinks about. For the record, this is what the third world thinks about America.

Speaker 2:
[65:34] Actually, you could look at the North Sentinelese, right?

Speaker 4:
[65:38] Literally people that are extracting cobalt and the Congo right now are like, man, we're doing this all for these American overlords. And they fly on planes, they have lighters that make fire out of nowhere. These are really amazing species, and we're stuck here banging away in these mines. That's what they think. They look at this Earth theory, that's how people in the third world think about the West, honestly. They're like, wow, these people are really, they got something going on.

Speaker 1:
[66:05] Chad GPT made this. I asked Chad GPT, what is Greater Earth Conspiracy? He explained it. I said, make a picture, and it made this, which it's not a very good understanding because it made it look, Earth looks like an eclair or like a Boston cream. You know what I mean? It's like disc shaped. But the general idea is this is what greater Earth theorists think, that the seven continents are inside this ring of ice and outside of it are the, our vast continents. And the reason why we, the reason we can't develop anti-grav technology and stuff like that is because the human beings outside of the ice wall who've been around for tens of thousands of years are way more advanced and just kill you if you try to escape.

Speaker 4:
[66:44] But look at the picture, look in the bottom left, there's the ice wall goes through the Midwest. You can see the floor.

Speaker 1:
[66:49] It does. Yeah, it's not a very good image.

Speaker 4:
[66:51] It's a lot closer than we thought.

Speaker 5:
[66:53] It's kind of like the hollow.

Speaker 4:
[66:54] Wait, Canadians are, Canadians are stuck in the matrix.

Speaker 1:
[66:57] Wait, I actually got a, Chad GPD made a better one.

Speaker 4:
[67:01] Oh, and then there's a second earth.

Speaker 3:
[67:03] That's interesting.

Speaker 5:
[67:04] Ooh.

Speaker 3:
[67:05] That's some old hyperborea. The prison is in your mind. They want you to think you're locked inside of an ice wall so they can do what they want to you, like the chicken.

Speaker 5:
[67:16] Fake moon landing.

Speaker 3:
[67:17] Little do they know, we're all neighbors.

Speaker 4:
[67:19] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[67:20] I can't get into this ice wall thing. I mean, I've never heard of it before.

Speaker 2:
[67:23] You never heard of Greater Earth?

Speaker 3:
[67:24] No. Beyond like the galactic accretion disk, there might be heavy doses of ice, but I don't really see evidence for it. I'm talking galactic scale.

Speaker 1:
[67:33] Also, the important thing to understand is, this is no different than claiming, you know, reptilians live underground at the Denver airport. This is a conspiracy theory. That's a good one.

Speaker 3:
[67:42] There are humans that have been living underground for a long time and-

Speaker 1:
[67:45] No, no.

Speaker 4:
[67:45] Yeah, in Las Vegas.

Speaker 1:
[67:46] I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Ian. The theory is, that's true.

Speaker 4:
[67:49] The Jewish people in New York.

Speaker 2:
[67:51] Oh, like, in the tunnels under-

Speaker 1:
[67:53] The theory is that when the meteor struck and clouded up the atmosphere, there was a more intelligent species of dinosaur that went into caves.

Speaker 3:
[68:02] The Yucatan one, 63 million years ago.

Speaker 1:
[68:04] It went into caves to avoid the catastrophe and lived underground off lichen and moss and other stuff and water. And so they cannot come on the surface because they've developed for tens of thousands or millions of years with no light. So sunlight burns their skin. So they operate a vast network underground of advanced technologies.

Speaker 3:
[68:23] Now that's that's a bigger take because we don't have evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs. But 13,000 years ago when Atlantis seems to have been dominating the planet, it's possible that they went a lot of people went underground and then the meteors hit. Maybe they unexpectedly, of course, but that they're still there.

Speaker 5:
[68:40] You see in the movie The Descent, it's kind of about that. Like in the caves, there's like people in there.

Speaker 3:
[68:45] Someone said they're coming out soon.

Speaker 4:
[68:46] And also usually the explanation like worked out for us. Like, okay, let's just steel man the moon landing. We faked it to demoralize the Soviets. It worked. They collapsed like 23 years later. So it's like, that's awesome. Great work CIA. Like this is why we pay you guys.

Speaker 1:
[69:01] Here we go. This one's a little bit better.

Speaker 3:
[69:04] All right. So what's the, that's the ice wall.

Speaker 1:
[69:06] Oh, yeah. This is what greater earth theorists believe. And outside of the ice wall is Tartaria and Atlantis. And it attached itself to the great mud flood conspiracy theory. Do you know what that one is, Nick? No, there's a conspiracy theory about the great empire of Tartaria, which was a planet spanning one world government, a great empire. And when a great flood happened, waters washed over all of the cities. Anybody who's ever experienced a flood knows after a flood, there's a thick layer of mud. So the mud flood is the great flood of Noah, washed over the earth and left 10, 20, 30 feet of mud, which then hardens. And the buildings that we occupy in some cities are actually much older than we think. And that's why there are weird instances where you can see half of a doorframe buried in the ground. Like there will be sidewalk and half a doorframe sealed off. And people just go like, why does that building have a door there? The real answer is because there probably used to be a cellar door that they filled in. But of course, people who are bored will just be like, because when the flood happened.

Speaker 3:
[70:06] But man, if you look at the ricotte structure in northwest Mauritania, that's where they think the capital of Atlantis was. It was covered in mud. And the Mu are the people in the Pacific, the MU is how they spell it. They were like a Pacific spanning civilization apparently that was just submerged during the flood. Because it's called isostatic change in the Earth's crust. It was compressed by a bunch of ice in the Northern Hemisphere. When the meteors hit, it melted all that ice. So the decompression, the land itself came up because of that isostatic pressure was released. So land elsewhere on the planet went down as it came up to compensate and they sunk. So not only were they hit with the flood, they sunk. That's what happened. I think they were all these sieves.

Speaker 1:
[70:48] This is the kind of stuff. I'm not sure what is insinuating, but it's probably something dumb. And this guy, Flat Earth said, why are there three to four floors buried underground with windows? That's the kind of thing that people go like, hey, wait a minute. And they claim it's proof of a great mud flood.

Speaker 3:
[71:03] Is that Gobekli Tepe?

Speaker 1:
[71:04] That?

Speaker 2:
[71:05] No.

Speaker 3:
[71:05] I wonder if Gobekli Tepe was hit by a flood or if they just buried it because it's mostly underground. That's where they think civilization recovered 13,000 years ago in Turkey. It looks like a trade hub or something.

Speaker 2:
[71:17] Yeah, I prefer to report on the ice as we know it today. Immigrations and customs enforcement, not a great ice wall or whatever. So this is all news to me. It's interesting. But so where is this? Do we even know?

Speaker 1:
[71:33] I don't know. I just looked it up. This is a weird pseudo historical theory from the Russian nationalism and misunderstandings maps from Siberia known as Tartaria. Tartaria was a highly advanced global spanning empire, which was erased from history following a mud flood, which swept the empire away. And believers in this theory point to real world buildings submerged levels as proof. The wildest thing about this is that many of the buildings they point to were built in the 19th and 20th centuries. They think the empire fell very recently, but the survivors erased Tartaria from history.

Speaker 4:
[72:01] Yeah, the the Ricotte structure, is that what it's called? That one's actually a little weird. I mean, that seems like it was probably a meteor hit, right?

Speaker 3:
[72:08] The Ricotte structure, they believe it was formed. We could pull this up, too, if you want to, to the Ricotte structure.

Speaker 4:
[72:13] R-I-C-H-A-T.

Speaker 3:
[72:15] Yeah, that it was an underground volcano.

Speaker 1:
[72:17] Let's pull up Google Earth.

Speaker 3:
[72:18] Yeah, you can see it literally. Go straight to Google Earth. Oh, it's so cool.

Speaker 2:
[72:23] Straight to the news.

Speaker 3:
[72:24] Oh, yeah, it was under, there it is in the west, that scar in the bottom left. You see this? If you type, there it is.

Speaker 4:
[72:30] Not that visible.

Speaker 3:
[72:31] I'm so familiar with it. I see it in the bottom. It's very bottom left now. See that scar?

Speaker 1:
[72:36] There it is.

Speaker 3:
[72:37] That it's an underground volcano that couldn't breach the surface, so bubbled out and rippled out. And then that was like a million years ago. And then humans settled on it when they found it. And that's all like a plateau.

Speaker 1:
[72:49] That's all mud.

Speaker 3:
[72:51] Look at the striations, the sand being pushed up onto the land from the west due to the flood. And you can see salt. That's probably likely from the ocean water that used to fill up those rings and they seem to have dug out.

Speaker 1:
[73:03] Yeah, there's also expanding earth theory.

Speaker 3:
[73:06] I believe that.

Speaker 1:
[73:07] Expanding earth theory is that the tectonic plates of earth are not actually moving into each other. It's actually a compressed ball with layers that's slowly expanding, opening outward. And so, the reason why they say the Sahara used to be submerged, the reason why Egypt used to be submerged as evidence of water damage on the Sphinx, is because when the layers of the tectonic plates are compressed, there's more water on the surface, there's less surface area, so the water gets deeper. As it expands outward, less and less, it requires more water to reach those elevations, so the water thins out as the planet expands.

Speaker 3:
[73:40] Oh yeah, like a sponge in reverse.

Speaker 5:
[73:42] Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[73:44] Or like those little toys when you had in kindergarten with the ball that you could like, you know what I'm talking about? A little spiky ball and you could squeeze it open and it would turn to a sphere.

Speaker 5:
[73:52] Yeah.

Speaker 4:
[73:53] Oh yeah. There's a lot of interest in this era, like there's the Qatara Depression in Egypt, where it's like this vast part of Egypt that's like under sea level. And there was like a proposal, the British initially wanted to nuke the strip along the Mediterranean to flood the Qatara Depression. And then the CIA quite literally, this is like all a matter of historical record, petitioned to Dwight D. Eisenhower to flood the Qatara Depression. And I think the number one reason they cited why they should do that is just because it'd be like cool. It would actually be great for Egypt, like it would actually give them a lot more arable land, so they should totally do it.

Speaker 3:
[74:24] Oh, they're talking about building a canal?

Speaker 4:
[74:26] It's called the Qatara Depression, yeah. And if you look along like the coast of the Mediterranean, the Egyptian government has explored building a canal into it and flood it. Because there's only like 40 people that live in there, they can move in pretty easily. And it's like it would create basically an inland sea for Egypt to use.

Speaker 3:
[74:38] I'm deeply interested in this stuff. I don't know how it ties into modern governance, but I have a feeling it does.

Speaker 1:
[74:46] Did you hear about the Second Sphinx?

Speaker 4:
[74:48] No.

Speaker 1:
[74:48] You guys haven't heard about the Second Sphinx? We'll pull it up for you guys.

Speaker 3:
[74:52] And I've heard that there's been more advancement into their underground.

Speaker 1:
[74:56] Look at this, guys. How did you miss this one? Second Sphinx buried under sand suggests megastructure below the pyramids of Giza. Remember when they did that Lydar or whatever and they were like, oh, there's gigantic pillars under this thing. What is going on?

Speaker 4:
[75:10] Yeah.

Speaker 5:
[75:10] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[75:10] What if the pyramid is actually not a pyramid? It's a it's an obelisk.

Speaker 4:
[75:14] Yeah.

Speaker 5:
[75:14] Oh, you're actually eight sided, too.

Speaker 4:
[75:17] What?

Speaker 5:
[75:17] Not just four side. Yeah, they're like little creases.

Speaker 4:
[75:20] Oh, really?

Speaker 5:
[75:21] You know, I want to fact check me on that. But I have heard that.

Speaker 3:
[75:24] Oh, man.

Speaker 5:
[75:24] Like went deep into the pyramids.

Speaker 3:
[75:26] You know, they dug out those those heads. I think they were called the Moai in Easter Island.

Speaker 4:
[75:31] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[75:31] They thought they were just head statues.

Speaker 1:
[75:33] But when they dug out, they were bodies as well.

Speaker 5:
[75:35] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[75:36] This is the conspiracy theory.

Speaker 5:
[75:37] Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[75:37] Oh, wow.

Speaker 4:
[75:38] Oh, it's real. There's a picture.

Speaker 1:
[75:39] Oh, that's true.

Speaker 4:
[75:41] Yeah, they dug out a part of it.

Speaker 1:
[75:42] They did. They dug out 17 quadrillion tons of earth and sand and then backed over to the helicopter to get this photograph.

Speaker 4:
[75:50] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[75:50] It was worth it, though.

Speaker 4:
[75:51] It's good.

Speaker 5:
[75:52] This is Chatchat Butee for that.

Speaker 4:
[75:54] It is interesting, like the European fascist. I mean, like the Romans were like obsessed with the obelisks and they would take them from Egypt and bring them like the obelisk in St. Peter's Basilica or in St. Peter's Square as an actual Egyptian obelisk. They just took and put it there.

Speaker 1:
[76:05] Yeah.

Speaker 5:
[76:05] There's a lot of materials. They took like all of them and brought all the one spot.

Speaker 4:
[76:09] If you walk around London, there's like eight, I think there's eight Egyptian obelisks that are just around the city of London that you can go and look at.

Speaker 1:
[76:15] I'll just tell you guys what really happened, because I know the future people told me. So 10,000 years ago, there were colonists coming to terraform Earth and settle. The colonial government got into a dispute over the structure of governance as they began to terraform the planet. I want to call it a civil war, but a conflict broke out between two factions within this colonizing military faction. It was a coup, essentially. The losers were cast down into the Americas, stripped of access to technology and left destitute, and the survivors constructed these beacons to blast a flare to the home fleet for rescue. They then came, brought them back, and they flew off into the sunset.

Speaker 4:
[77:01] Half of that story is Mormonism. Banished tribe to North America.

Speaker 1:
[77:06] Then the Banished tribe on South America eventually lost their understanding of the world because after a few generations, it's just stories. You tell your great-great-grandson that we had chariots in the sky, and they're going to be like, okay, in their mind, they're imagining a guy riding a horse in the air. And you're imagining in your mind a jet, but you can't, you can't, and then you die. And then your great-great-grandson's like, yeah, they had like chariots flying through the sky. I don't even know what it looked like. I've never seen one.

Speaker 3:
[77:34] I'm sorry, I've been thinking they're hot air balloons lately. They're like, how did they move the Egyptian, all these heavy blocks? So you put them on big platforms and then tie hot air balloons to the platforms and then you walk them with the rope.

Speaker 1:
[77:46] No, I looked this up, I looked up like, because everyone's like, how did they move the stones to build the pyramids? And I was like, well, how much did they weigh? The stones apparently weighed like 2.5 million tons. And it's like, wow, that's a lot. How many people would you need to pull that? And it's like 50.

Speaker 2:
[78:02] No, 2.5 million pounds.

Speaker 1:
[78:04] Sorry, pounds, not tons. 2.5 million tons is the pyramid itself. It's probably like that. No, but 2.5 million pounds. And it's like 50 guys with ropes over slats or whatever. And they can just drag it.

Speaker 5:
[78:16] What about up? You know, at the end?

Speaker 2:
[78:19] I mean, had they invented pulleys and stuff, champ?

Speaker 5:
[78:21] Well, I think it would be really, really heavy.

Speaker 3:
[78:23] I think they floated them up in little canals on water. And then they would lock the water off once they got to a certain elevation and then fill it up. And it would go up to the next one and then they'd lock it off again.

Speaker 2:
[78:34] So, I mean, it just makes me think here, right? If these people were that intelligent back then, how did you end up with people, you know, like kind of next door, like Ilhan Omar? How many years later? I mean, how did it fail? Where did they go wrong?

Speaker 1:
[78:51] Oh, no, it says 5,000 people. Five thousand people could pull 2.5 million pounds.

Speaker 3:
[78:57] Evolution is not guaranteed. De-evolution can always go backwards.

Speaker 1:
[79:02] Oh, I'm way wrong. I'm way wrong. I think the stones were 2.5 tons.

Speaker 5:
[79:05] Yeah.

Speaker 4:
[79:05] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[79:06] Which is 5,000 pounds.

Speaker 5:
[79:08] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[79:08] 5,000.

Speaker 5:
[79:09] Yeah, because a ton is 2,000 pounds.

Speaker 4:
[79:11] Yeah, they need to.

Speaker 3:
[79:12] I thought they were floating that those things. That's just a little too much to imagine dragging across the sand. It doesn't make sense.

Speaker 5:
[79:19] Some people say they had like trees or like the like trunks and they'd roll them. But like, yeah.

Speaker 3:
[79:25] The whole flying machine thing, I think, is very important not to overlook. The Vimana is an ancient Indian flying machine that the king would fly around on. Probably a hot air balloon or some kind of.

Speaker 1:
[79:33] Yeah, 10 to 50 people could pull one pyramid block.

Speaker 3:
[79:37] And that's across the sand with friction.

Speaker 1:
[79:40] Yep.

Speaker 2:
[79:40] So are they just pulling this out of their ass or do they actually have some reason to believe?

Speaker 1:
[79:45] Because well, I watched a video of one guy moving a 100 ton slab. There's a, I think it was ancient aliens. He had these gigantic, this gigantic concrete slab. And what he did was he dug out underneath one side of it and then he rolled it.

Speaker 3:
[80:03] Yeah, that super tall one.

Speaker 1:
[80:06] And then there was another trick that he was doing with hammering wedges into it to create a bat, like to make it teeter back and forth. And then you walk it on one. And then you have you have two people and it's just counterbelling its own weight and it walks.

Speaker 5:
[80:22] My question is like, how do they get them really high up into the air? Like there's one that's like 200 tons, but like 100 feet up into the.

Speaker 1:
[80:29] Oh, that one's obvious. Aliens.

Speaker 5:
[80:30] That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 3:
[80:31] The big ones they had to they had to tap the resources of aliens.

Speaker 4:
[80:34] Really strong guys.

Speaker 3:
[80:36] Hot air balloons is my guess.

Speaker 1:
[80:37] Is it is it confirmed that the Sphinx originally had a dog's head and the fair was like, knock that head off and put my face there?

Speaker 5:
[80:43] Can't be.

Speaker 3:
[80:44] I don't think it could be confirmed, but they think it was a lion's a lion. That's why the head looks so receded. It used to be a full on frontal lion. And then some idiot pharaoh ego maniac was probably tripping his balls for 30 years straight. It was like, my god, my father must be worshiped.

Speaker 1:
[80:59] Oh yeah, it was a lion.

Speaker 3:
[81:00] And then they came by and broke his nose off because they're like, fuck that guy's father.

Speaker 1:
[81:03] Fuck the patriarchy, the monarchy. Because people say like, you notice the head is much smaller than the rest of the body. It's disproportionate. So the theory is that it was originally a lion and then a pharaoh was like, carve its head into my face.

Speaker 3:
[81:15] Or I think it was his father's face is the conspiracy theory. Probably is what happened. I mean, who else is going to commission something like that?

Speaker 1:
[81:21] And the theory that the pyramids line up with Orion's Belt only makes sense if they were built 10,000 BC when they would have aligned with Orion's Belt.

Speaker 3:
[81:30] Yeah. Dude, Cora Nemec was saying they were sensory deprivation tanks, these sarcophagi, that they would go in them, cover up and then fill them with like salt water and-

Speaker 1:
[81:39] Well, you know why, right?

Speaker 3:
[81:40] It's awesome. To astroproject.

Speaker 1:
[81:43] When you go into sensory deprivation, you isolate yourself from all of reality, everything becomes uncertainty. Every electron, every function becomes probabilistic infinity. And then in that sensory deprivation, you can manifest reality to be what you want when you emerge.

Speaker 3:
[81:59] Oh, yeah, dude. Yeah. George St. Pierre did a sensory depre- He went to the pyramids. I think it was with- He went out there with Jimmy Corsetti, Bright Insight. And when George came out of the- You know, George St. Pierre, the MMA fighter, well, super fit. He came out of the activation chamber, they call it. He was like, I'm going to fight again. I'm going to win the championship again. Jimmy was like, what? He said he had a look in his eyes like he had been awakened. And then like a week went by and George was like, no, I don't know what I was thinking. I'm not getting back.

Speaker 1:
[82:28] You guys ever done sensory deprivation?

Speaker 5:
[82:30] No, I really want to now.

Speaker 1:
[82:31] It's like 50 bucks.

Speaker 5:
[82:32] Go do it.

Speaker 3:
[82:33] We should get up. I say we should get a tank, but it's a lot of cleaning.

Speaker 1:
[82:36] No, sensory deprivation chambers literally isolate everything. They're float tanks. They give you, it's like a little bit of water with a ton of salt so you float in it. And then there's no light, no sound, just nothing.

Speaker 3:
[82:49] Do you do that stuff, Nick, like meditation and sensory deprivation?

Speaker 2:
[82:54] No, dude, I can barely like turn my phone on silent. I'm sitting here anxious that I've missed like some some sort of like massive news stories. I'm sitting here doing the show. No, I would go crazy in a sensory deprivation chamber or whatever. That sounds like torture. Is that a CIA thing?

Speaker 4:
[83:12] There is a new method. The new method is you turn the lights off while you're showering and you enjoy the shower more because it takes away one of your senses. So a lot of people on Twitter have been saying like, I'm turning the lights off and like my life's improving.

Speaker 3:
[83:22] Wow.

Speaker 4:
[83:22] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[83:23] That sounds like just something someone made up and it's a placebo effect. People are like, sure, I guess.

Speaker 4:
[83:27] Well, it works.

Speaker 3:
[83:28] I showered in the dark four days ago.

Speaker 1:
[83:30] I heard that if you take a mallet for tenderizing meat and bash your face with it, it makes you more attractive.

Speaker 2:
[83:36] No, that's true. A Haitian must have told you that.

Speaker 1:
[83:39] No, it was clavicular.

Speaker 2:
[83:40] Clavicular.

Speaker 4:
[83:41] It's true. It works. It's a thing. I'm not endorsing it.

Speaker 1:
[83:44] I think that guy actually is retarded. And what bothers me, I'm not being a dick, I think he actually is retarded. And I think it's sad that he's clearly autistic. And I mean that in the literal sense. He doesn't understand basic social cues and social understanding of humanity. So he takes a very mathematical view of what a human is supposed to do or be. And all these people crowd around him and just clap and cheer for him and get him to do crazy things. So he's doing ridiculous drugs, he's sterilizing himself. What he's doing is no different from the trans stuff. Just drugs and surgery to mess up his brain because he's clearly a young autistic guy.

Speaker 4:
[84:18] I view him the same as like Brian Johnson, where they're kind of like astronauts, where they're like, I'm going to sacrifice my body to like see what could happen.

Speaker 1:
[84:25] No, I disagree. There's researchers in South America that are injecting themselves with gene editing technology. So they stop producing fat, so they live longer. That's more like it. Yeah, Brian Johnson is like, Brian Johnson is the guy who says, I'm going to eat a teaspoon of olive oil before dinner and live forever. And it's just like, well, OK, let me know how it goes. But there are these these genetic engineers that have gone to private islands where they can't be stopped and they're injecting themselves with gene editing viruses and stuff so that their bodies literally are genetically altered and they live forever.

Speaker 4:
[84:56] That kind of goes hard.

Speaker 1:
[84:58] I agree with that. Like of Brian Johnson, he gets blood tests, he exercises blood transfusions and he eats olive oil. Those are great things, but that's just diet and exercise.

Speaker 4:
[85:07] Yeah, but he like injects his son's blood.

Speaker 2:
[85:11] Now we're getting into Epstein type stuff here with that.

Speaker 1:
[85:14] Oh, it's true. What is it called? Is it plasmapheresis?

Speaker 2:
[85:16] That was the same guy? The injecting... I think I saw this was like a year and a half ago.

Speaker 4:
[85:21] It was like a Netflix documentary. Yeah. No, I view these guys, I view him clavicular. I view them as like, I'm being kind of unironic. I kind of view them as like astronauts. I'm like, if they want to do that, let's just see. Cause that's maybe not Brian Johnson, but like clavicular. That's like stuff everyone has access to. Everyone could do.

Speaker 5:
[85:34] Also, dude, his commitment to the bit. I was watching this interview the other day and he's like talking about height maxing. And someone's like, well, what happens if you have to like take your shoes off with a girl in the bed or something? He's like, what you can do is you can sag your pants down really low and then you can tiptoe max. Well, he also said he said he'd never get caught.

Speaker 4:
[85:52] And he also said you can have vantage points in your house. So there's like ledges around the house. You have to step up on it, look a little taller. Is he short or something? No, I think he's like average, but he wants the height mog. And then what's interesting with the vantage points thing is like they asked him the obvious question. Well, what happens if you need to move? What happens if you need to move throughout your room? He says, I don't know. You just wait for to like look away or go to the bathroom and then you move to your next room. And I'm like, this is awesome. This is like gorilla astronaut. Like, you know, like it's like, this is stuff everyone could do. Should we do it? Probably not, cause he sterilized himself. But like, it's like, I'm kind of viewing him as like a modern.

Speaker 2:
[86:25] How did he, first of all, I want to say like, you're calling it a bit. I actually don't think it's a bit. I think it's like, that's just, he has been either brainwashing to doing it through his autism or like, I don't think he's fake. I mean, doesn't he do like a 24 hour live stream? It's hard to fake it on a 24 hour live stream.

Speaker 1:
[86:42] I'm sorry, I have to apologize to Brian Johnson. He is injecting himself with experimental gene altering effects.

Speaker 4:
[86:46] Yeah, he went to like Honduras or something.

Speaker 1:
[86:48] Yeah, he went to, they call him vampire skin. And they say that he got an injection. Experimental gene therapy developed by Mini Circle based in Austin. The treatment took place at a Garm clinic, a private stem cell gene therapy facility on the Honduran island of Roatan.

Speaker 4:
[87:06] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[87:07] It's not approved.

Speaker 4:
[87:08] That whole island.

Speaker 1:
[87:09] FST 344. It's composed of a plasmid designed to combat frailty and lengthen the human lifespan by promoting the production of folistatin, a protein that supports muscle development and health. The plasmid was engineered to be easy to inject subcutaneously, cheap to manufacture and have the ability to carry any gene Mini Circle wanted to add to the body. Plasmids are literally from Bioshock, where you inject yourself and then like your hand starts on fire.

Speaker 4:
[87:33] Yeah, they're literally doing the Captain America experience on that island. Like it's crazy what's going on. I was watching a bunch of YouTube videos about it. So that's why, yeah, I view him.

Speaker 1:
[87:40] You want to do it?

Speaker 4:
[87:42] No, because I think-

Speaker 1:
[87:43] You want to live forever?

Speaker 4:
[87:43] These guys are doing it for us.

Speaker 1:
[87:44] $25,000, how about it?

Speaker 3:
[87:46] I like the idea of living until I want to stop. I don't know.

Speaker 1:
[87:51] How about we send you down to Roatown, we'll drop 25K and we'll make you live forever.

Speaker 4:
[87:54] That's why Brian Johnson's doing it for us.

Speaker 1:
[87:55] Right.

Speaker 4:
[87:55] See what happens.

Speaker 1:
[87:56] But hey, it'll also make you ripped. Yeah. Because the folostatin makes your body stop producing fat, starts producing muscle.

Speaker 3:
[88:01] It's just so early, in 20 or 30 years, once we see the repercussions.

Speaker 1:
[88:05] That'll be too late. You'll have too much genetic damage. You gotta do it now.

Speaker 3:
[88:08] Maybe.

Speaker 4:
[88:08] Now or never.

Speaker 3:
[88:09] I'm open to going and checking it out, but I'm not really a biohacker. I mean, I like to do it through diet and exercise and meditation.

Speaker 4:
[88:17] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[88:18] So an interesting thing, you guys have probably heard of Mario Nafle before, right? Of course. This guy, I used to work with him. I haven't talked to him in probably a year and a half, not because of any fault, just we parted ways and, but this guy spends a ridiculous amount of money on trying to reverse aging. And I mean, he looks, he's probably like 12 years older than I am. I'm 27. He looks younger than I do. So like at some point it does work.

Speaker 3:
[88:52] Who is this?

Speaker 2:
[88:52] Mario Nafle.

Speaker 1:
[88:53] Oh my gosh.

Speaker 2:
[88:54] Yeah. So he, I've met him in person multiple times.

Speaker 3:
[88:57] A lot of life extension out of Harvest.

Speaker 2:
[88:59] He's been here.

Speaker 1:
[88:59] He's been on the show and we did an interview with him.

Speaker 4:
[89:01] Yeah. So you've looked at him.

Speaker 2:
[89:02] He doesn't look.

Speaker 1:
[89:03] He looks like he's 20.

Speaker 4:
[89:04] Exactly.

Speaker 2:
[89:04] How old is he?

Speaker 1:
[89:06] 52.

Speaker 2:
[89:06] I'm not going to say exactly what he is.

Speaker 1:
[89:08] Look at this. Look at this video. This is wild. This is a map of immigration into Europe starting in 2008. Right.

Speaker 4:
[89:16] This is just the illegals. Golly.

Speaker 1:
[89:19] That's a swarm. Just wait. Just wait. Just wait.

Speaker 4:
[89:21] Why is this not viral?

Speaker 1:
[89:22] There you go.

Speaker 3:
[89:22] What is that? What's the red?

Speaker 2:
[89:24] What's the red?

Speaker 4:
[89:25] Syria?

Speaker 2:
[89:25] Oh, Syria.

Speaker 1:
[89:26] Ukraine. Now Syria.

Speaker 4:
[89:28] Every time there's a war.

Speaker 3:
[89:29] Oh, what? Bro. Yo, watch the insurgents.

Speaker 1:
[89:34] Is this to destroy your honestly looking at this?

Speaker 2:
[89:37] I'm like an invasion.

Speaker 1:
[89:38] Well, I'm like the only purpose of this is to destroy Europe.

Speaker 4:
[89:40] Yeah, literally. That's all it is.

Speaker 3:
[89:41] Yeah, to control it.

Speaker 1:
[89:43] No, destroy it.

Speaker 3:
[89:44] The way you control liberal democracy.

Speaker 1:
[89:45] Wait, wait, hold on. Why are Mexicans going to Europe?

Speaker 2:
[89:49] I'd rather them go there, to be honest with you.

Speaker 4:
[89:50] A lot of them go to Spain. Some might claim to their descent and some of them just go.

Speaker 1:
[89:55] I can understand why Eritreans are going. If I was an Eritrean, I would also leave.

Speaker 4:
[89:59] Every time it's red, that means that's the lead source of migration that year. So Albania used to be in the way and then it just really started kicking off.

Speaker 1:
[90:05] 2016 is Syria, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[90:10] Wow.

Speaker 5:
[90:11] Oh, man.

Speaker 1:
[90:13] Each stick man is 100 people.

Speaker 4:
[90:17] Like a handful of Americans rocking up.

Speaker 2:
[90:20] I mean, screw this.

Speaker 4:
[90:21] Obama sucks. I'm illegal immigrating to France.

Speaker 3:
[90:25] Oh, that's all of Europe. That's all of Europe.

Speaker 4:
[90:29] I can't really tell because it's swarmed like bumblebees. Oh, okay.

Speaker 2:
[90:33] What's the epicenter there though? It's worth looking at. That looks like Germany ends up being the epicenter.

Speaker 1:
[90:38] No, no, no, no, no. It looks like Greece.

Speaker 3:
[90:40] Italy, Greece, like Athens, the Mediterranean.

Speaker 4:
[90:43] They enter through the Balkans. That's how they enter the Balkans.

Speaker 1:
[90:46] So here. Everything swarms around around here.

Speaker 4:
[90:50] Yeah, the the Visegrad.

Speaker 1:
[90:52] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[90:53] And Croatians. Just kidding. I love you, Croatia.

Speaker 1:
[90:55] Look at that.

Speaker 4:
[90:56] Yes, they start where the deepest work their way in.

Speaker 3:
[91:01] Oh, man, that is the moment, dude.

Speaker 4:
[91:03] Oh, that was in Syria. Really kicked off.

Speaker 3:
[91:04] It's just like, gizz. And all this juice just flowed.

Speaker 1:
[91:08] Yeah, it looks like looks like Greece and.

Speaker 4:
[91:13] They a lot of them entered through Romania. They entered through Croatia because they're like EU ports that are easy to get in.

Speaker 1:
[91:17] I mean, it looks like Greece, to be honest.

Speaker 4:
[91:19] Greece. Yeah, it's just easy to get into.

Speaker 1:
[91:21] Well, I went there and I went to the Isle of Lesbos. That's what's called Lesbos.

Speaker 2:
[91:26] That's where the word came from.

Speaker 1:
[91:27] It is. Yes, it really is.

Speaker 2:
[91:29] Yeah, no, I believe it.

Speaker 4:
[91:31] Why? Once you enter Greece, then you're in the Schengen Zone. You don't need to pass any more border posts.

Speaker 1:
[91:36] It's really easy to get in. I watched dudes swim. They were swimming to the island. We filmed it. It was crazy. There are people standing there to help them pull them up. Then on the island is a refugee welcome center. You walk in and they'll give you food and they'll clean you up, and then people sneak out and they dip off.

Speaker 4:
[91:54] The next thing you know, they're in France.

Speaker 1:
[91:55] You're like, yep. Then the funniest thing was, when I went to France, there were a bunch of sub-Saharan African dudes standing outside saying that we were lied and tricked into coming here. I interviewed these guys. They said, we were told there would be jobs and places to live, but it's an inflatable tent. Basically, it's like a bouncy house, right? They put a fan on that goes brrrr and it blows up. You go inside and it's really cold. What the guys told me was they'd never experienced winter before, and it was terrible and they want to go home.

Speaker 4:
[92:24] Relatable.

Speaker 1:
[92:25] Yeah, they were like, I've never seen snow in my life. This is torture.

Speaker 4:
[92:28] Well, have you seen in Calais in France where it's like the staging point for people to enter?

Speaker 1:
[92:32] Didn't they destroy that though?

Speaker 4:
[92:34] They've destroyed it like three times now.

Speaker 1:
[92:35] Wow.

Speaker 4:
[92:36] And back up in the city.

Speaker 1:
[92:37] I was there and they would climb on top of trucks, semi trucks and then try and cover themselves and get brought in on the top of these trucks into the UK.

Speaker 4:
[92:47] So insane.

Speaker 3:
[92:48] Like they couldn't defeat the liberal economic order militarily, nobody could. So they're like, how do we just destroy it? I don't even think that this new world order thing wants the liberal economic order to survive in the state that it was, like British led.

Speaker 4:
[93:04] I think this reinforces the liberal world order because, I mean, look, if you can sort of turn everyone into like a beige biomass, then it's much easier to control people that way. Like if you erode national sovereignty, that's actually makes it easier for companies, massive companies. It's much easier to sell people products than for them to have identities. As in, someone can put on a Captain America T-shirt much easier than they could be a proud American or something like that. So people find their identity in consumer products.

Speaker 3:
[93:29] Like change with Nixon. I act like I'm like, I re-realize it every time I bring it up. But like, oh, obviously in the 70s, the New World Order, the liberal economic order changed the definition of what liberal economic order meant. Went from like a rules-based American led economy to a global, you know, core protocracy, essentially.

Speaker 2:
[93:48] Yeah, I know. So we've seen the videos and such of all these illegals come over on boats, especially even places like the UK, right? They'll go to France. They'll be like, this place sucks because France does suck. And then they'll be like, okay, well, I want to go somewhere less sucky. So I'm going to go to the UK instead. And so they'll take a boat to the UK and they'll end up on the coast. They'll all run onto the shore and then they're just, you know, allowed to stay. And then, Valentina Gomez, I have lots of opinions on on that whole thing, but she ended up announcing that she was, that she had a visa approved, go to the UK to speak at an anti-Muslim rally and was making a big deal about it on X. And so the British government understandably went back and said, no, we're not going to approve a visa here because she was, they made the argument that she was talking it up a lot. Like she was going to create problems when she was there. And it's like, okay, I get that.

Speaker 4:
[94:48] Right.

Speaker 2:
[94:48] So she then decided, okay, I'm going to come, but I'm going to take a boat and see what you say when I come up to your shore with a boat like all of these migrants from Africa do. And so it's like, okay, well, I guess there's a little bit of a check. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out though, to be honest.

Speaker 4:
[95:07] That's true. I mean, she's literally attacking Carl Benjamin and saying he's never done anything for England. I'm like, who are you? And she's saying this in basically broken English.

Speaker 5:
[95:15] Yeah, I know.

Speaker 2:
[95:17] This is not a representative of my country.

Speaker 4:
[95:19] She's like, the great replacement. You are the great replacement.

Speaker 2:
[95:23] You're Colombian, come on.

Speaker 4:
[95:25] I just can't. Anyone that disparages people that are actually doing effective work, I just have zero time for. But that will be interesting. I mean, if they can stop her boat, then that's evidence that they can stop these boats if they want.

Speaker 3:
[95:37] Oh, I wonder if she has, if they've determined that she has bad intentions for the fatherland if they just won't let her in. No, special exception, Valentina. You've already played your hand. You're supposed to go there quietly and calmly and then make a scene and leave.

Speaker 4:
[95:51] Yeah, that's usually what people that are like, you know, Americans or whatever intending on protesting in Britain is like, you don't tell them at the border, like, hey, by the way, I'm here to give you problems. Yeah, of course.

Speaker 2:
[95:59] And that's why I was saying, like, I totally understand why they revoked her visa.

Speaker 4:
[96:03] This was her plan the whole time. She wanted to get her visa spiked so that way she could make a scene. And it's all, she does all this just to get like 10% in the Missouri Secretary of State.

Speaker 1:
[96:13] She needs to study under Laura Loomer. Laura is the best at PR. Like, there's nobody better. Remember when she handcuffed herself to Twitter HQ? She got banned from Twitter, and that night she was the number one worldwide trend. She had illegal immigrants jump over the wall into Nancy Pelosi's property, and then she staged like a press event. I don't know of anybody who's better at getting press and generating attention than Laura Loomer.

Speaker 4:
[96:39] Yeah, I mean, if the goal is just to generate attention, like, sure, but like, let's not pretend that you're advancing right-wing ideas, and then Carl Benjamin's like, what's him all fumble? Like, what are we talking about here? Carl Benjamin, you know, has played a large part in why, like, reforms top of the polls, why restore is emerging, is because he's, like, single-handedly pushed the original. I'm not trying to glaze him, I'm just, like, trying to be realistic of, like, maybe we don't attack figures that, like, are actually pretty, like, contributing quite a lot to the to the zeitgeist, makes zero sense to me. Yeah, that's she's all like fat. He was like, I'm 46 with four kids, like, of course.

Speaker 1:
[97:13] She called Carl fat.

Speaker 4:
[97:14] Yeah, she called Carl fat. And then he was actually lost a lot of weight. I know. And then his response was so funny. He was like, well, if you're a 26 year old unmarried woman, like, of course, it's going to be a big deal to you. So I just had, like, zero time.

Speaker 1:
[97:27] 46 with what do you say? Four kids?

Speaker 4:
[97:28] Yeah, I'm not going to be like an Adonis. Of course. Like, he's great. I can't stand. I know Carl's the best. That's why I was so crazy. I just can't. The engagement baiting, the engagement farming has just gotten so out of control where it's like destroying the right. Yeah, like no one.

Speaker 1:
[97:44] No fake. It's all fake.

Speaker 4:
[97:45] No one. No British normie is going to see her like spurring out and they're going to be like, yeah, maybe maybe like this migration thing needs to be. No, they're going to like double down because they're going to see her just bro. Tucker Carlson optics are key.

Speaker 1:
[97:57] I'm tormented for having supported Trump. I apologize for this. I'm just like, man, I remember the Tucker Carlson where he was like, he got accused of being racist when he was in Australia and he's like racist. It's like my problems with liberal white women, I'm black people and it was like the funniest thing ever. And now I don't know what he's doing. He's saying like, I'm sorry for misleading you. It wasn't intentional and I will be tormented by this. And I'm just like, what? That is not the reasonable response to your criticisms of Trump. That's not sane, that's just nuts, that's just crazy.

Speaker 4:
[98:26] Especially because he was glazing like a month ago with Joe Kent where it's like, although they were like, problems with the Iran, we're like, I still think Trump's great, and like, oh, you know, pray for peace, et cetera. And then all of a sudden, a month later, he's like, I'm so sorry, I gotta pay penance now for telling people to vote for Trump or Kamala.

Speaker 1:
[98:40] I voted for Obama, to this day. I have never had this moment where I was like, I'm tormented every day. I'm sorry for having voted for Barack Obama.

Speaker 2:
[98:49] He comes across as so fake. I don't actually believe that he's being tormented, but I like Tucker as a person.

Speaker 1:
[98:54] I did. That was the line for me. I know him. I mean, he's been very nice to me. But I don't find that sincere at all. And I don't know. Like, listen, I'll put it this way. Fine, he's tormented. That's okay. But he said, was this always the plan? There's no way I will ever believe that he did not understand what Miriam Adelson's support for Donald Trump meant. Everybody knew what that meant. Donald Trump killed Soleimani. He launched missiles at Syria. He hired John Bolton. This is not surprising to any honest person. And to claim now, like, was this always the plan? What are you talking about? Everybody knew he brought on Miriam Adelson. He was taking money from her. And we know why. It was for Israel. How much surprising to anybody.

Speaker 2:
[99:34] How much did Miriam Adelson give to the Virginia redistricting? No push. I mean, anything? A dollar? $10? No.

Speaker 1:
[99:43] Can you get $200 million from her?

Speaker 4:
[99:45] But if foreign policy is on the line, she opens up the checkbook. It's crazy. I mean, there's Trump in the 80s was like, yeah, we should like, 100 million facilities.

Speaker 1:
[99:54] Between 100 and 111 million to pro-Trump super PACs to help them get elected.

Speaker 2:
[99:57] How much has she given to Galraan in Kentucky there against Thomas Massie? You know, it's...

Speaker 1:
[100:03] Has she?

Speaker 2:
[100:04] Millions and millions and millions of dollars.

Speaker 1:
[100:06] Trump said Miriam Adelson offered him another 250 million to run for a third term.

Speaker 3:
[100:11] That's funny.

Speaker 1:
[100:12] Part of me wants, I want him to run for a third term just for the lulls, for the memes, because he can't win. You know what I mean? But then it just means that it just, actually, I think he can run, but I don't think he can win. Like so technically he can run and then if he wins, just nothing happens.

Speaker 3:
[100:29] Last night we were talking about how corporations have personhood and I was just kind of, I didn't have a lot to say about it, but upon further inspection, it's that they have the rights to free speech and unlimited campaign donations. Could campaign donations.

Speaker 1:
[100:41] And that's a good thing.

Speaker 3:
[100:43] Depends on who you ask or how they do it.

Speaker 1:
[100:45] What's wrong with it?

Speaker 3:
[100:48] Because they don't have a face behind it?

Speaker 1:
[100:50] The issue is that Timcast Media is a corporation. It has employees. It's not possible to exist as a sole proprietorship. The corporation has a right to publish this news and can't be stopped by the government from doing so. That's free speech. In that the company can spend money to promote political campaigns. It can't give money to a candidate beyond campaign limits, but it can promote through its own enterprise a candidate that it likes. If that wasn't allowed, we would be barred legally from talking about Donald Trump.

Speaker 3:
[101:22] Well, you would just have to be the liability be on you instead of the corporation.

Speaker 1:
[101:26] That's not, it's not. No, you don't understand. You can't have a 40 person enterprise without a legal structure behind it. It's not possible for a sole proprietorship to have a company.

Speaker 3:
[101:40] I'm sorry. A sole proprietorship is a company.

Speaker 1:
[101:43] A sole proprietorship is a sole proprietorship.

Speaker 3:
[101:45] Come in LLC? Like a sole?

Speaker 1:
[101:47] No, that's a corporation. A sole prop would be I as a private individual doing a show and then paying contracts to people would not be financially, structurally or managerially possible. The corporate structure is so that there is an entity for which people are employees of that serve the end goals of that entity.

Speaker 3:
[102:05] But you would still be able to talk about Trump. You personally would still be fine talking about whatever you want.

Speaker 1:
[102:08] But we couldn't put it on the show because the show would be a corporate entity publishing things. And if it couldn't campaign, then the argument is any positive speech for a candidate would be campaigning and it would be illegal.

Speaker 3:
[102:19] That's a big, that's like a Supreme Court conversation.

Speaker 1:
[102:23] They already had it and they've already agreed.

Speaker 3:
[102:24] I mean, how many times have we sat here and talked about a candidate?

Speaker 1:
[102:26] A newspaper is a corporation. The newspaper publishes an amalgam of voices and they are allowed to advocate for whoever they want. They have free speech rights. And that corporation can spend as much money as they want putting on a message that they deem appropriate.

Speaker 3:
[102:39] But time, like us talking about it, is different than paying money to the campaign.

Speaker 1:
[102:44] You can't pay money to the campaign. You're misunderstanding.

Speaker 3:
[102:46] But you said we couldn't talk about Trump.

Speaker 1:
[102:49] You misunderstand. No one can give, no money, no entity, no structure, can give more money than the FEC limits to a single candidate. What you're referring to with corporate personhood is, through this company's free speech right, I can spend $1 million of corporate money making videos saying Trump is the best, putting up billboards saying Trump is the best, and airing commercials saying Trump is the best. I can then go every single night on my show talking about why you should vote for that, for Trump or any other candidate. If I was not allowed to, if the company did not have free speech, we would not be able to talk about Trump at all, because they would argue it's campaigning in any sense. That's why the Supreme Court said corporations have free speech. The New York Times without free speech could not do news, period. So corporations have to be able to have freedom. And in fact, freedom of the press is in the First Amendment. The press is a company. Companies have a right to say things.

Speaker 2:
[103:52] So just I was looking into this real quick just to see. So the reports of a about $20 million commitment involving Miriam Adelson, John Paulson, and a guy named Singer through this Republican-Jewish coalition pack to spend against Thomas Massey in Kentucky.

Speaker 3:
[104:16] $20 million?

Speaker 2:
[104:17] $20 million.

Speaker 3:
[104:18] That's what they've committed so far or what they've spent so far?

Speaker 2:
[104:21] That's what they've committed. But I mean, this is when it's down to the wire now because you're less than a month out from the primaries.

Speaker 3:
[104:26] So if you can only give so they're not giving to a campaign, they're just funding signs that say Massey bad. What?

Speaker 2:
[104:33] They're doing it through packs. Because I mean, they can give unlimited amounts of money to these packs. And it's either pro-Gal Ryan or anti-Massey advertise, mostly ads.

Speaker 1:
[104:45] What do you think Massey is going to win, though?

Speaker 2:
[104:47] I do. Yeah. I'm from that district.

Speaker 3:
[104:50] So if a corporation gives unlimited funds, that's the problem.

Speaker 1:
[104:53] Why is that a problem?

Speaker 3:
[104:55] Because they buy elections.

Speaker 1:
[104:56] No.

Speaker 2:
[104:57] Well, we might be able to find out.

Speaker 1:
[104:58] Should I be allowed to buy a billboard?

Speaker 3:
[105:00] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[105:01] OK. So you agree with my right to spend unlimited money on getting someone elected?

Speaker 3:
[105:05] You?

Speaker 1:
[105:06] My company has money.

Speaker 3:
[105:07] I don't care what you spend on your personal money. I don't care what you spend on it.

Speaker 1:
[105:10] Is not the business my entity with my personal money?

Speaker 3:
[105:12] It's an entity separate from you.

Speaker 1:
[105:14] And who's the controlling officer of that?

Speaker 3:
[105:16] You at that point.

Speaker 1:
[105:17] And so the money is under my control?

Speaker 3:
[105:20] Yes.

Speaker 1:
[105:20] So the corporate entity under my control can put up billboards as it has, right?

Speaker 3:
[105:25] Yeah, I know that is the law. I'm just saying the problem with Quagmire we're in right now is because of corporate finance.

Speaker 1:
[105:31] That's just that's just not you're not correct.

Speaker 2:
[105:35] Well, I mean, you could this could be an example of that.

Speaker 1:
[105:41] Like if Massey pulls out like people are people are allowed to spend their money on messaging that they want.

Speaker 3:
[105:46] It's the argument goes back to I think I don't know who was doing the whistle stop is a presidential campaign in the United States and he was here money on the cameos. Why can't I spend my money on this cameo made sense for him to be able to do that? You can't but that gets then extrapolated corporation then legally now they're all you're arguing for in the end.

Speaker 1:
[106:02] The end result of this is Miriam Adelson will extract corporate profits under her name and then spend the money. You're adding a piece of paper. It doesn't do anything.

Speaker 2:
[106:12] But even with all that money spent, so they're way out spending Thomas Massey there in Kentucky. You go to poly market, I mean just as a temperature check, right? This isn't a poll, but still you have people putting their money down. Thomas Massey stole 70 percent, winning the primary. That's not an ad, guys. This is just me just looking it up.

Speaker 1:
[106:33] We're going to go to your Rumble Rants in Super Chat, so smash the like button, share the show and all that good stuff. The uncensored portion of the show is at rumble.com/timcastirl at 10 p.m. Dark Pine says, Tim, for the end of times, Trump is the anti-Christ culture warrior you should bring on Joel Webin and Donnie Discerned. That's a good idea. And we could probably do it, we're thinking about doing this with live audience in DC. It'll be very fun. Vic the Fix says, wife and I went to TPUSA in Sebus with Vivek last night, packed house and it was great. Lefties asked three minute questions and Vivek responded accordingly and still claimed VR avoided answering. Retards all. Interesting. All right, Astro Fox says, are any of you familiar with what is happening in Corpus Christi, Texas and their water shortage? Estimates predict 500,000 people will be without fresh water by late 26, early 27. Needs national attention.

Speaker 3:
[107:27] Wow, really? First I've heard of this.

Speaker 1:
[107:30] I am unfamiliar.

Speaker 3:
[107:31] It was due to flooding.

Speaker 1:
[107:33] That it wiped out their water sources?

Speaker 3:
[107:34] I don't know.

Speaker 1:
[107:36] Third, our Rebellion says, Hey crew, we're in the delivery room with our baby boy, Hunter, baby number three. Love y'all. Congratulations.

Speaker 4:
[107:41] Let's go.

Speaker 1:
[107:45] We have a soundboard now.

Speaker 4:
[107:46] Welcome to the world, young Patriots. As soon as you can start babbling, it's time to serve this country, get after it.

Speaker 3:
[107:54] Start a YouTube channel.

Speaker 4:
[107:55] Start a YouTube, start a podcast, start a rumble show. Do whatever you need to do.

Speaker 1:
[108:00] Dsage says, Nick, how dare you doubt the daddy of big booty Latin America, pimp on a blimp for president?

Speaker 3:
[108:07] Okay.

Speaker 4:
[108:09] The Alex Stein Explorer.

Speaker 1:
[108:11] Oh, it is. Disgruntled Vet says, did you hear about an Islamic knife attacker who came to allowed to travel to Mecca? Please tell me this is fake. Is that true?

Speaker 2:
[108:19] An Islamic knife attacker?

Speaker 1:
[108:21] Was allowed to travel to Mecca? I have not heard.

Speaker 4:
[108:24] Was allowed? That's like half of them. Yeah, that's like all of them. It's called Muslims. Why are you new around here?

Speaker 1:
[108:35] 562 says, can we make Ian actually pay attention to Luke for like a year before he's allowed to scream Luke's talking points in random order?

Speaker 3:
[108:41] Luke Rutkowski? I've been following Luke Rutkowski since 2011 since they were trying to get us into Syria and Obama was, they were like, he's got gas weapons, I don't know. He was one of the most vocal forces to keep us out of there at that point.

Speaker 1:
[108:54] A force indeed.

Speaker 5:
[108:56] Yeah, Luke.

Speaker 1:
[108:56] What do you think, Nick? You think we're getting crushed in the midterms? You think Democrats are going to take everything?

Speaker 2:
[109:01] I, just speaking candidly, we got to get out of the freaking war, okay?

Speaker 5:
[109:06] It's just not good.

Speaker 2:
[109:07] It's very difficult. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for this. It's very difficult to go up to young people right now and then make them feel like we're winning. It's just, I'm sorry, not about not winning the war, but about just winning in general, like motivating them.

Speaker 1:
[109:22] I think that's largely due to cultural issues around like marriage and dating.

Speaker 2:
[109:28] Okay, but how does any of this help that?

Speaker 1:
[109:30] No, it doesn't, but it's also just, it's like a non sequitur, it's like a different thing.

Speaker 2:
[109:35] So, I mean, we can make this argument like, oh yeah, no, if you're a service worker, you're not paying tax on tips anymore, and then no tax on overtime, stuff like that. But at the end of the day, especially right now, people are not feeling it. They're not feeling it. Everything is, especially gas, I mean, that's one of the largest expenses. I mean, I remember the days of being broke where it was like I had to make sure I had just like a dollar left on my credit card so that the pump would take it, and I could run it up to whatever it is, and I would have to pay that down in order to get the next tank of gas. Unless that is fixed, which I highly doubt it is going to be by November, there are a lot of people that are going to be too deflated to go vote. I'm just saying.

Speaker 4:
[110:13] Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, like, okay, yes, within the Republican Party, when you pull the Republican Party, like the voters are still on board with the Trump agenda, that is true. But it is also true that, yeah, I mean, there's a demoralization effect across, especially young people. And the lesson that needs to be learned, I'm aware that the average primary voter in Republican primary is 65 years old, but you do have to be aware, this just took Orban down. Like in Orban, in our world, Orban is super popular. Everyone loves, oh, it's a super conservative firebrand or whatever. If you talk to young Hungarian right wingers, specifically right wingers in Hungary, young people, they were kind of fed up with Orban. And this was surprising for me to hear, because again, like over here, he's like the darling, but that's how you lose the country is when the young people start to tap out.

Speaker 2:
[110:52] Boomers on Fox News love this war, love every part of it. It's their favorite thing ever, and they can get off to it at night, right? When they go and watch Sean Hannity.

Speaker 1:
[111:02] Or the new Hannity podcast.

Speaker 4:
[111:03] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[111:04] God.

Speaker 4:
[111:05] No, and that's been my number one problem with the war. Above all else is that it's rewarding the worst people in American politics. Like even if this goes swimmingly, even if this comes out, you still just basically rewarded, literally the worst people in American politics were lining up to say, well, I hate Trump, he's making, you know, broke clocks right across the day. It's like, that's what I hate most about this, is the entire apparatus that we're trying to destroy right now was overjoyed with it. So again, even, which jury's still out, but even if this ends up being a resounding success, I'm still just very upset. I really am, it's just very frustrating.

Speaker 1:
[111:38] Let's grab some more, we got a few minutes before the uncensored. Marushia says, did you see Asmongold's lengthy rant against Mary Morgan calling her a fem cell and worse for a post related to men who want to become fathers? I think that I did, he called her a fem cell, it's funny because she's a trad cath who thinks universal literacy is a mistake. So I don't, you know. But her post was taken to the extreme end of her argument to go after. I'm not saying that she's right necessarily. There is a tendency, women tend to be more baby crazy than men are. And all of these guys got offended. I think it has more to do with the fact that young guys desperately want to be dads, especially more so than women now. And it's very difficult. Mary became the avatar of their anger when she said that men who want possession of children who are not their own are predators. But when you think about that, like why would a man want possession of a child that is not his own? I think that's the point she's making. People started countering with all sorts of stuff. And then when I said that she's, her point's being taken to an extreme and she's right in tendency, then all of a sudden people started spam blasting my name. And I'm like, just chill the F out, calm down.

Speaker 3:
[112:45] She said that men have no paternal instinct until they have their own children. Which I agree, that's why I disagree with that personally. I'm experiencing it. I don't have any kids.

Speaker 4:
[112:55] Well, I think there's exceptions, obviously. There's some great dads that come along after the fact. But I mean, that's why men, again, have this dispensation to, when a woman has a high body count, they're like, what's going on here? Because that's like part of it, yes, socially, but part of it's just evolutionary. It's like when you're trying to determine who your kid is, it matters if you know who your wife slept with.

Speaker 1:
[113:15] I think the issue is largely that there's a lot of guys who want to have families. The data shows that men want to be dads more than women want to be moms today. So among Gen Z especially. And because of these structures, men are having a very hard time starting families because women don't want to. So then Mary comes along and says, men don't have paternal instincts, to a bunch of guys who are buying a video game where they get to be the savior of a young child and be a father figure. So of course they're going to get offended by what she's saying.

Speaker 4:
[113:42] Yeah, I don't know specifically what her argument was. But the state of young women right now, I'm taken and I have a lovely woman, but again, I feel like the last shepherd of NAMM. I remember being on a hinge. I mean, it's like literally walking through a minefield.

Speaker 2:
[113:56] Well, look at that news that happened.

Speaker 1:
[113:58] Have them are guys now.

Speaker 4:
[113:59] That's true.

Speaker 2:
[113:59] With the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism at DHS, right? This 29-year-old girl boss type figure is still out there.

Speaker 4:
[114:08] Did you see this article today?

Speaker 1:
[114:10] No, what happened?

Speaker 2:
[114:10] Oh my god, so she ended up, like she got busted on a Sugar Daddy website.

Speaker 1:
[114:14] Oh, that's right, that's right.

Speaker 2:
[114:16] Yeah, which I mean, it's like, I understand it's like, okay, some scorned guy that, okay, yeah, if you're 70 years old and you want to date some hot-ass young 29-year-old or whatever, like you're probably going to have to pay for it, right? They don't come for free. There's a trade-off, but you know, you're the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism at DHS, and you know, you shouldn't be in that position. But you're like, okay, 29 years old, zero prospects for children at all, and really have no interest in it, it seems. And that's...

Speaker 4:
[114:48] But I guarantee in one of our conversations, she'd be like lambasting men or saying, you know, we need more traditional values in society.

Speaker 2:
[114:55] Exactly, yeah.

Speaker 4:
[114:56] It's like the most vocal people that are like, we need more traditional values, or either men like covered in tattoos with ear piercings. It's like, okay, dude, well you sold out your traditional aesthetics. That's besides the point. Or it's women that are like 30, and then suddenly they become Christians and everything. Now they're like lecturing everyone in traditional values, and it's like, can everyone just like cut the larping for a second? You're like, what is going on? But again, no offense to like our tattooed friends. There's plenty of them, I love them, but it's like, I'm saying it's difficult to like lambast the decline of traditional aesthetics when you are not representing that personally. That's kind of the point I'm making. With women, it's on the extreme, where women have already kind of jumped the shark, so to speak, and then now they're retroactively going and lecturing men for not participating in traditional values. It's like, you're 30.

Speaker 3:
[115:39] Maybe we could get Mary and Zach, who's Asmongold, to do a show.

Speaker 1:
[115:43] Yeah, and travel.

Speaker 3:
[115:44] What's that?

Speaker 1:
[115:44] You're on travel.

Speaker 3:
[115:45] Yeah, that'd be a good one. Seeing those two together would be really fun.

Speaker 1:
[115:48] I think it's like, I said Mary was right in tendency, that like, across all generations, if I walk down the street with my baby, guys do not bet an eye. They don't say anything. Every single woman are like, but among Gen Z women, where I think a lot of the young gamers are, women are like, who wants kids? Kids are bad. And guys are like, I just want to have a family. So she's getting all of their irer, but I think when you look at older generations and you put it all together, it's just, it's largely correct. I say largely because obviously to call guys predators for wanting to have kids, well, she said specifically, kids who are not their own, which I don't understand why people are freaking out about this statement, like, yeah, any guy who's like, I'm going to take that child who's not mine. It's like, okay, well, there's certain circumstances of adoption.

Speaker 3:
[116:38] I understand, but if a dude's like, I really want to be a babysitter, I just want to babysit kids. Like that would be kind of weird.

Speaker 4:
[116:44] Like, yeah, would you drop your kid off at a nursery with all men? Like, no, no, actually no.

Speaker 3:
[116:48] So I understand her statement about that, like, yeah, if that's what's hiring a child, it's not yours. But like, I want to protect kids when they're not mine. Like that's my paternal instinct is I'm looking around when I see your kid. I'm not going up to him going, oogie-googie. I want to make sure.

Speaker 1:
[117:01] The thing that really irks me on it is that instead of saying Mary Morgan said thing, people are posting Tim Pool's employee Mary Morgan said thing because they're trying to use my name for algorithmic optimization.

Speaker 4:
[117:11] That's crazy.

Speaker 1:
[117:12] It's just so annoying. It's like Mary's her own person. She doesn't even live here. She does a different show. So it's like, if you want to complain about what Mary said, you can complain about what Mary said, you know?

Speaker 4:
[117:20] It's like they're trying to tell on the teacher, I'm Tim. No, no, no.

Speaker 1:
[117:23] It's that they're like, if I say Mary Morgan, people are going to say who? So I'm going to put Tim Pool's name here so that we get clicks. And then they wrote me into her opinion.

Speaker 3:
[117:29] Nope. It's like, it's Mary's time.

Speaker 1:
[117:32] It's her opinion, she's allowed to have it.

Speaker 4:
[117:33] Mary Cast.

Speaker 1:
[117:34] Let's see, not, Alan Roger says, Tim, the case is not dropped. Stop lying. You were paid by a tenant media millions of dollars by Russian intelligence agents. Fake. So one day, Merrick Garland goes on TV, announces this claim that two Russians who currently live in Eastern Europe that no one's ever seen before were funneling money through a Tennessee company that no one knew about and we're licensing a show at a below market rate. And then a month after the election, told my lawyers that there is no investigation, there will never be one. And then issued a formal statement to Lauren Chen six months later that there's no, there's no current investigation and the case is closed, the case is dropped. So it remains, it remains cold and open, but there's no one to even investigate. There's no evidence that ever happened. There's no known individuals who did it. The whole thing is just one day, they claimed the thing happened with zero evidence, and that was the end of it.

Speaker 2:
[118:27] Did somebody literally just pay you to say this, to ask this question?

Speaker 1:
[118:32] Oh yeah, super chair, gave me five bucks. Thank you for giving the opportunity to once again, stay on the record. So a Tennessee based company hosted by a prominent conservative commentator offers to license one of our shows, which still exists by the way. And so basically they could run it live on their channel and then we would keep doing everything we were normally doing. I do license deals all the time and we said, sure. And then Merrick Garland claimed it was actually Russians who were doing it the whole time, despite never producing any evidence it was Russians. Not one tiny morsel of proof ever. Because it was a Psy-op they had been trying to game for a long time to go after someone like Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, me, because how do you smear us otherwise? Benny's not a white supremacist or even that far right. He's a mainstream conservative guy. I'm not a white supremacist, mixed race, kind of liberal in a lot of ways. There's no real smear to go about it. You can call a bunch of conservatives fascists or whatever, but not us. So they tried to figure out some way to do it. And I'm sure they would have liked to have gotten a lot, many, many more people. And their stupid scheme did not work beyond that. Let's grab, we'll grab one more. Broadcast Media Equity says, Texas Republicans aren't responsible for the redistricting cascade. Texas Democrats sued the Republicans in 2020 to delay redistricting. This was resolved in 2025, creating a national opportunity for Democrats to shift blame. Not only that, but the redistricting in Texas was to, it made red districts somewhat redder, so they would remain competitive in the. We're in the midterm election, and Virginia just wiped out four seats. It's very different. But we're in the uncensored portion of the show, so smash the like button, share the show. It'll be at rumble.com/timcastirl. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Nick, do you want to shout anything out?

Speaker 2:
[120:19] Yeah, don't stop saying mass deportations, even though people are trying to convince you to stop saying it because it doesn't sound poetically expedient anymore. We don't save our country without mass deportations, guys. Thank you for having me. Appreciate it.

Speaker 3:
[120:32] Thanks for coming, Nick. Always a pleasure, man. At Ian Crossland, you'll find me.

Speaker 1:
[120:36] At Ian Crossland, go to graphene.movie. Check out the new movie trailer that's coming out pretty soon. As we're in. Oh, yeah, Carter, you're working on the music with it.

Speaker 2:
[120:43] Yes.

Speaker 3:
[120:44] Yes. I've got a few things in the pipeline. You can find me at Carter Banks everywhere and at Carter Banks, official everywhere else. Follow at Trash House Records on YouTube. Also more stuff coming out there. Tate. Yeah, follow me on X on Instagram at RealTateBrown. And I am also a deportation cell. So Trump administration is doing great work.

Speaker 2:
[121:05] So let's not let up the gas.

Speaker 3:
[121:06] Let's just step on it harder.

Speaker 1:
[121:08] Right on. Well, that's everybody. Right? I will see at rumble.com/timcastirl right now. Thanks for hanging out.