transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] It is officially midterm season, everybody, and Democrats, they're actually polling decently, and there's concern Republicans are gonna lose. Surprisingly, there is concern, considering this is the historical trend. A president gets elected, then the opposition party takes the House. However, Democrats actually have some pitfalls this time around. Notably, their favorability is at a historic low, even when they should be trending upwards, and they have a big thorn in their side with everyone's favorite leftist streamer Hasan Piker. Now, whatever you think of the guy, Democrats are in trouble because he's splitting the party. He recently went on the New York Times podcast, The Opinions, and said that theft and murder are okay, and that he would steal if he could get away with it. The hosts laugh, and they enjoy it. I think Democrats are in big trouble, because you're going to get a bunch of middle-of-the-road people who maybe don't like Donald Trump, but don't want to be party to whatever that is, where you have crime, you have street takeovers. These are the things that people favor Republicans for. So as we kick into high gear in midterm season, we'll of course be talking a lot about polls and all this stuff. To be fair, just a low news day, to be completely honest, I think the big story that everyone's leading with is the SPLC still, which okay, they suck, and Donald Trump ragged on them, so we can go with that as well. I'm actually more excited to talk about this. There's a story from Newsweek. Chinese scientists are also disappearing. So we've got this story in the US. Now, I will say, the Atlantic put out this piece saying that you are dumb for following the scientist conspiracy. They're saying, some old retired guy disappeared and you're all dumb for thinking so. Yeah, well, it's happening also in China, and the important thing to understand is I got some sources for you. This has happened several times in the past. Iranian nuclear scientist getting killed or going missing. We have stories in the 80s, we have Cold War stories. It is common in conflict for rival nations and adversaries to take out their principal thinkers and researchers. Maybe that's the case, but I'm going to squeeze in a little extra thing here. There's a nuclear propulsion researcher who was found dead. His Tesla crashed, his body was charred and unrecognizable. You know why that story is weird? He left his phone and wallet at home. Do you know why that's weird? Your phone is the key to your Tesla. So as a Tesla driver myself, when I read that I said, that makes sense, sure, I mean, you have key cards, but I don't know a single Tesla driver who leaves their phone behind and then go and drives their car when you use your phone as your key. It's a weird story. So we'll get into all that stuff. Before we do, we got a great sponsor. It's Pocket Hose, my friends. Talk about one of the best little utilities you can get to hose that shrinks when you're not using it. Pocket Hose is the number one expandable hose in the world, super light weight, easy to manage, easy to store. You turn the water on and it grows. You turn the water off and it shrinks. Look at it. The Pocket Hose Ballistic is reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests. Wow, that's a good hose. Making the anti-burst sleeve practically bulletproof and that liquid crystal polymer fiber is actually five times stronger than steel. Comes with the Pocket Pivot, which gives you total freedom of movement at the spigot with 360 degrees rotation. A new move it follows and the water flow is enhanced with an upgraded UV coating. So the hose looks new year after year. Reengineered thicker washers that resist leaks. Pocket hose carries over 100 patents worldwide. Wow. And now for a limited time when you purchase a new Pocket Hose Ballistic, you get a free 360 degree rotating Pocket Pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Just text TIM to 64000. That's TIM to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase. Text TIM to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. And man, that sounds like a crazy hose. Shout out to the sponsor of the show. I'm also really happy to just say it's like the best sponsor. I'm not disrespect to other sponsors, but can you get like more general interest sponsorship than that? I mean, typically when you have like a right wing podcast or a conservative leading podcast, their sponsorship is like Patriot Water, or some like really niche brand. It's only used by Alex Jones. No, pocket hose is legit. Anyway, go to timcast.com, sign up, become a member, join the community. We got tens of thousands of people that are hanging out. They're talking to each other. They're sharing stories. It's not what you know, it's who you know. And if you want to work on projects and be involved, this is a great way to do it and you're supporting our work, so check that out. Don't forget to smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is rep Randy Fine.

Speaker 2:
[04:43] How are you? Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1:
[04:45] Who are you? What do you do?

Speaker 2:
[04:46] Well, I'm a congressman from the 6th Congressional District of Florida. I don't represent Orlando, I don't represent Jacksonville, but I represent just about everything in between. I've been in Congress for about a year. Before that, I was a state legislator, started off as an entrepreneur, spent 22 years as a businessman and got into the state legislature after I retired, did that for eight years and then two weeks after I won an election. To the state Senate, President Trump asked me to run for Congress. And so I've been doing that for the last year. I came in, was the first Republican to win a special election after President Trump became president. Been there for a year and have seen the good and the bad. And I will tell you, as bad as I thought Washington would be, it's a whole lot worse. We've got a country to save and there's a lot we can talk about.

Speaker 1:
[05:26] And aliens too, right? You can talk about it.

Speaker 2:
[05:27] Well, you know, I can't talk about the classified things that I learned, but it is extraordinary. You get elected to Congress and all of a sudden you can say, show me the JFK stuff, show me the aliens. You're allowed to see all the classified stuff. Can't tell you what's in it, but I can tell you I can read it.

Speaker 1:
[05:40] We asked George Santos, did you believe in aliens before entering Congress? And he said, no. And then we asked, did you believe in aliens after leaving Congress? And he said, yes.

Speaker 2:
[05:49] Well, given some of the people I serve with, I should believe in aliens. So I think some of them may come from other planets.

Speaker 1:
[05:55] Right. It's going to be fun. Thanks for hanging out. Lydia Moynihan is back.

Speaker 3:
[05:58] Great to be here.

Speaker 1:
[06:00] You got to grab your mic. I'm pointing to the microphone.

Speaker 3:
[06:02] Oh.

Speaker 1:
[06:03] You have to talk into that.

Speaker 3:
[06:04] This whole thing?

Speaker 4:
[06:05] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[06:06] What do I need this for?

Speaker 4:
[06:08] No.

Speaker 3:
[06:09] I can just learn to sign, which is very helpful for an audio communication. Are you going to ask who I am? Because that is a question that has plagued me.

Speaker 1:
[06:16] Yeah. Who are you? What do you do?

Speaker 3:
[06:18] For many years. I am a columnist at the New York Post. I read a lot about business, technology, politics, do a lot of interviews, especially highlighting innovation and how it's shaping the world we live in.

Speaker 1:
[06:29] Right on. It's going to be fun. We got Ian's hanging out. Everybody.

Speaker 5:
[06:32] Good to be here.

Speaker 1:
[06:33] Yeah. Carter's pressing the buttons. What's up?

Speaker 5:
[06:35] Also, Libby's here.

Speaker 1:
[06:36] Libby is here as well.

Speaker 4:
[06:37] I'm Libby Emmons with the Post Millennial. Glad to be here.

Speaker 1:
[06:39] It's a packed house. Let's get into the news. Let's get to culture, warrior and political. We've got this from the New York Post. Democrats favorite podcaster, Hasan Piker, says stealing and murder are okay. Uh-huh. And you know, the New York Post is jumping on the story because it's painful for Democrats. They say at the height of the 2020 riots, a book was published entitled In Defense of Looting. At the time, I think Douglas Murray wrote this, at the time I asked a book shop in New York, which is prominently displaying the work, whether I could walk out with a book without paying, I was told not. That's a great line. But a friend did download and publish the work for free online before being served a copyright notice by the pro looting books publisher. Some of us had hoped the madness of that summer had gone away, but this week we got a good reminder that for a part of the left, the question of whether or not it's right to steal is still being mulled over. Well, I'm going to play this clip for you. That's been going viral with 7.7 million views. Guys, just make Hasan the leader of the Democratic Party. I'm not even playing. He represents the left perfectly. There's a reason why he's the biggest left-wing streamer. The Democratic Party that we know is long gone. It's the people that are holding it together that are more moderate. They're old. Hasan represents the young left, and I also represent people who forget to unmute tabs.

Speaker 6:
[07:57] Social murder.

Speaker 1:
[07:58] Here we go.

Speaker 6:
[07:59] Engels wrote about the concept of social murder, and Brian Thompson, as the United Health Care CEO, was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder. The systematized forms of violence, the structural violence of poverty, the for-profit paywalled system of health care in this country, and the consequences of that are tremendous amounts of pain, tremendous amounts of violence, tremendous amounts of deaths. And that was a fascinating story for me because Americans are very draconian about crime and punishment. They're very black and white on this issue. And yet, because of the pervasive pain that the private health care system had created for the average American, I saw so many people immediately understand why this death had taken place.

Speaker 1:
[09:04] Let's play this next clip where it talks about how stealing is a good thing. Here you go.

Speaker 6:
[09:08] People are engaging in the currency scheme that people are engaging in.

Speaker 4:
[09:12] Would you steal from Whole Foods?

Speaker 6:
[09:15] You want to go first? Well, I'm pro-stealing from big corporations because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers. However, one thing that might even help your ethical dilemma is the fact that the automated process that they design, these companies know will increase shrink, right? So it's actually factored in. The lemons that you stole are factored into the bottom line of these mega corporations regardless, and they still end up having increased profit margins because they no longer have to pay the cashiers that they used to hire as opposed to this automated system, knowing full well that people are still going to be able to steal, still steal a lot more efficiently as a matter of fact through the automated process.

Speaker 1:
[10:08] Totally.

Speaker 5:
[10:09] Well, also, I was looking things up and shrinkage is roughly equal internally as externally. They expect it from their employees that they are sort of.

Speaker 1:
[10:17] I hate these. I'm sorry. I, you know, when I was younger, I didn't want to hate anybody, but I absolutely hate these people. I just, I just, I hate. So next time some left it goes, I ain't spreading some much hate. I'll be like, because I hate you.

Speaker 4:
[10:28] So you see where they're sitting though, right? You see that setup, the perfect chairs, massive space in New York City. I mean, why don't they have 25,000 homeless people just living in there with them? Why aren't they giving away everything that they have? Why aren't they inviting everybody in to steal their stuff?

Speaker 1:
[10:44] Because they're hypocritical communists?

Speaker 3:
[10:45] Exactly, because they're hypocritical communists. Those who live in multimillion-dollar homes.

Speaker 6:
[10:49] Of course.

Speaker 2:
[10:50] What that is is a giant word salad of big words that I'm not sure they even understand what they mean. And look, you just got to pull back the varnish. These people are communists. That's what they are. He's saying you should be able to take what you want from the store because everything should be communal. He says, I don't like the idea of private health care because everything should be communal. If anything, we should appreciate that they're pulling the varnish off and they're telling us who Democrats are. They want a return to the Soviet Union. This time they want it in the United States. And I think guys like that make that very clear.

Speaker 1:
[11:26] I just can't stand communists. Like he said, what do you say? The structural violence of poverty. To be fair, it's word-sality because he wants it to sound. Instead of just saying it sucks to be poor, he has to make it something about how it's your fault, that you're poor, and I like to stress to these communists, the existence of luxury is not oppressing you. A guy who like flies around in a gyrocopter over your property, well, over your property maybe is a problem, but like if I see a dude who owns a gyrocopter flying over the river, which they do, I'm not saying I'm being oppressed because he won't let me fly his gyrocopter. It's just a guy over there has a thing he's allowed to have. In Hasan's mind, if someone has something and they don't give it to you, they are oppressing you. To be fair, if he is cognizant of why that is theft, then I got to give it to him because he's basically just saying, as a barbarian, he will take whatever he wants and no one can stop him. At least he's right about that, I guess.

Speaker 4:
[12:25] They don't mean for themselves either, right? They think that they can do all of these things. They could steal if they want to, but they don't mean they should be stolen from. It's like Douglas Murray points out in that book, in the column. The other thing too is AOC was saying in the summer of 2020 that shoplifting is okay. You had people saying looting is reparations, and you can't forget that these Democrat, Communist progressives on the left have been backing the SPLC, which had to gin up hate in order to get donations so that they could fight that very hate. Meanwhile, they're cozying up to really hateful people like Hasan Piker.

Speaker 3:
[13:06] It is ideologically consistent, though.

Speaker 4:
[13:08] Sure.

Speaker 3:
[13:09] They're advocating shoplifting, and I think it is helpful because this is such a great soundvite for Republicans adding into the midterms to highlight the absurdity of it. Because a lot of times when people talk about socialism, it's all very theoretical, but that of course is the natural end of these policies. You think that you are entitled to something that somebody else has. They're just putting it out there for exactly what it is.

Speaker 2:
[13:35] And we can tell people that when they have to push a button in the drug store to have someone come unlock the case so they can get a tube of toothpaste, this is why. I mean, look, what they're saying is they don't believe in private property. That's fundamentally what it is. It's okay to steal because everything is yours anyway.

Speaker 4:
[13:54] They believe in their private property.

Speaker 2:
[13:56] Well, we're all equal. Some of us are just more equal than others.

Speaker 1:
[13:58] I just kind of had an epiphany. I agree with Hasan Piker, at least on Whole Foods, because Whole Foods, historically, my understanding is I just did a double check on this, has contributed to progressive and liberal causes as well as their employees overwhelmingly donate to progressives and leftists. So the first thing I thought when he said, you know, they automate these systems and shrinkage is factoring, he is correct. That means, when Amazon opened their first store that was fully automated, you walk in, grab whatever you want, walk out, I actually did a penetration test, we called it. I broke their security, I was able to leave, I was able to take a bag full of grocers and leave without paying for it. Full disclosure, we did pay for it, but I was able to break the system, alert them as to how we did it. And they told me explicitly, the amount of money they save on human labor is so much, they actually don't care about theft. And so I'm thinking about that and he's correct, but my problem with that is, I have to pay a higher price for my milk because people like him steal. And then I thought about it and I was like, well, hold on, if Whole Foods supports his politics, then why should I be the sucker paying for stuff that Whole Foods doesn't want me to pay for? Like my point is this, if Whole Foods is funding progressives who say to steal from them, they may as well put up a big sign saying, no, actually want you to steal, only the suckers pay. In which case to the employees who work there and donate, when you get fired because they can't make any money anymore, well, that's what you asked for. So thank you and have a nice day.

Speaker 4:
[15:31] Well, isn't everyone who follows the law at this point, basically a sucker?

Speaker 1:
[15:34] Yes.

Speaker 4:
[15:34] You know, I mean, if you look at New York City too, you have Mom Donnie talking about how he's essentially going to tax wealthier, whiter neighborhoods in order to help the people who have worse jobs or whatever.

Speaker 1:
[15:47] I'm okay with that too.

Speaker 4:
[15:48] You're okay with taxing the white?

Speaker 1:
[15:51] Because they're not like conservative white people, they're affluent white female liberals. They voted for this.

Speaker 4:
[15:56] They did vote for this.

Speaker 1:
[15:57] Yeah, they're not taxing me. So I'm kidding, by the way. I think it's a horrible policy.

Speaker 4:
[16:01] I'm saying they're suckers for going along with it and for doing it. I mean, you saw Ken Griffin, right? Mom Donnie called out Ken Griffin's penthouse, and now Ken Griffin's like, you know what? Maybe I'll just pull my $6 billion project from New York City.

Speaker 1:
[16:13] He should.

Speaker 4:
[16:14] Yes, he should, right?

Speaker 1:
[16:14] He's not going to.

Speaker 4:
[16:15] No, but he ought to. He said he might, but like-

Speaker 3:
[16:18] He already has shifted a significant amount of his operating.

Speaker 1:
[16:20] To Florida.

Speaker 4:
[16:21] Well, he should just get out entirely, you know?

Speaker 2:
[16:24] These guys don't live in the real world. That's part of the problem. They live in a world of sunshine, rainbows, pixie dust and unicorns. None of the policies they talk about actually make any sense. And that's why you see New York being hollowed out. And the only thing that's growing there is apparently urinating in the street, because that's gone up 50 percent since he took over.

Speaker 4:
[16:40] Because everyone is high.

Speaker 1:
[16:42] There's a far side comic. It's from the early 90s, I think, you know, was it Gary Larson? Was that his name?

Speaker 4:
[16:49] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[16:50] And it's two parents watching their kid play Mario. And they're smiling and going like, you know, like going like this. And in their thought bubble, they're looking at want a job listing saying, you know, job needed, Super Mario Brothers player, $20,000 a year, looking for expert Mario Brothers player. The joke at the time was that you would never get a job playing video games. Well, as we know now, you can get a lot of money playing video games for a living. My point is maybe what they can do in New York is turn urinating into the street into some kind of entertainment that people will pay money to watch. And just like video games, you can make something enjoyable, at least for the people of New York and turn it into a lucrative business.

Speaker 4:
[17:31] Well, you'd need Scott Wiener from California who likes to go to the Fulsome Street Fair and watch men urinating on each other in kiddie pools. So that is a thing. I mean, they have it in San Francisco, so we should just bring it to New York and then everybody's happy.

Speaker 2:
[17:46] They will.

Speaker 4:
[17:47] But you did see Sean Duffy say that the FAA was specifically hiring gamers.

Speaker 2:
[17:51] They had a record hire.

Speaker 4:
[17:52] His air traffic controllers. Yeah, it was like 8,000 applied and like 7,400 were qualified.

Speaker 1:
[17:58] They got good hand-eye coordination.

Speaker 4:
[18:00] For sure. I told my son, I was like, hey, look at that.

Speaker 3:
[18:03] Stop reading.

Speaker 4:
[18:05] Play more video games.

Speaker 1:
[18:06] Well, in the future, flying.

Speaker 4:
[18:07] I don't have to tell him. He's doing it on his own.

Speaker 1:
[18:10] Eyelids for like 747s are just going to have PlayStation controllers. They're going to be like, well, I've been doing this my whole life. I mean, whatever this thing is, I don't need, I just use a controller.

Speaker 3:
[18:18] Just going back though to this idea of that. I mean, the entire reason that we have government in the first place, if you think back to Leviathan and some of these early political philosophers, the only reason that we have a social contract with the government is to protect private property. That's literally it. It's the idea that we cede some of our freedom to an organization that's supposed to protect us and keep us safe and we pay taxes. That's how government has evolved. That's the only reason that people have agreed to part with some of their freedom to have a government. What they're suggesting completely undermines all of Western civilization, completely undermines the social contract that we have with our government. If private property is no longer going to be protected, what are we doing here?

Speaker 5:
[19:11] It doesn't completely undermine it. The corporatocracy is concerning the Chinese billionaires buying American farmland is legal, but at some point you may want to seize that property from the Chinese because it's the American citizen comes first in America.

Speaker 3:
[19:24] I'm talking about people who live here and need taxes.

Speaker 1:
[19:25] That's because they're buying it military basis.

Speaker 2:
[19:27] Well, you can see it in grocery stores. If you go to certain parts of the country and you've seen this, where they allow crime to run free in your example, when everyone thinks they can go and steal the stuff out of the grocery store, guess what happens to the grocery store? It closes and they leave. It doesn't even go out of business. They just shut it and say, we're out of here. Then the Democrats demand that they actually stay and operate it. Then you end up with Mom Donnie opening a $30 million supermarket, which is going to be, by the way, much more expensive per square foot than the whole foods that regular people can't afford to shop at.

Speaker 4:
[19:55] That's like $27 million more expensive.

Speaker 2:
[19:56] None of this makes any sense in the real world.

Speaker 1:
[19:58] Think about what's going to happen to this Mom Donnie government grocery store. People are going to steal everything. The government worker is going to be sitting there, she's going to be filing her nails, and the guy is going to grab a big, she's like, I don't care.

Speaker 2:
[20:07] We had government grocery stores.

Speaker 4:
[20:09] They had them. $30 minimum wage. I'm not doing anything.

Speaker 1:
[20:11] $30 minimum wage.

Speaker 4:
[20:13] Isn't it that? Isn't it $30?

Speaker 3:
[20:14] People who were trying to get snow out of the streets with shovels, they were paid $40 plus an hour. Their incentive, of course, was to stay on the job as long as possible.

Speaker 4:
[20:24] They didn't do it though, right?

Speaker 3:
[20:25] They shoveled his little snow because they wanted to collect a check.

Speaker 1:
[20:28] I think we got this article from the New York Times. This is why there's no liberal Joe Rogan. It used to be titled, Hasan Piker is not the enemy or something like that. I just look at this picture of all these people gathering around Hasan Piker, and I'm just like, I think the collective IQ of this whole group is maybe like 400.

Speaker 5:
[20:44] Well, Hasan's issue, I think his issue, I don't want to put-

Speaker 1:
[20:48] It's all Hasan's, by the way. His IQ is just through the roof.

Speaker 5:
[20:51] Is that he doesn't like people? I think he has a lot of anger. Rogan doesn't have anger towards him. He beats it out in the gym. I mean, Hasan might not be hateful. I don't think he's really, I don't know. He just seems like he's like pissed off a lot and like willing to say horrific things.

Speaker 2:
[21:05] You have to understand.

Speaker 5:
[21:06] Rogan is not going to touch.

Speaker 1:
[21:07] I'm not going to rag on Hasan for complaining about stuff and being angry because we're angry and complain all the time as well. My bigger concern is that he's a liar.

Speaker 2:
[21:16] Well, his whole shtick is a lie. He is someone, and this is part of the problem in America today. He's from Turkey, his parents were from Turkey. They came to the United States so that they could have him. He became a birthright citizen as soon as he was born. They took him back to Turkey. He grew up there, and then he comes back here, and he's just as American supposedly as the rest of us. Someone who's not inculcated in our values and what it's like to be an American, now the sun is going to lecture us on what a country should be like.

Speaker 1:
[21:43] My argument is that the process of birth tourism is immigration fraud. It is. And according to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, someone who obtains citizenship through fraud can be denaturalized and deported. And should, as your accusation pans out to be, following an investigation into what his parents did, should turn out to have been fraudulent, he should be stripped of citizenship and deported back to Turkey.

Speaker 2:
[22:09] Ten percent of people born in the United States this year are this exact situation. They're born to people who shouldn't even be here. This is a real problem, because now they're just as American as you and I, apparently.

Speaker 3:
[22:20] Yeah, but he said he doesn't have an ounce of patriotism. There's no love for this country. Why would he?

Speaker 1:
[22:24] He's not American.

Speaker 3:
[22:26] What I truly don't understand is why do all of these people who hate us, who hate our values, who hate the American project, who hate the history, why do they all come in? We saw this with the other day, they get the sell of their kids, our hair.

Speaker 1:
[22:39] Are you familiar with the Trojan Horse?

Speaker 4:
[22:41] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[22:42] Why did the soldiers go inside and try and get into the enemy's fortress? Well, they wanted to kill everybody.

Speaker 4:
[22:47] It's like if you look in the Koran, which I haven't read but which one of my columnists worked on a few years ago and I read all of her stories. Anyway, she was telling me that the first part of jihad is to become part of a society, to assimilate into it if you're not in the majority, to take what you can, to take up a victim status, and then to slowly gain everybody's trust as you gain political power. One thing that's interesting about the Islamic immigrants from you know, Arabia and North Africa is, unlike the traditional immigrant experience where people wait until they gain political power, you know, like the Irish, the Italians, you know, Jews, like, it's like a couple of generations before you start getting involved in, you know, the political apparatus of your community, you'll see first generation Somalis like, you know, Ilhan Omar getting involved in politics at the, you know, right there, right all of a sudden. And that is a different thing than we've previously seen. And it makes you start to think like, maybe you weren't like in some sort of crazy survival situation where you needed to like hurry up and go somewhere else and establish a new life and get your feet back under you and get your whole thing together. Maybe you have a plan of what you want to do. I don't know, I mean.

Speaker 2:
[23:59] I think there's no question that's what's going on with a lot of this stuff.

Speaker 4:
[24:02] You think that's like part of that?

Speaker 2:
[24:03] They are here to destroy. In many of these cases, they were not the refugees. Ilhan Omar's father was one of the people doing the bad things in Somalia. She was, they were fleeing from him, not the other way around. And that's the case with many of these people.

Speaker 1:
[24:16] Her and her brother, you know.

Speaker 2:
[24:18] Yeah, but many of these people, Hasan Piker was not some poor person who needed to come to America for opportunity. His parents were wealthy.

Speaker 4:
[24:25] Aren't there all these pictures of him with ponies?

Speaker 2:
[24:27] Yeah, they're wealthy. So this all is a fraud, it all is a scam, and they are here, they do hate America, and they are here to destroy America. That is the goal.

Speaker 5:
[24:38] I align with the concern that the corporateocracy is going to buy us out and make us a permanent rental class. And I think that I align with the leftist communists, they want to stop that too, but they just, their methodology is to use violent force sometimes. And like, I'm open to the government seizing property, like if it was Chinese farm, you know, Chinese bought American farmland, like that's arguably communist to use the government to seize private property.

Speaker 2:
[25:06] But by the way, in those cases, it's called eminent domain. They actually give them the market value of it. They don't just take it. And we do that all the time. If they want to expand the road out in front of here, the government can seize the property in order to expand the road, but then they have to give you the market price to do it. That's been something that's been around for a long time. I think the challenge here is, is what does it mean to be an American? And what is our culture? And are we going to be able to do these things? You talk about the corporatocracy. Oh, wow. It's the creation of wealth and companies. It's made America America. All these great technologies that we're talking about, some entrepreneur that came up with that hose that you were talking about earlier and probably came up with the idea in America because we create all the innovations in the world.

Speaker 1:
[25:48] I just, you know, asked the robot and it says that incest is fairly common in Somalia. Around 49% of Somalis are the product of first or second cousin marriages.

Speaker 4:
[25:57] Well, you saw what Keir Starmer just recently said in the UK.

Speaker 1:
[26:00] He married his cousin?

Speaker 4:
[26:01] No, but he did say that they should They've been debating it. Remove the bias against first cousin marriage.

Speaker 1:
[26:09] By the way, in West Virginia, when you try to get married, because my wife and I, we got married, and duh, they go, are you related to each other? And we were like, what? No, do you ask everyone that? And they're like, we have to.

Speaker 5:
[26:20] Yes, they do.

Speaker 1:
[26:21] And I was like, is that common in West Virginia? And they're like, no, it's not actually.

Speaker 2:
[26:23] It's the difference between a family tree and a helix.

Speaker 4:
[26:27] Yeah, exactly. I mean, I remember in Boston when my dad and his second wife got married, they had to take blood tests and that was part of it. That used to be very, very common that they would make sure that you're not related. And if you look at actually the history of Europe, it is the removal of intrafamilial marriage that made there be more diversity in Europe. You know, it was better for everybody's brains and chins also.

Speaker 2:
[26:53] And interestingly, with all of the incest driven marriages, it makes the kids dumber.

Speaker 4:
[26:59] That happens, yeah.

Speaker 2:
[27:01] It makes you less intelligent. It creates more defects. And interestingly, it creates more violent tendencies when you do these things. So that is why the average IQ in many of these countries is so much lower. It's not that inherently people are smarter or less smart.

Speaker 4:
[27:18] Because they're marrying their cousins.

Speaker 2:
[27:19] It is because when you marry your cousins, it turns out it's a bad idea. And that's part of what the lens is in race. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea to marry first or, you know, and but they're debating that in Parliament in the UK now about and people are saying, if you don't allow cousin marriage, you're racism or Islamaphobic. Well, no, I mean, if that's what we can say, part of our problem in our society today is we have stopped saying some cultures are better than others. There used to be a time there were cultures that said it was okay to eat people. And we said, nope, not okay. There were cultures that said child sacrifice was okay. And we said, nope, that's not okay. But somehow we have forgotten that. And it is okay for us to say, the American culture is the best culture that's ever existed.

Speaker 4:
[27:59] Well, and we should say it.

Speaker 2:
[28:00] We should. And if you don't like it, get out.

Speaker 4:
[28:01] That used to be a thing that was common, that people would say America is the best country.

Speaker 5:
[28:05] But now we're up against the internet, so you really have to prove it. Words aren't enough. We gotta show the world that we can lead this thing.

Speaker 4:
[28:11] I think we've been doing that. And a good example is in terms of Americans, there's not a lot of cousin marriage. Everybody marries somebody totally different from their background.

Speaker 1:
[28:22] So I want to jump to... Well, hit your point before I jump to the next story.

Speaker 3:
[28:25] No, I was just going to say, I mean, with Hasan Piker, we kind of started this by saying, I wasn't this disastrous for Democrats. I don't know that that's true, because they seem to be embracing him and sort of glossing him. Obviously, he's on the New York Times podcast. He's getting platformed. He's invited to Yale to speak. At the same time that, for instance, at UCLA, a woman who survived the 10-7 attacks was faced with protests because it was offensive to students that somebody who had survived that kind of violence should speak because they were pro- none of it makes any sense, but it's interesting. We're also saying Obama spending time with Zoran Mumdani. So there is just an eagerness, and you even saw it in the facial expression of the woman who was interviewing him. There's so much eagerness to latch on to what they see as charisma and reaching the youth, and no one in the Democratic Party is willing to call this out.

Speaker 1:
[29:22] My favorite part of the Yale speech was when Hasan said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest, what do you say, catastrophes of the 20th century. And then he was like, after it ended, people are committing suicide, they lost their jobs, there was a lot of rape and children being murdered. And it's funny because it's like, uh-huh, and all that was happening while the Soviet Union existed too. So, like, your point is bad things the Soviet Union were doing persisted after they ended? Okay.

Speaker 5:
[29:49] Was he talking about the way it got broken up? Because I think it was like businessmen that kind of decided how it was going to happen.

Speaker 1:
[29:56] He was saying that after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a lot of suicide, murder, crime, and those bad things emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union. He's trying to make this point that while the Soviet Union was bad for a lot of reasons, they brought, they had some stability and after they fell, everything was chaotic and destructive. And the problem is the Soviet Union's went and like, I don't know, killed like 30 million people. They had everybody in cool locks too.

Speaker 5:
[30:17] There's like so many people in jail.

Speaker 1:
[30:19] Ukrainians starved to death in the, was it the 30s, the Holodomor? And they had ethnic supremacy movements. And yeah, so all of that was really bad. We don't like the Soviet Union at all. And Hasan, you know, I wonder too, because how does someone so intentionally like, you know, I don't think he's stupid. I don't think you get to these positions by being dumb, but he is dishonest. And there's a lot of examples of this. Here's what I'll do. I'm gonna jump to this from the New York Times. This is the article where they actually highlight the interview with Hasan. The rich don't play by the rules, so why should I? I wanna, is that a quote from Hasan? I'm just gonna do this real quick. I really wanna see if that's something he actually said, because if it is, okay, no, okay, Spiegelman said that. I'm gonna say, if Hasan said that, I was gonna say he is rich, but I wanna jump to this portion of the interview so you can understand the depravity that is the modern liberal condition. Tolentino says, this is one of the individuals on the podcast for the New York Times, one thing that should be legal that isn't, bracket. I'm gonna read the bracket for you in a second, the M dash, sorry, but I wanna finish her thought. One thing that should be legal that isn't, may be things like blowing up a pipeline, let's say that. Now, there's a big thing in the middle there that I do think is worth reading, but just to point out, her idea is it should be legal to blow up pipelines. Now, let me read what you said. One thing that should be legal that isn't, it's interesting because I have to regularly explain this stuff to a small child and have so thoroughly explained it to her that some things are against the rules, but they're okay depending on who you are, and some things are not against the rules, but they're not okay. There are so many perfectly legal things that I regularly find mildly immoral, like getting iced coffee in a plastic cup. I find that to be a profoundly selfish, immoral, collectively destructive action. I have taken so many planes for so many pleasure reasons. I have acted in so many selfish ways that are not only legal, but they're sanctioned and they're unbelievably valorized culturally. So maybe things like blowing up a pipeline. Let's say that. She literally said it is morally wrong to drink coffee with a plastic cup, but it's okay to blow up a pipeline. The current state of the modern liberal condition is that murder, terrorism and theft are legal, or should be legal and are acceptable.

Speaker 2:
[32:47] I bet she also is complaining that gas prices are a dollar higher than when the conflict in Iran started.

Speaker 1:
[32:53] Did you see Greta Thunberg?

Speaker 4:
[32:54] She doesn't have a car.

Speaker 1:
[32:55] Did you all see Greta Thunberg? I love this. When Cuba gets sanctioned, she goes, they are stopping some oil from getting Cuba. And it's like, lady, 10 years ago.

Speaker 4:
[33:05] You hate oil, you idiot.

Speaker 1:
[33:06] You said ban all oil. What do you think was going to happen?

Speaker 4:
[33:09] Just give them some solar panels. Because I will drive over there with your solar panels.

Speaker 2:
[33:14] It's all fake to advance this ideology. These are all tools in their arsenal to try to get to communism. You know what Hasan Piker should have said about the Soviet Union is they just didn't do enough communism. That's how he felt. That was the catastrophe.

Speaker 3:
[33:27] We haven't really tried communism. It wasn't done the right way.

Speaker 2:
[33:31] That's exactly it.

Speaker 5:
[33:32] When it comes to vanguardism, we technically never have had a communist system. Because a communist state is an oxymoron. Communism means there is no state. I haven't seen it. You get this small group of 12 people into power and then with the Chinese and with the Russians, the Soviets, they just hold on forever.

Speaker 2:
[33:47] Because it doesn't work. That's why. It doesn't work because the people in charge are going to always make it work to their own advantage. And the funny thing is, it's people like this that end up in charge. And then they don't mind flying on their private jets while they complain about everyone else driving a car.

Speaker 3:
[34:04] Well, they make sure they don't use the closet up.

Speaker 1:
[34:08] I got to give him some respect. I mean, conservatives are just, the Republican Party, I really hate Republicans.

Speaker 5:
[34:15] Bro, they're staring into the abyss.

Speaker 1:
[34:18] Republicans go up on stage in their suits, and they go, you know, when I get in the office, I'm going to say, slow down there, Democrats. And everyone cheers and waves their American flags. And then Democrats go up on stage. And what did Hakeem Jeffries just say? Maximum warfare.

Speaker 2:
[34:33] So I've been in Congress a year, and you're right. I'll tell you what I've learned. Democrats ruthlessly use their power to advance their ideology, which, frankly, I find evil. And most Republicans are content to manage our decline. We just have to be polite. We must be polite. Don't be too aggressive. Don't fight too hard. That wouldn't be nice.

Speaker 1:
[34:53] That's the problem. Curtis Yarvin, I think, said this, that Republicans treat power the way a wine snob treats alcohol, and Democrats treat power the way an alcoholic treats alcohol.

Speaker 2:
[35:05] Great analogy. And it's true. And I can tell you, being inside for the last year, that is what it is like.

Speaker 3:
[35:10] I also think inherently, conservatives, the conservative impulse, and most Republicans are conservatives, is to maintain the status quo, is to preserve what we have. And naturally, most Democrats are revolutionaries. They want to destroy, they want to blow things up. That is the progressive revolutionary impulse.

Speaker 1:
[35:30] You know how I imagine it? There's like high school, you know, it's like a, maybe like a middle school playground. And there's this kid with like a leather jacket and his hair's all messy. And you know, all the girls are like, oh, he's a bad boy. That's the Democrats. And then there's this like nerdy kid who's like walking. And then the kid in the jacket shoves him to the ground. And then all of his friends start laughing. And the nerdy kid gets up and goes, that was really funny of you to do that to me. You're so smart. And he's like, yeah, shut up, get out of here. That's how I view the Democrats and the Republicans. Like when, remember when Bowman like pulled the sign off the door and then opened it, committing a crime. And then they're just like, we're not gonna do anything about it.

Speaker 2:
[36:10] Look, they're doing it right now. I mean, the Democrats have said, we're not gonna fund the people who protect the border and manage immigration and custom enforcement. And Schumer called them all evil in the last day or two. So that is what they think. They don't believe in law and order.

Speaker 1:
[36:24] Schumer said evil?

Speaker 2:
[36:25] He called them evil and rogue and everything. So these are people who literally check your passport when you come in and out of the border. I mean, that is where we are, where there is good and there is evil. And unfortunately, I think a lot of my colleagues refuse to understand this is not our fathers, this is not our grandparents.

Speaker 1:
[36:44] I don't think so, I think they're cowards.

Speaker 2:
[36:46] That is true as well.

Speaker 1:
[36:46] I think, you know, because you can see there's a handful of Republicans that are not cowards and they get into trouble in the media. They're willing to stand up, speak out.

Speaker 2:
[36:53] I'm one of them.

Speaker 1:
[36:54] You know, perhaps, yeah, cause fights. But many Republicans just keep their heads down, shut up.

Speaker 2:
[37:01] It was easier to do.

Speaker 5:
[37:02] Yeah, because regarding the decline of America and like reversing that, what, like, are you like into the technocracy? I don't see like a better world than a technocracy. I just don't want global totalitarian networks to seize your free speech and shut off your bank account.

Speaker 2:
[37:16] Well, but that's where we're headed. I mean, that's what the liberals were doing. They were deplatforming everyone who disagreed with them. That's what they were using technology to do. We're the side that wants to let people be able to say whatever they want. You know, you may get criticized for doing it, but I think there's too many people who are willing to just go along with the grand slide and it is very, very frustrating. And I wish we were willing to fight more. I do this job for two reasons. They're my children and I'm very, very worried about what the future holds for them. I'm not convinced that the America they'll inherit will be the America that we grew up in.

Speaker 1:
[37:47] You just gotta make sure that they're, they lift, you know, and they're trained with the firearms.

Speaker 2:
[37:51] I wanted my oldest son to watch tonight, but he's at the gym, so.

Speaker 1:
[37:55] That's a good thing, that's a good thing. There you go.

Speaker 5:
[37:56] It seems like it's like society's hanging on to the 20th century with oil and all these old technologies. And we're rapidly advancing the light speed information, like AI, communication, virtual realities, you know, some of these wild new technologies, like talking plasma.

Speaker 1:
[38:13] It's actually an old tech, bro.

Speaker 5:
[38:14] I know. I know. Some people still don't know what it is. But most of maybe Congress, their minds aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the potential outcomes of reality in the future. They're just like, whatever, we'll just get more oil and just keep doing the same thing until we're 42 trillion.

Speaker 1:
[38:33] There's different members of Congress with different specialties and areas of expertise.

Speaker 5:
[38:37] I know, but what it seems like as a whole, most of the body seems oblivious.

Speaker 1:
[38:43] No, it's morally weak.

Speaker 5:
[38:45] I don't know. It seems like they're confused and distorted because they don't know what to do.

Speaker 1:
[38:48] I'm fairly certain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably have a better understanding due to classified briefings on technology than the average person, than the average American.

Speaker 2:
[38:57] Yeah, and I benefit. That's the world I came from. I spent 22 years as a software entrepreneur, and so maybe I understand it better than most.

Speaker 1:
[39:04] My point to you, Ian, is that we are hearing from members of Congress that they've been briefed on advanced technologies already. So your idea that they're unaware of these things, they're more aware than you are.

Speaker 2:
[39:14] But sometimes people oppose the technology. So to give you a great example. So AI is a big deal. You were playing unbelievable songs that you created with AI. But to do AI, you need to have a lot of energy to make the computers work. And now you'll have people say, I don't want one of these data centers in my backyard. Someone's going to win the AI race. Is it going to be America or is it going to be China? And I will tell you, there are a lot of us working hard on it. I have a bill that deals with AI, Brian Mast, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee that I sit on, has spent a ton of time getting us up to speed on AI. But then we're against those who are like, oh my gosh, I don't want an AI data center in my backyard for X, Y, and Z reasons. So these are complicated.

Speaker 4:
[39:53] They're very loud apparently.

Speaker 2:
[39:55] And they take a lot of energy and people are legitimately worried that you'll put an AI center out here, it'll take all the energy and it'll make everybody else's rates go up. So we have to be innovative in how we harness energy. Because here's what I'll tell you, China's building factories every day. So they have the energy. They are way ahead of us in one way. They are building the energy infrastructure. It's not that it's advanced energy, they're just going to have a lot of it. We have to make sure we do the same so that we can compete.

Speaker 4:
[40:22] Aren't they creating a lot more coal?

Speaker 2:
[40:24] Oh yeah, they are. They sell us the solar panels that they make with the coal-fired plants. So much of what the left pushes on us is a scam. And this is one of them. The whole thing's a scam. The SPLC being the best example or the most frequent example. It's all a lie. It is a lie to control us, destroy our civilization, destroy what's made America American. It's why we've got to fight back against it every day.

Speaker 4:
[40:50] I think you're right. I think it is about control. It's about controlling people because if you control the energy and you control everybody's jobs and you get rid of private property, then suddenly everyone is working for the government or getting money from the government, getting fed from the government, getting their health care from the government. And then suddenly you're not an independent person. You're not a liberty. You're not a free person. You're a person who serves government and government of course is supposed to serve us.

Speaker 2:
[41:16] And then they can do communism the real way that it's never been tried.

Speaker 5:
[41:20] Yes, smart contracts.

Speaker 1:
[41:21] Let's jump to the story from the Post Millennial. 114,000 New Yorkers have fled since in 2025 ahead of the Mamdani taking of the Gracie Mansion across all income levels. More people moved out of New York City than moved in. The only thing I would say is a lot of people are like, yeah, that'll show. No, this is what they want to happen. Take a look at this from the New York Post. Ken Griffin's Citadel claps back at Mamdani's viral penthouse video, threatens to scrap $6 billion in New York City development. Do it. Do not put $6 billion into New York. I can sit here and talk about accelerationism all day and say, aha, people are going to leave New York. They want that. It allows them to consolidate power because the people who are leaving are the people who vote against this. But if you pull your investment out, they have no power. They will lord over a pile of ashes. If people keep investing in New York City, despite knowing the psychopathic crackpot has taken over, you will enrich and empower him. He will steal your assets. You put that money in his jurisdiction. He will put it in his pocket. So instead of just threatening to do it, why don't you go ahead and do it?

Speaker 2:
[42:31] Well, the issue I have with the headline that you showed before is they're all leaving and moving to Florida. And as a Floridian, no, as a Floridian, I should like that, right? My state's booming, everybody's coming. But here's why it's bad. New York's gonna collapse because everyone will leave. See, if I don't like American policies, I have three choices in American. I can burn my passport, pay my taxes or go to jail. If you don't like what they're doing in New York, you can just get in your car and drive away. And that's what a lot of people are doing. But what's gonna end up happening, and this is why every American needs to be worried about this, when New York goes bankrupt, they're going to come to the taxpayers of the other 49 states and say, you have to bail us out. It's why we all have to care because New York's problems will ultimately become all of our problems.

Speaker 1:
[43:16] Well, maybe the harsh reality is that Trump does not have the capability to deal with issues like this, but he's butting up with Mom Donnie in the Oval Office. Trump should be exerting every avenue possible to be stopping things like this from happening. He doesn't do it. So it's no surprise that you've got so many people turning on Donald Trump, and these podcasters, these specific individuals that he's called out are finding, it is very lucrative to be against him. And I think the reason is, you've got the younger conservative guys, many of them flock towards people like Nick Fuentes. Fuentes says, screw Trump, don't support him. Vote for the Democrats, the Republicans deserve to lose. So Trump's losing the support, and then I'm sitting here saying, like, I gotta be honest, I don't know what I get for voting for Republican either, other than a speed bump for Democrats. And by all means, it's a fair argument. It's better to have Republicans do nothing than Democrats burn it down. But if the argument is manage decline or decline, I'm going to choose prepping? I'll just say, okay, well, then I'm not interested in any of it. Because I can dedicate my time and energy to saying, man, we better get a Republican Congress to take the majority this time around. And then what happens? The SAVE Act, 80% support across the country, and they won't pass it. So the thing is, if I felt that it would be punishing for Republicans to vote against them, I would, but it's not. Right, so Dave Smith says Republicans deserve to lose. He's like, I wouldn't advocate giving Democrats the White House or anything like that, but they need to be punished. Nick Fuentes has something similar. The problem is people like Thune, he doesn't care if they lose the majority. He's gonna laugh the whole time. He's obstructing this intentionally. So the problem is you can vote for Republicans to get nothing or do nothing, and then Democrats just burn everything down.

Speaker 4:
[45:05] The problem though is once Democrats burn everything down, we're living in ashes. And so that's not great.

Speaker 1:
[45:11] Well, I mean, I moved out the middle of nowhere and I own chickens, and I'm just saying, I'm preparing because it's either gonna happen next year or the year after.

Speaker 2:
[45:19] By the way, all the places where they sent all the Haitians and they started eating the cats and eating the dogs, it was a place like this. So you never know what will happen at the Democrat state.

Speaker 1:
[45:27] Well, no, no, that can't happen here because the DC people fleeing the crime moved to the eastern panhandle of West Virginia.

Speaker 2:
[45:34] So you found the one safe place.

Speaker 1:
[45:36] If you expect, well, until they over well over over, you know, overrun us and there's trans flags in my neighborhood.

Speaker 2:
[45:42] If you expect me to defend what's going on with Republicans in Washington, I'm not going to do it because I'm so frustrated. I don't understand it myself.

Speaker 1:
[45:51] It's got to be aliens.

Speaker 2:
[45:52] So I think it's I think it's because it's hard. It is hard to fight. It's easier to just go along to get along. It's easier to say, I'll make that someone else's problem. Or I don't want it to get in the way of my re-election. Or I don't want it to get in the way of the job that I want next.

Speaker 1:
[46:11] The only hope that I have is that the SAVE Act is being held up just a little bit so that they can get it right before the midterms where it will have an impact. Otherwise, it might go into the Supreme Court and get stays and injunctions or whatever. I just don't believe it to be the case. All the prediction markets are basically saying the same thing, it's not going to get passed. In which case it's just like, listen, if I was a senator, I'd probably get expelled. Like the things that I would do and say, nothing criminal, I'm just like, you know, I would ram things through.

Speaker 4:
[46:46] That's what should be happening.

Speaker 2:
[46:47] And they have that power.

Speaker 1:
[46:48] They just won't do it. One member can grind the place to halt if they wanted.

Speaker 2:
[46:53] One member can grind the place to halt. I don't know why they don't do it, but what I've done is I've said, I'm not voting for any bill, I'm in the House. I've said, I'm not voting for any bills that come from the Senate, none. I voted for one a couple of days ago. I even tell my staff, I don't even care what the Senate bill does. I don't want to know if it's a Senate bill, I'm voting no on anything other than reopening the Department of Homeland Security. I'm voting no on anything because there's nothing more important for them to do than to make sure illegals can't vote in our elections. You know, the longest filibuster in American history was 62 days for the Civil Rights Act to make sure that black people could vote in our elections. It was worth 62 days to make sure that bill passed. It's worth 62 days to make sure people who aren't Americans can't vote in our elections.

Speaker 1:
[47:41] But it's not even that, the Save Action is a general election security bill. I think it's simple enough to say it prevents illegal aliens from voting, but it prevents duplicate voting. It prevents accidental dual state voting. Again, I'm not saying intentional multi-state fraud, I'm saying maybe there's a little old lady and she- It happens. Exactly. She filled out two ballots. Well, this prevents that too. It just cleans things up and you know what? Democrats want it too. For some reason, not the politicians, Democrat voters, 70 plus percent polled in favor of this. Independence, 80, Republicans, over 90, giving us an average of around 80 percent popular support in the country for the Save Act. They're just like, oh, gee, well, I guess I can't pass it. Okay, well, then you can't do anything, I guess.

Speaker 2:
[48:29] Well, I think it's because they've made some decision that we no longer live in a democracy. A democracy would be a majority rule, 51 out of 100, but they made some arbitrary decision that if you can't get 60 votes, you can't pass anything. The filibuster is not in our Constitution. It's not in the Declaration of Independence. And in fact, the way that they use it today is an artifact of the 1970s. It used to be if you wanted a filibuster, you had to stand up and be Mr. Smith goes to Washington and yell and scream and hold it in and not go to the bathroom for hours and hours and hours. Now you just say, nope, there's 41 votes against it. We're not even going to consider it. I can't explain why they do it that way. It doesn't make any sense to me. And frankly, if they stick with it, they may destroy the country.

Speaker 3:
[49:10] The other concern is that as soon as we get rid of it, then Democrats sweep in.

Speaker 4:
[49:15] But they're going to do that anyway.

Speaker 2:
[49:16] They're going to do it anyway.

Speaker 3:
[49:17] I mean, they haven't yet. But they're going to.

Speaker 4:
[49:19] They tried.

Speaker 2:
[49:19] They tried. The two Democratic senators that kept them from doing it, last time they were in charge, they ran both of them and they ran them. They ran them both out of town. So every Democratic senator who was there for that, who's there now, has said, let's get rid of the filibuster.

Speaker 4:
[49:35] Well, and you hear them talking about it. You hear them saying that.

Speaker 2:
[49:38] Absolutely.

Speaker 1:
[49:38] What's the average age of Congress right now? Let me.

Speaker 4:
[49:41] Didn't another congressman say 75? I think the Senate's a little older.

Speaker 2:
[49:44] The Senate's a little older.

Speaker 1:
[49:46] Let's do the average age of the Senate. Because I'm going to tell you what I think. I'll tell you what I think. Let's look at it. I'm 40. I just turned 40 last month. I think people in my age group, when we get, when younger millennials start getting into the Senate with power, it's going to be nuclear bombs going off left and right. I think what you're seeing is the older generation saying, no, no, no, let's listen. We don't want to go nuclear. We don't want them to do it to us. And my attitude is like, oh, I would, if there was a red button in the Senate, I'd just be like, just smashing it every time.

Speaker 5:
[50:25] Well, I mean, it's drastic. These senators sitting there being like, what's another $1 trillion? Bro. The younger generation had a time for that, man. We need radical change. We need radical change. It's just, you got to define what that means. And I disagree with a lot of the extremism.

Speaker 1:
[50:40] Right now you're looking at members of the House and the Senate who are skewing a little bit older, like Nancy Pelosi, you know what I mean?

Speaker 4:
[50:48] Is she skewing a little older, you think?

Speaker 1:
[50:49] Yeah. To be fair, Mike Johnson's not that old. But I think once you get a majority of people from my generation, the left, you're going to have Hasan Piker as the Speaker of the House.

Speaker 2:
[51:01] I figure they're running in these elections.

Speaker 1:
[51:03] Exactly.

Speaker 2:
[51:03] The best shot Republicans have to keep the majority is the kind of candidates they are putting up. But the way to win a Democratic primary today, the craziest person will win.

Speaker 3:
[51:16] With gerrymandering, too, you think about it, it used to be that all of these districts, if they're arranged for fairness as they should be, they're moderate districts, so it could go either way. As a result of that, you have candidates who run, who have to be moderate to get both liberal and conservative votes. Now, the gerrymandering is making it, of course, so that you have just one group that's voting for somebody, putting them in. So you're going to see really extreme people on the right, and the left, and that's another outcome of gerrymandering. I don't think we're going to see any sort of agreement on anything.

Speaker 4:
[51:52] We also have people saying that they're moderates, running as moderates and then not being that at all.

Speaker 1:
[51:57] The average age of the house is 58.

Speaker 2:
[51:59] So shoot, I'm a little younger.

Speaker 1:
[52:01] When, I would say this, I said I would never run, but I'm just getting more and more angry. The only thing at this point, there's two big things. One, I have people work at a company that rely on me to do my job to make sure that they can do theirs. But also I'm in Riley Moore's district, you know, and he's great. He's a good one. I don't need to run here. And I'm not going to move somewhere else just to try and represent the people who live there.

Speaker 4:
[52:24] You could run for the state. You could run for a state.

Speaker 1:
[52:27] I wouldn't want to run to represent the state to itself. I wouldn't mind representing the interests of the district to the federal government, but Riley Moore does have a better job than I ever could. So I'm good. I'm good here. And I don't like the idea of like, where could I, where could Tim Pool move to so that I could run for office and represent now?

Speaker 4:
[52:42] You don't want to be a carpet bagger.

Speaker 1:
[52:44] Yeah, get out of here.

Speaker 5:
[52:44] One of my takes on politicians is that you get them in so that you get the people in that won't stop you from doing what you want to do in the private sector. Like the president, he's got the veto power. Like Obama, that was the thing about him. I was like, he's not going to stop me from issuing a social revolution. I kind of backed off of the idea, but do you get this feeling too, Randy, that Congress and the executive branch, really their position is just to stop people from going too crazy and just watch over the people? Because that's what I want it to be.

Speaker 2:
[53:10] No, I think the other side is crazy, and they want more crazy that's going on there. And again, I can't explain the behavior of some of my Republican colleagues. I mean, last week, there was a bill that a dozen of them voted for, to have infinity Haitian immigrants that were here illegally get welfare forever.

Speaker 5:
[53:29] Why did they do that?

Speaker 2:
[53:30] I don't know.

Speaker 4:
[53:31] We covered that.

Speaker 2:
[53:32] Honestly, I think part of it is there become these magic bullets, the compassion bullet. Well, their lives stink in Haiti, so we don't have compassion. But here's what I would say. I'm a math guy. When we're borrowing a trillion dollars or more a year that we don't have, that's going to be a big problem. The reason we have problems in Washington is people, I tell my colleagues this all the time, you need to worry more about the judgment of your children than you do the judgment of the voters. Your children will forgive you if you lose an election. They will not forgive you if you destroy the country. That's who's going to remember you when you die, is your kids. And I think there are too many people focused on the moment and the next election and getting to the next job and doing everything else, and they're not realizing that America is 250 years old. We're not going to make it another 250 years if we continue to do things the way that we have done them. Every great empire in history, when they have collapsed, the overwhelming majority have collapsed, not because they got beaten in a war, it's because they did it to themselves, usually because they borrowed more money than they could afford.

Speaker 1:
[54:35] I think it's just the sad reality is, over a long enough period of time, there's, there's, we're looking at a loss of trust in society. You know, we made the joke the other night about, if you ever want to, if you ever wondered what it was like in a high trust society because we don't find it these days, go to a ski resort where people put thousands of dollars worth of ski equipment just next to a fence and then walk away, go inside, have dinner, come back out three hours later, there it is. Nobody touched it, nobody wants it. It's high trust. We expect that we're not going to get attacked. So I look at someone like Zoran Mamdani and I respect him tremendously. He's a warrior.

Speaker 2:
[55:11] This is true.

Speaker 1:
[55:13] He is a warrior who is willing to do anything to get his way. And the right in this country, the traditionalist Americans have very few warriors. So you look at Mamdani, he's from Uganda. When he comes to New York, he lies his ass off and he says, basically, I'm going to put a bunch of policy into place that will burn the whole place to the ground because he clearly does not like America. That's why he said in his campaign that he would protect illegal immigrants, non-citizens from the American people who voted to have them removed. I want to stress this. The American people voted for Donald Trump. Immigration was a principle issue. In response to that, Mamdani said, I will protect you from them. When he was campaigning, he was campaigning directly to the people who broke our laws that we voted to have deported. He is, it is very brave to go into a foreign country and propose these things. I mean it seriously. Could you imagine going to the UK, standing up on a soapbox and denouncing Islam? I mean, they'd destroy you.

Speaker 4:
[56:14] Yeah, they'd knife you to death.

Speaker 2:
[56:16] They'd stab you.

Speaker 1:
[56:18] And Zoran Mamdani knows.

Speaker 4:
[56:19] He's one of those swords.

Speaker 1:
[56:20] He can come to the United States and tell the American people to their faces, you voted, F yourselves. I will stop you. And you can't do anything about it. And he's right. No one does anything about it.

Speaker 2:
[56:33] That's why I think he should be denaturalized and deported. So I mean, I think he lied to become a citizen. I think he did not disclose all of the relationships and all the views that he had when you have to fill out that form.

Speaker 1:
[56:43] Right, that was a big story.

Speaker 2:
[56:44] And I think he should be deported.

Speaker 1:
[56:45] And Ilhan Omar as well. Even the Star Tribune stated it was possible, the preponderance of evidence, she married her brother so that he could get immigration status and the INA is clear that if convicted of that, she can be denaturalized and deported. But you know what? No one is going to do it because we are a nation. Unfortunately, our cowards outweigh our warriors.

Speaker 2:
[57:10] On our side, not on theirs.

Speaker 1:
[57:13] Indeed, and I want to stress this to Democrats like Hasan Piker. Hasan Piker is a great man. I didn't say good. He is a man of magnitude who is willing to incite people to violence and advocate for murder and death in the highest of places. Conservatives are unwilling to take that step because it would be wrong to advocate for these things. Hasan Piker is willing to electrocute his own dog on camera so that he can have the esthetic of his dog on camera. There is a degree of brutality and lack of remorse that he has, and that unfortunately for people needing to realize, a man who is willing to electrocute his own dog for views is willing to do a lot more that you are not, and unfortunately, in this arena, the most brutal guy wins, and the Republicans are suit wearing squares who say, hold on there, let's not fight, and he's staring at you while shocking his dog over and over again.

Speaker 5:
[58:11] I don't think the most brutal guy wins in this. I think the most brutal guy might win the ticket and then get killed by the deep state immediately. So I don't think it's-

Speaker 1:
[58:20] Deep state is the most brutal guy.

Speaker 3:
[58:22] They're aligned with him. The other thing is he's getting celebrated every step of the way. He was at the Vanity Fair party. He's getting this glamorous cover shoots and GQ. I mean, yes, he is willing to do shocking crazy things, but the culture is wholeheartedly embracing.

Speaker 2:
[58:38] Because they appreciate someone who's willing to overtly say what they all believe and are afraid to do it. That's why they all agree with him. It's not that they don't agree.

Speaker 1:
[58:50] They like that he electrocutes his dog. And I'm not saying that to be cute. Many people attacked him and criticized him for doing so. But his fans like that he does that stuff.

Speaker 5:
[59:00] He got a shot collar on his dog.

Speaker 1:
[59:01] Is that what it was?

Speaker 5:
[59:02] And it malfunctioned or something?

Speaker 4:
[59:04] It malfunctioned.

Speaker 5:
[59:05] Is he just holding the button down and the dog was starting screaming?

Speaker 1:
[59:08] There are montages of him muting his microphone and then clicking a button. The dog...

Speaker 2:
[59:13] Oh yeah, and threatening his dog. Look, I'm the guy.

Speaker 1:
[59:17] He wants the dog as an aesthetic on his show. He even has a little cartoon of his dog that pops up. And so one day, apparently what happened, this is all alleged, I guess, he forgot to mute his microphone. And when he electrocuted the dog, it yelped and then jolted. And then people noticed he has the remote for a shot collar. He then claimed it was a vibrating collar instead. And you could see the back of it where there used to be prongs taped over, all of this stuff. The point is this, you get a guy like Donald Trump and people cheer for him. Why? He mocked a journalist who got body slammed and Trump supporters liked it. Because finally you had in Trump, someone was willing to give the middle finger to these other people. But unfortunately Trump's the only guy.

Speaker 5:
[60:01] I think we need a mathematician now and not an overt, angry, loud, boisterous maniac. We need like a dude that can pull some numbers behind the scenes and destroy a virus, a computer virus.

Speaker 1:
[60:13] What does that mean?

Speaker 5:
[60:13] We have one. You need mathematicians to understand compound inflation and that have a plan to reduce our fuel costs or something.

Speaker 1:
[60:20] All right. Let me just ask you a question, Ian. So all right, there's a big guy electrocuting his dog over and over again. Are you suggesting that the mathematician will figure out a mathematical formula to make him stop? No, no.

Speaker 5:
[60:34] I think there's just an ideal candidate, a far superior candidate to running the system than a guy who shocks his dog.

Speaker 1:
[60:40] So you've got one party of dog electrocuters and you're saying the mathematicians will stop them from brutalizing people, committing terror attacks, smashing windows, burning cities down, shooting people, letting criminals out of jail. A mathematician is going to do that?

Speaker 5:
[60:54] I didn't say that.

Speaker 1:
[60:54] I'm sorry, I want grunk. I want a 40,000 year old high brow ridge Neanderthal just like bashing a club on the ground. I want him to be president.

Speaker 5:
[61:06] You want to get a punch through a window and?

Speaker 1:
[61:08] So he's sitting there.

Speaker 3:
[61:09] Who is the guy in January 6th with the shaman? You want the shaman.

Speaker 1:
[61:14] No, the shaman's not a violent guy. He's like a spiritual guy. No, I want a guy with a big club sitting there just like with his underbite. And when he's left, he walks up and goes, I think communism, donk.

Speaker 2:
[61:25] And to some degree, we have that with President Trump. I mean, that's why we like him so much. He's willing to fight. And there's a few of us like that, not enough.

Speaker 1:
[61:32] But the SPLC stuff is, I'll say this, USAID getting dismantled was a grand slam. The SPLC, I give that it's a double. It's really good. I'm happy it happened. It's not as big as USAID, but they're both really good things in the right direction. I'm trying to diminish it. I'm saying, USAID was like a nuclear bomb against the deep state. As of right now, we see this one thing with the SPLC, which is good, but I don't think they're doing enough. They're going to lose the midterms. Democrats are going to put people in prison. And you look at what they're doing in Virginia, they're going to do that. They get any modicum of power back in the federal government. It's over.

Speaker 2:
[62:13] James Carville, who was the guy behind Bill Clinton, one of the major Democratic consultants out there, has said, he's been very clear. Here's what we should do if we win. They're going to make DC a state. They're going to make Puerto Rico a state. They're going to pack the Supreme Court with a bunch of new people. They're very clear of what they will do if they will take over. Democrats believe that when they win elections of consequences and when we win, we must do bipartisanship. That's how it works. It's a one way street. And what I always say is, I don't make the rules, I fight by theirs.

Speaker 4:
[62:48] He also said, don't run on this Democrats, but this is what we're going to do.

Speaker 2:
[62:52] It's just like the governor of Virginia. I'm a moderate. I'm a moderate. I'm a moderate.

Speaker 3:
[62:57] She's a liar.

Speaker 5:
[62:59] You do make the rules.

Speaker 2:
[63:01] You're the guy that does it. I don't make the rules of the fight. I'm one of 435 people and I am in the fight and I'm glad to be there. But there aren't a lot of us that are willing to fight. I'm the newest member of the Freedom Caucus. We're willing to fight. There's a lot of people that are, by the way, on both sides, that just want to get re-elected. I'm okay going home. What I'm not okay with is letting the country collapse. That's what I'm not okay with.

Speaker 3:
[63:24] I will say, Republicans are in a tough spot, obviously, but Democrats are not in a good spot. They're not polling well either. And I do think even with this whole gerrymandering, maybe it's too obtuse for the average person to understand abstruse. But we're seeing that when Democrats get power, they try and disenfranchise everyone, of course. And they hate the democracy. And so that's, of course, why Trump got elected is because people saw how crazy the Democrats went. Are we seeing that in little pieces with Mumdani, where the average person is kind of recognizing and waking up to see, maybe Republicans aren't great, but the alternative is chaos.

Speaker 1:
[64:03] Let's get into the foreign policy stuff, especially with this, we have a couple of stories, and plenty of, let's pull up the Lebanon ceasefire. I thought I had it pulled up. Big news, big news from CNBC. Trump says Israel Lebanon ceasefire extended by three weeks. Of course, we also have the, I believe was what, the interdiction of a vessel trying to break the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. Right now, a big component of politics is specifically about the war with Iran and US involvement with Israel. And so bring this up, my question for you, with Tucker and Megyn Kelly and Candace Owens and many formerly big Trump supporters breaking from Trump on principally the issue of Iran, but also the issue of our alliance and support for Israel. You have right now the left and elements of the right unified in just hating Israel. I don't know how the Republican Party, to be fair, the Democrats are also divided on this as well. The older Democrats are much, much more pro-Israel, but with Trump losing support for this reason, how do Republicans actually even win with that sentiment in play?

Speaker 2:
[65:14] Well, I think it's not that they're unified in hating Israel. I think it's that they're unified in hating Jews and Israel is just the vehicle that they use to do that. Look, Israel is the best ally that we have. Israel is the only country that is out there that doesn't ask us to fight their wars for them. I found it very amusing. Rahm Emanuel said, we need to treat Israel the same way we treat our allies in Western Europe. We've got bases with tens of thousands of soldiers in the UK and in Germany and Spain and in all these other, in France and all these countries. We don't have a base. There's a couple hundred American soldiers in Israel that are just there to kind of coordinate things.

Speaker 1:
[65:50] Do you think that we should continue funding, providing funding to Israel every year?

Speaker 2:
[65:54] We provide, so interestingly, we provide about $3.5 billion a year to Israel, but we actually don't give Israel any money. That's one of the big misnomers. What we do is we give Israel $3.5 billion of American-made military equipment. So we give them stuff that makes American jobs and we give it to them. It's been estimated that what Israel gives us in return for that is worth 10 times as much.

Speaker 1:
[66:18] What do we get?

Speaker 2:
[66:19] We get intelligence gathering. I'm kidding. What?

Speaker 1:
[66:21] I said hummus?

Speaker 2:
[66:22] Their hummus is good. Their hummus is good. But we get intelligence gathering. So President Trump wants to build the Golden Dome. Where do you think the technology for the Golden Dome comes from?

Speaker 1:
[66:31] Yeah, they do a lot of that.

Speaker 2:
[66:32] The other thing is Israel is the beta test site because they're always in a war. They're the beta test site for so many of our weapons. So we give them to them and then their soldiers use them. It's estimated for every dollar we give them, we don't give them any. Every dollar of our equipment, we get 10 back.

Speaker 3:
[66:49] Are they purchasing it then?

Speaker 2:
[66:51] We buy the three and a half, when they say 3.5, we buy three and a half billion dollars of our stuff from American military companies and then we give it to them. We don't give them any, there's no check.

Speaker 3:
[67:01] I'm just curious. I mean, they obviously have a lot of money. It seems like so much could be solved if they just paid.

Speaker 2:
[67:06] And by the way, BD Netanyahu himself has said, over time in the next few years, Israel wants to get rid of it. And by the way, the big loser when they do that is going to be America. So it will reduce our ability to influence what they do. Yes, they want to get rid of it as well.

Speaker 1:
[67:22] Let me ask you, in your perspective, what is the reason why so many people right now have turned and have become anti-Israel?

Speaker 2:
[67:30] I think there's a couple of reasons. I think on the left, there's an obsession with the underdog. So if you're more in worse shape, you must therefore be good. It's part of the obsession with illegal immigrants. And so people look at Israel as a strong, successful country and all these poor, sorry people around it. So therefore, they must be good and Israel must be bad. That's number one. I think number two, I think that unfortunately, when something goes wrong in people's lives, they look for someone to blame. You know, if I weigh a little bit too much, it's not my fault. It must be because the restaurant feeds me too much. And I think Jews are an easy target if your life isn't good. I think it's been that way for thousands of years.

Speaker 1:
[68:11] I call that, I call it the Israel Derangement Syndrome.

Speaker 2:
[68:15] And I think the third reason, there is a ton of foreign money that is out there funding this sort of stuff. And by the way, China and Russia fund a lot of this. You know why? They don't care about Israel. They don't care about, about any of this fight. They're trying to make America tear itself apart from within. And they have found this is an issue that can really divide Americans and we can beat each other up.

Speaker 1:
[68:39] So I've interviewed a handful of people who have what I describe as Israel Derangement Syndrome.

Speaker 2:
[68:43] Doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1:
[68:44] So the way I describe it is criticizing Israel is always allowed. But legitimate criticisms of any government military operations. But there are people who will tell you that in one instance on this show, someone was asked about the fentanyl crisis in West Virginia and within 20 seconds, the guest turned it into it's Israel's fault. And I got, I'm like, you got to stop, okay? Like the problem of opiates may come from China, but when we're talking about heroin abuse in West Virginia, we're talking about jobs, the white working class being left behind, the loss of the coal mines and things like this. And all of a sudden, you're talking about it's Israel who did it all. That's derangement. That being said, I wonder, so we have this article from the Free Press, Israel has an extremism problem. Besides the moral failure, Israel's institutional failure to crack down on violent settlers is damaging its ability to fight for its survival. And the Free Press, notably, I mean, Barry Weiss is an avowed and proud Zionist, and even her publication points out that there's an extremist settler problem in the West Bank. Do you think that, like, how do we parse through this? I agree with you, there's foreign funding promoting individuals who say the stupidest things about Israel, but then there are stories like this where my libertarian friends are not coming to me and saying stupid conspiracy nonsense, they're saying things like this.

Speaker 2:
[70:00] Yep. This is a legitimate issue that people should have concerns about. But the most pernicious form of antisemitism is when every other country does it, it doesn't bother you. But when Israel does it, you lose your mind. So there is a place not far from this in Syria called Sueda, which most people haven't heard of. And the people who live there are Druze, they're not Jews, they're not Muslim, it's their own religion. And the Muslims in Syria went in and just killed them all, just killed everyone. And it's not talked about, no one cares about it, no one worries about it. Why? Because it's not Israel. So what the issue is, that's absolutely an issue. My, and people should talk about it, but they should talk about all of the other bad things.

Speaker 1:
[70:53] I agree.

Speaker 2:
[70:54] And that, so this is true. But when people obsess about this, to the exclusion of all of the others, that is the derangement.

Speaker 3:
[71:03] No one cares about Christians being slaughtered in Africa right now. And I would also, I would say, it's really interesting. There was that image that was all over the internet about a week ago where IDF soldier had removed, chopped a cruiser, which is horrible, disgusting. But of course that image went viral overnight. Well, no one cares about the fact that in Europe now, there's an attempt to basically undermine Christian iconography by a lot of immigrants there. No one cares about that, but this image of the IDF soldier going after the crucifix went viral. Of course, disgusting. And Israel had the proper response. They condemned it. I don't know what's happened to that soldier.

Speaker 2:
[71:44] They've punished him?

Speaker 3:
[71:45] They've erected in its stead a new beautiful statue. So, again, horrible. And they did address it. They made it right. But that hasn't gotten the same amount of coverage. And again, no one cares about all of the other horrible things.

Speaker 2:
[72:00] The prime minister of Israel. The prime minister of Israel apologized for one of his soldiers that he didn't do it. One of his soldiers doing something terrible. The head of the country felt the obligation to apologize because it is unbelievable. But in Turkey, the Hagia Sophia, one of the most extraordinary churches of Western civilization, they destroy it as a Christian site and turn it into a mosque. And nobody cares.

Speaker 1:
[72:30] One thing that I brought up that really bothers me. So we had a guest on the show a little while ago who said, because the issue of Ukraine comes up. And then she makes this thing of like, well, Zelensky is Jewish. And I'm like, yeah, and? And she's like, well, they put him in there. And I'm like, why? And she said, because Netanyahu wants his corridor to Ukraine, which is just like something made up on the spot. Because I've been tracking.

Speaker 3:
[72:53] I love when people use they. You're like, who's the they?

Speaker 1:
[72:55] Who's they though?

Speaker 3:
[72:56] Who's they?

Speaker 1:
[72:56] So the thing about this is that if you are, I would describe as retarded and you have no idea what you're talking about and you go online and someone tells you the Jews did everything, you will just make things up to fill in the blanks for what you don't understand. The reason why the Ukraine war exists largely has to do with the Qatar Turkey pipeline, Gazprom natural gas into Europe. It is a big multi-decade long issue. You know, Hunter Biden's on the board of Burisma. You've got the prosecution of Michael Zachevsky. All of this, not at all related to Israel. But they make it about Israel. And then I point out this, we've given more to Ukraine in three years than Israel in 50. By all means, you can tell me that we shouldn't give Israel any money or military aid through spending, that we should not be allowing them. I will listen to all of these arguments on foreign policy. But when I ask you about the same thing is true for Ukraine and you're like, I don't know, I'm like, okay, I'm not going to accuse a person who has legitimate criticism of Israel of Israel Derangement Syndrome. If you don't know about Ukraine, I just say, take a look into it. Because we've given them more money. Their president has come to our Congress. They've all waved the Ukrainian flag in our land. People in this country, liberals all over the country are flying the Ukrainian flag. I look at that very similarly. We give them insane amounts of money. They lobby on behalf of a foreign president. My question only is, why is there only one place you care about? Why not, why not Burma and, you know, or the Uighur Muslims or Sudan?

Speaker 2:
[74:26] You've identified again, that most pernicious form of antisemitism. When people say, if you criticize Israel, it is antisemitic, it's not. It's when you only criticize Israel. That's what makes it antisemitic, you've nailed it.

Speaker 1:
[74:40] I would layer that a little bit more. If you only criticized Israel, I would just simply ask, is there a reason why you think Israel bears more focus than any other country? You're allowed to have a response to that. I know that, you know, Dave Smith, for instance, would say, yeah, here's why I think that. I say, okay, if you can give me a legitimate reason, if you can say, I understand what China is doing, yes, maybe we could focus more on it. I would say the derangement is when people make things up like Netanyahu installed Zelensky to build a corridor. I'm like, now you've lost your mind. And what I find most offensive about that is, it would take you maybe 30 minutes. I mean, these days with Grok, you could just type it in and it'll give you a whole breakdown of the past 20 years. I'll give you the cliff notes on how we were trying to build the natural gas pipeline. Syria wouldn't let us. The United States government cited against the Assad regime so that, which put us in conflict with Russia. Then Hillary Clinton said, we want to know, fly zone over Syria. All of this related to energy and not Israel. So when you ignore all of the past 20 years of foreign policy that we've been talking about and tracking and our elections and then go, I don't know, the Jews did it. I'm just like, okay, you are deranged. If you say, honestly, I don't know, I got no problem. Someone comes to me and says, I see these stories about children being blown up in Gaza. I see these civilian sites being targeted. I'm not a fan of that. I don't want my money funding it. I say, okay. I mean, sure, that's an opinion.

Speaker 2:
[76:01] Yeah, except most of that's not happening. Civilian sites aren't targeted.

Speaker 1:
[76:06] Well, I think the issue is that there's no distinction between civilian and military in Gaza because of the way Hamas operates.

Speaker 2:
[76:12] And but the fault of that is on Hamas. You blame the people who misuse. So by the way, under the laws of war, when you use human shields and the human shields die, it is not the fault of the person who kills the human shields. It's the fault of the person who used them.

Speaker 1:
[76:29] Isn't, isn't, isn't this the leftist thing though? The left likes to go to these protests, start a fight with a cop and then only film the reaction of the cop and say the cops beating innocent protesters. So, when you have Hamas putting missile sites in schools and hospitals, do, do we, like, this, this, you know, you know what I really, really can't stand about the Israel-Palestinian conflict is that the, the obsession that people have over it and for Americans, young liberal left or right who have no reason to be so fervent about a foreign conflict like this, because I've tracked this, I've been to many of these countries, I've been to 38 different countries tracking conflicts of unrest and they seem to have strong opinions. I don't understand why. So let me just finish this point. Israel is in a conflict with Hamas. The idea that they are fighting. And I go, that's a war. One side has more power than the other. So if Hamas fires missiles, Israel's going to crush them. Hamas uses civilian sites to launch their, to store weapons, launch weapons and do command operations. Israel says, okay, we're not going to allow this. According to Israel, they'll put out messages saying, we're going to evacuate, we're going to blow it up right now. When I look at all of the facts of the matter, I say, I don't have any answers for any of you people. I hear the argument from one side, I hear from the other, man, maybe the United States shouldn't be involved in whatever is going on there. But then I have people who come to me and they're just like, no, Israel's lying about everything, they're wrong about everything. And I'm like, why have you chosen a side in a foreign conflict you're not involved in?

Speaker 5:
[78:03] Because they're fighting the war with American gifted weaponry.

Speaker 1:
[78:07] And that's why I said, if you were to come to me and say, we should cut off military support to Israel, I say, okay, that's an opinion, right? That makes sense to me. You say, I don't want to be involved in this. I say, sure, you can make a counter argument. I understand these opinions exist. What I'm saying is, it doesn't make sense for someone to be like, Israel is evil. They want to court order Ukraine. They control our government, like all of this stuff that's just not real.

Speaker 5:
[78:30] It's making false claims is silly, it diminishes your argument. But it is true that the Israelis are fighting wars with American weapons as gifts. So people in America have a right to be up there, but about what they're doing.

Speaker 2:
[78:42] People should also understand what the war is about. So the root of Christianity all took place where Israel is, right? That's where Jesus was born, that's where he lived, it's where he died. And when I went to Israel with my colleagues last August, they got to visit two sets of places. They got to visit the Christian holy sites that were run by Israel, and then they went to Bethlehem. I didn't join them when they went to Bethlehem, it was on Shabbat, I wasn't gonna go on a bus tour on Shabbat. But when they came back from Bethlehem, I asked them, what was it like to go to the birthplace of Jesus? You know what they told me? It had nothing to do with the birthplace of Jesus. They said, I can't believe how bad it was kept versus the Christian sites that I visited that were controlled by the Jews. Bethlehem used to be 90% Christian, now it's 10%. In Israel, the Christian population is growing. Christians are free. You'll hear this crazy nonsense from these wackos like Tucker, but you know what drives the economy of Israel when there's not a war going on? It's Christian tourism, because Christians want to come to Israel to see their holy sites, and they're preserved, and they're welcome to be there. It is not just Israel at stake for Israel. It's not just Israel's stake for Jews. It is Israel's stake to protect what it means to be Christian, the holiest sites in your religion as well.

Speaker 1:
[79:59] There's something funny in, like, there's a viral post going around about Israel. I think Tel Aviv's having a big pride event. And it's just like the whole thing is ironic and paradoxical, I guess, where every leftist in the United States basically hates Israel, you know?

Speaker 2:
[80:13] It's a pretty liberal place socially.

Speaker 1:
[80:14] I know, yeah. It's just, the whole thing is-

Speaker 2:
[80:20] Because they're obsessed with this idea of victims are good. If you're poor, you must be, the rich are bad, the poor are good.

Speaker 1:
[80:31] I got a question.

Speaker 3:
[80:32] They've been so oppressed.

Speaker 2:
[80:34] And that's the other reason. People ask me this all the time. The reason the left hates Jews right now is because no group of people's been treated worse in the history of the world, thousands of years. And Jews don't wait around for the government to save us. The entire philosophy of the left is if your life stinks, the government's your only answer for it to be better. And I have news for you. When I had a tough childhood and I came home having gotten my butt kicked by someone, my grandmother would always tell me, you don't wait around, you don't make excuses, you just evolve and you get back up.

Speaker 1:
[81:03] So I have a question for you, right? So I keep hearing about how the biggest podcasts in the world right now are those that are critical of Israel. And the people that Trump has been criticizing, these prominent podcasters all have some of the top spots. And they're all very critical of Israel. Some of them discuss what they call greater Israel and Jewish supremacy. And I guess my issue is why haven't the Jews, considering that they control all media, yeah, why are they allowing that to happen?

Speaker 2:
[81:30] It's a great question. And you know, it has a lot to do with numbers. You know, there are fewer Jews in the world than there are people who live in Beijing, China. It's only 15 million Jews. Yeah, there's 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. So if you measure your audience based on number of people, do you think you're gonna get a bigger audience if you target Jews or if you don't target Jews? There just aren't that many of us. And I think that's the biggest issue.

Speaker 1:
[81:58] There's a small number. The guest we had on, I'm not gonna say her name or whatever, but people can look her up. She said that I was evil for protecting an evil group of people that were controlling everything. And I'm just sitting here being like, we do a really bad job if we're trying to control everything. I mean, come on, you only just got paramounts? You finally have one media outlet and you bought TikTok and because Jews are all one big conglomerate. But with the Ellison's buying TikTok and CBS, the argument from any of these people is that pro Israel Zionists are buying media to stop the spread of anti-Zionist messaging.

Speaker 2:
[82:32] I thought we already owned it all.

Speaker 1:
[82:33] That's the point. I'm like, right, they're doing it because they didn't control it already. It's different. People that you're complaining about. I just, guys, special interests exists. Conspiracies are all over the place. There's Islamic special interest groups that fund and lobby and do these things. Israel does these things too. You're allowed to criticize any government you want. It's the conspiracy insanity that drives me insane.

Speaker 5:
[82:57] Yeah, like the third temple. Is that real? Does the Likud actually want to bring about World War III to bring back Christ?

Speaker 2:
[83:03] Well, there are some people who want to build a third temple. And I will tell you how they look at it. Jerusalem's never mentioned in the Koran. Never mentioned one time. Yet somehow, at some point along the way, they decided that exactly where the Jewish temple was must have been where Mohammed died. It's never mentioned in the Koran, but somehow long after he was gone, that must be the place. And so they wanted to build a mosque right over the place that's the holiest place in the Jewish religion. It's the place where it is believed that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac. That happens to be the same place, coincidentally, that Mohammed ascended to heaven. So there are some people who say, look, we should get rid of that and we should build the third temple. But here's what Israel's done. Since 1968, Israel has controlled the third holiest place in the Muslim religion, the Dome of the Rock, right there. And since 1968, Israel hasn't blown it up. They haven't destroyed it. They haven't even had Jews be in charge of the Temple Mount. They let people from Jordan, who they took it from, be in charge. I went to the top. I went to the Temple Mount when I was with Israel, when I was in Israel a couple of years ago. And it's fascinating. Muslims can go to the holiest site in Judaism, the third holiest site in Islam, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There's 8 or 9 ways they can get in. Non-Muslims can only go a few days a week. At certain times, there's only one entrance. And when you go in that entrance, they put you into one of two groups. If you look Jewish or if you don't look Jewish. By the way, we're told that Israel is all about apartheid. This is real apartheid. Well, when I went, I tried not to look Jewish. I looked as American as I could. You know why? I went with my younger son. We went up there. If you don't look Jewish, you can go anywhere you want. You can walk around. You can go anywhere you want. You can't go in the Dome of the Rock. You can't go in the Al Aqsa Mosque, but you can walk around and look at anything you want. But if you look Jewish, you have to be in a guided group that walks in a certain route, straight, left, right, with police surrounding you. Why are the police surrounding them? It's not for their own protection. The police are surrounding them, filming to make sure they don't pray, to make sure Jews don't pray in the holiest place in their religion.

Speaker 4:
[85:22] That's crazy.

Speaker 2:
[85:23] That's how it works. That's apartheid, but it's Muslim apartheid. Israel's actually forcing apartheid on Jews. Muslims, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Everybody else, only certain times. And if you look Jewish, you're gonna get arrested if you try to pray. What I would say is this, what kind of religion can't share? I have been to plenty of Christian weddings and ceremonies in my life. Never felt uncomfortable being there. I had Christians come to my bar mitzvah and my kids bar mitzvah. All good. We can all live and we largely share the same beliefs. But I have to be marched around if I look like a Jew in the holiest place in my religion. And Israel allows that. That is the Jewish state of Israel's decision. Not only to not build a third temple, but to stop Jews from praying in the holiest place in their religion.

Speaker 5:
[86:13] Is there a third temple, like a faction of people that are willing to, because we've been talking about the end times philosophies and like a great war that will coalesce where Jesus comes back and destroys, you know, the aberrant Jews that have strayed or whatever. And then, but like, would people bring that on themselves? Are people in government crazy enough to start World War III?

Speaker 2:
[86:33] It's not government people who want that, but there are certainly people who want to build, there are certainly people who want to build a third temple.

Speaker 5:
[86:39] It's a big question. I know you don't have the answer to that question.

Speaker 2:
[86:42] I'm not Israeli. I never went to Israel. It's one of the funny things about being me, I always get accused of being a dual citizen. I'd never even been to Israel until I was in my 30s, and none of my family is actually from there. But I've been there a lot, actually mostly since I got elected because of all of the work that I've done, really to try to make America safe for Jews. Because I will tell you this, the pernicious threat of antisemitism, antisemitism is the canary in the coal mine. It only starts with the Jews. It doesn't end with the Jews. Every society in recorded history that has become antisemitic has ultimately collapsed. And it's not because the Jews did it, it's because it's a brain rot. It's what Tim's talking about. Why this obsession? By the way, they believe all kinds of other crazy things. None of it makes any sense. And so, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 4:
[87:31] That's just why it was so crazy after October 7th. It was like October 7th, giant massacre, horror, teenagers, children, women murdered. And then the next day.

Speaker 2:
[87:41] It wasn't the next day. It was that day.

Speaker 4:
[87:43] Was it that day in New York?

Speaker 2:
[87:45] It was in New York City.

Speaker 4:
[87:45] There was like marching around, people ripping down American flags, putting up Palestinian flags, and being so excited that there was a massacre. And then, maybe then October 8th, we were hearing about Islamophobia. And when you think about what happened after 9-11, right? We had 9-11, and then it was so shortly after 9-11 that everyone was like, don't say anything bad about the terrorists or you're Islamophobic. And it's like, you guys, they used our citizens as bombs and took our buildings down. And now you want to complain about Islamophobia, which is really a term that was invented, essentially by the Ayatollah Khomeini in the 70s, in order to make people feel bad about saying anything bad about Islam.

Speaker 2:
[88:29] Yeah, it's interesting. It was that day. It's one of the things that radicalized me on this. I remember finding out about October 7th, I was at a crew regatta for one of my sons. I'm hearing about it, I'm learning about it on my phone. I get home that night and I see that, and you can look it up, I see there's a protest, not in New York City, in Tampa, Florida, in my state. A protest of hundreds, I don't know if it was a thousand, but hundreds of mainstream Muslims. They were out and they were celebrating. They were happy about it. The terrorists were still killing people and they were celebrating. And the image I'll never forget is watching people that were holding up their phones, showing people the videos. Remember, because the Hamas terrorists not only did what they did, they broadcast it live for people to see.

Speaker 5:
[89:11] And people still don't believe it's true.

Speaker 2:
[89:13] And they were celebrating it. By the way, the reason it happened so fast is that was part of the plan. The plan was to attack. What I've learned doing what I do is there's the physical attack and then there's the PR attack and it happens at the same time. But look, this is a threat to America. If the Republican Party goes down the same path that the Democratic Party goes down, our civilization will collapse. Look at this brain rot. Hasan Piker, it's not just about the Jews. It's about you can steal and you can murder and you can do all this other crazy stuff. It is the gateway drug to destruction. And that's what we're up against.

Speaker 3:
[89:47] I do think all of the protesting too that you've touched on. I mean, there's some reporting, but what we know from the past is in the 70s, the Vietnam protests, none of these protests are organic.

Speaker 2:
[89:58] None of them.

Speaker 3:
[89:59] At all, even the Soviets with a very small amount of money can fund this sentiment and then it just snowballs because then the news outlets are covering all of these, and then people join in. But it initially is not organic, and you can sow so much discontent with a few million dollars. It's really targeted and we're seeing, we know that the CCP has been funding some of these protest efforts. And again, you put in a very tiny amount of money and you can completely change public opinion. In fact, even back in January, all of the protests against ICE in Minneapolis, the fact that people are able to get signs, you know, the same.

Speaker 2:
[90:38] They're all the same.

Speaker 4:
[90:38] The same signs.

Speaker 3:
[90:40] It's really outrageous. But it works. And the fact now that we basically taken sort of a step back with all of the immigration policy, that's a direct result of basically the CCP spending a few million bucks on these protests that now we've seen sentiment completely change around that issue.

Speaker 1:
[90:58] Well, then you find out about Unite the Right and the SPLC.

Speaker 5:
[91:01] Which makes me think that there is a bunch of anti-Israeli money.

Speaker 1:
[91:05] Yes.

Speaker 5:
[91:06] Just like the SPLC was doing radical white hate groups and they were building them up to make them the enemy.

Speaker 1:
[91:12] Let me ask you a quick question. Ian. How many Muslims in the world are there?

Speaker 5:
[91:16] I think you said 1.3 billion at the top of the earlier.

Speaker 1:
[91:20] Can you do you know the specific line from the hadith pertaining to what makes the end come?

Speaker 5:
[91:27] No.

Speaker 1:
[91:28] You don't. It was in the Hamas Charter. Did I read it for you?

Speaker 2:
[91:31] You sure can.

Speaker 1:
[91:33] Let's see. What was the... Everyone in the chat already knows it. Let me pull it up and I'm going to read it. Let's see. Here we go. The hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him. That is, is that the, the it's in the hadith. So, so I ask you this, Ian, because considering that's one of their religious texts, and then how many Jews have you said in the great 15 million in the diaspora, more Jews than the world.

Speaker 2:
[92:08] Yes. There are fewer Jews today than there were before the Holocaust. Jews have not even repopulated. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[92:15] So I just want to throw this out there. Considering the religious drive and the 1.2 billion, do you believe there will be more money in favor of anti-Jew or pro-Jew? Oh, I don't know. I don't know. Really? Who's printing the money? Your arithmetic is that difficult, huh? Yeah. 1.2 billion people with a religious text saying you have to kill Jews, and 15 million people who don't want to be killed but whose religious text. Is there religious text in Judaism that says to kill Muslims?

Speaker 2:
[92:45] No, but Islam didn't exist when the Jewish religious texts were created.

Speaker 1:
[92:49] I think there are some quotes, however, from religious leaders that have made comments about it.

Speaker 2:
[92:54] By the way, no group of people has a monopoly on bad people. Yeah, agree.

Speaker 5:
[93:00] My point is, when was the hadith written? Because that could be, is that 1,000 years old? I don't know. In ancient, when they used to have fights with the Jews and the Arabs, they still do.

Speaker 3:
[93:09] Not really.

Speaker 1:
[93:11] What do you mean, not really?

Speaker 5:
[93:12] It used to be like real, real, real bad.

Speaker 2:
[93:16] It's real, real, real.

Speaker 5:
[93:17] Now it's more government.

Speaker 2:
[93:18] All the people who have been hiding in shelters.

Speaker 1:
[93:19] What do you think it was back then?

Speaker 4:
[93:21] That's what Hezbollah is terrorist.

Speaker 5:
[93:23] They removed it from their charter on purpose. It wasn't like 10.

Speaker 4:
[93:25] They removed it from their charter within the past couple of years, like within the past 10 years.

Speaker 1:
[93:30] And that's not a comment on the existence of the hadith itself. My point is that they removed it.

Speaker 4:
[93:35] They removed it in order to appeal to American, you know, to appeal to American progressives.

Speaker 1:
[93:40] If 1.2 billion people donated $1 towards not liking Jews, and 15 million people donated $1 towards defending Jews, who has more money?

Speaker 2:
[93:52] Here's the statistic I'll give you. I can look on X, you know, I can see where my comments come from. Amazingly, 30% of the people who comment on my stuff are not from America. And for every one comment I get from Israel, I get 60 comments from Turkey and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and sometimes, not recently, Iran and other places. There's just a whole lot more of them. But you know, you talked about Islamophobia, and it's a fascinating word. I talk a lot about it. We have words that describe bad behavior. Racism, bad, right? You're against a race. Sexism, bad, you're against a sex. Anti-Semitism, bad, because you're against Jews. Why pick the word Islamophobia? There's nothing in that word that's, it's not anti-Islam, it's not anti-Muslim. Islamophobia, if you break it down, it's Islam and it's fear. And it says, it's irrational fear. And Islamophobia, the term was created as a sword to silence dissent, to silence questions, because part of Islam is that you can't criticize it. It's blasphemous to do so. They came up with a weapon to stop it.

Speaker 1:
[94:58] We get more viewers from South Africa than we do from Israel.

Speaker 2:
[95:02] Because there aren't that many people in Israel.

Speaker 1:
[95:04] Well, but I'm just surprised, our fifth biggest demo, so 83.4% of our audience is American. Then 3.6% is Canadian, 1.8% is British, 1.5% is Australian and then 0.2% is South Africa. And then you have about 0.1% of a bunch of different countries like Norway, Ireland, Japan, Philippines, New Zealand, Sweden. Israel's way to, Israel's at 0.1.

Speaker 3:
[95:31] You're like a whole UN.

Speaker 1:
[95:32] Yeah. Well, I mean, not really. My point is that all the other countries, it's a thousand views, yeah. Some of these countries, it's a couple hundred. But nothing significant from any Islamic nation, to be honest.

Speaker 2:
[95:44] Well, I wish I could say the same. And if I could have Elon do anything, it would be to allow people to have their social media.

Speaker 1:
[95:52] You can do this now. Did you see this? You can region lock.

Speaker 2:
[95:55] I can re-region?

Speaker 1:
[95:57] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, let me pull up, let me pull up, see if we can do, we'll do this in real time. Let's see, here's a post. I will write, hey, you guys, you're American. We click this and then, let's see, wait, wait, wait, where'd it go? I gotta zoom out, because I zoomed in too much. Re, ah, I gotta make it smaller. I'm zoomed in too much. There you go, regions. All right, only North America.

Speaker 2:
[96:23] Uh-oh, uh-oh.

Speaker 1:
[96:25] I can't get rid of Canadians. I can't get rid of the Canadians.

Speaker 5:
[96:28] You can try, but you can't. It's impossible.

Speaker 1:
[96:30] Canadians.

Speaker 3:
[96:31] They're gonna be part of America soon enough.

Speaker 1:
[96:34] And Mexicans. I think Alberta are not allowed to lead.

Speaker 4:
[96:38] They do want to succeed. They have a measure.

Speaker 2:
[96:39] But think about how our map would look. You have this nice look, and then you have this big thumb that's stuck up.

Speaker 5:
[96:44] That straight line is really enticed.

Speaker 1:
[96:47] Yeah, so you can region like it now. You can just say, get out of here.

Speaker 2:
[96:51] Sorry, Pakistan.

Speaker 5:
[96:52] It's not bad news.

Speaker 1:
[96:53] Let's see if we can go by regions.

Speaker 4:
[96:54] That's actually really fun.

Speaker 1:
[96:56] Yeah, so you can be like, hey, look, all of these, Australasia, you're fine, Africa, Southeast Asia, you're good, South Asia, but none of this Central or West Asia. We don't need any of that. Yeah, you can just lock by region now.

Speaker 3:
[97:15] That is fascinating.

Speaker 2:
[97:16] All right, I hope my team's listening.

Speaker 3:
[97:17] I saw a Candace post here. There was? Is she just gone?

Speaker 1:
[97:22] Oh, you mean this one that just popped up? I mean, this is just a retweet. We didn't pull this up on the show for any particular reason. It just says, Fuentes didn't feel good, but went to Rome and Candace made sure to tell her cult that she was overseas on the same day after the S. Well, actually, you know what? Maybe we should pull this up, because I think it's funny. I'll just use these. So Candace Owens posted that she's out of town, and the conspiracy theory going around is that on the same day, Fuentes and Candace have traveled, and it's just after the SPLC was caught funneling money to white supremacy or whatever. So the theory that people are retweeting and posting, which I do not agree with, is that they're both receiving money from the SPLC or from like groups to create the specter. Now, the interesting thing is, actually, funding prominent podcasters to attack groups of people, be it, you know, Jew or otherwise, you could then as a non-profit say like, oh no, oh heavens, you have to give us money to fight this. So I understand why people are posting. I don't think it's true, though. Everybody says like, Fuentes is a fed or something. I don't think that's true of Nick. Candace, I think, is weird. Nick, I think, is actually just a young guy with, you know, shocking opinions who's had offensive things and that rallied a lot of people. The reason why I think he's not a fed or a planter or anything like that is because he's banned from everywhere. Candace, on the other hand, breaks the rules all the time and says things that she shouldn't be allowed to say on any of these platforms, but for some reason is never banned. In fact, she's recommended. So that just doesn't seem, that seems weird to me, not to mention her lawyers work in the same building as federal agents, which she admitted. And somehow, for some reason, Candace who hates Zionists and says she will never allow greater Israel to happen, hired the preeminent Zionist lawyer to defend her in court, who then when exposed by Laura Loomer, dropped off the case. So I don't know what that's about. It's just weird.

Speaker 3:
[99:11] Most good lawyers are Jewish.

Speaker 1:
[99:12] So there's that. But I understand why, why would Candace hire a preeminent Zionist? And while insulting everybody associated with Zionism, she's crazy. So I, but why would a Zionist take the job?

Speaker 2:
[99:28] That's a great question. I can't answer, but.

Speaker 1:
[99:30] I don't know. That's why I think she's fake. Plus she attacked Nick Shirley, which is screams up.

Speaker 5:
[99:35] What is a greater Israel?

Speaker 1:
[99:38] She never let to happen.

Speaker 5:
[99:39] What's the theory?

Speaker 1:
[99:40] It's the one that you brought up yesterday.

Speaker 5:
[99:42] Oh, they're trying to set up as like a.

Speaker 2:
[99:43] There's a local governance theory that is that the finding is Israel's generally been willing to take any land it can get if people will stop fighting it. But there's a, there's a theory that Israel wants to be a lot bigger than it actually is. And, and you know, it would go like all the way down into Egypt and like all the way over to Saudi Arabia. And there's actually, as far as I know, there's no one who actually wants this, but, but that is the view.

Speaker 1:
[100:07] I think they would have kept the Sinai Peninsula.

Speaker 2:
[100:09] Yes. I mean, Israel gave up, the Sinai Peninsula was three times as big as Israel. And they gave it up. And by the way, it worked. There was a time in which Israel said, we will trade land for peace. The entire story of Gaza is that, where Israel left Gaza and said, here you go, Gazan Arabs, it's all yours. We're not only gonna make every Jewish person who lives here leave, talk about ethnic cleansing. Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza, not of Arabs, of Jews. We're gonna take them all. And then we're gonna dig up every dead body of a Jewish person.

Speaker 4:
[100:40] This was like 2005.

Speaker 2:
[100:41] 2005. We're gonna ethnically cleanse Gaza of Jews. We're gonna leave, take every Jew out, take every dead Jew out and give it to you. We're gone, live long and prosper. And they left them with all of this stuff to build an amazing country out of.

Speaker 4:
[100:55] And then there was the masses of humanitarian aid.

Speaker 2:
[100:58] They had green houses. They had all of this stuff that they could have turned it into an amazing place, but instead, nope, not enough. We're gonna affect. So that's the opposite. That's right, that's the opposite of greater Israel. That would be lesser Israel.

Speaker 5:
[101:10] Well, I heard that they, this is the theory, is that they intentionally took their Israelis out of the area so that they could say, no more two state solution, it's impossible. Now we have a group that we can destroy.

Speaker 2:
[101:20] They made a second state. They said, here you go, it's your state, we're gone. And by the way, just so you know, a lot of the Jews who left Gaza, they didn't want to leave. It was a very traumatic thing. The Jews who actually lived in Gaza were forcibly removed by the government.

Speaker 1:
[101:35] They didn't want to go. I have a question for you, Ian. What do you think would happen? And we'll just let Ian answer. I have one question for him. Because I want to ask you afterwards. What do you think would happen if the wall around the Gaza Strip was completely removed and Israel granted free motion to all of the people in Gaza to the rest of Israel?

Speaker 5:
[101:57] It would be chaos, madness. You'd have people running around killing people and attacking people. It'd be crazy. They're in the middle of a war.

Speaker 2:
[102:03] Yeah, we saw that on October 7th. They cut holes in that wall and they flew over that wall. That's exactly what happened.

Speaker 5:
[102:09] If it was over at peace, I don't think that would happen. But right now it would.

Speaker 1:
[102:12] Has there ever been a circumstance in the history since Israel left, like in the past 20 years? Do you believe there was a point at which they could have removed those walls and it would not have resulted in that?

Speaker 5:
[102:21] I didn't follow it enough to be, I don't know. I haven't followed it year by year.

Speaker 1:
[102:26] Is there a point in the past 20 years where if Israel took down the walls around Gaza and said free movement across all of the land, do you think there was a point at which that would not have resulted in murder?

Speaker 2:
[102:36] No, no. And in fact, Bill Clinton talks about the fact that he cut a peace deal that basically gave them everything they wanted. He even gave them East Jerusalem. And when it came time to actually do the deal, they said no, because they only want a second state to state solution on a path to a one state solution. It's like the people who say, no, no, no, we don't want to give amnesty to all the illegal immigrants. We just want to give them a legal path to be here, because we know a few years from now, someone will give them, we'll let them become citizens.

Speaker 1:
[103:08] I'm gonna put it like this.

Speaker 2:
[103:09] Same thing.

Speaker 1:
[103:09] You know, Ian, I'm ambivalent, right? People ask me like, what do you think about Israel? Ambivalence. I think of it the same way I think of the Uighur Muslims. Like it's a thing that's happening in the world. I think it's bad, of course. I don't like the war and the conflict. I think of Burma. And maybe if people want to argue we should not be providing military aid, I'd be fine with it. But my point is, there is a war going on and the left says from the river to the sea. And you know what that means?

Speaker 5:
[103:37] Yeah, they want to wipe out, they want to erase the borders of the Israeli country and replace it.

Speaker 1:
[103:43] From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. It means that there will not be an Israel, it will be only a Palestine. And so what happens to the existence of the current state of Israel? So the point is simply this, if people in the United States and the left are going around chanting that, they're, okay, you want to wipe out Israel. Then they go, no, no. What do you mean no? You're saying from the river to the sea, you're talking about the land that you want to take. It's a war. So the point is this, Israel is up against people who are ideologically saying, we want to take this over. I'm being light when I say that. Because the more extreme version of the interpretation is they want to kill all, they want to wipe out the Jews who live in this area, and turn it into Palestine. I don't understand, and I gotta say this as, looking from the outside at a foreign policy issue that I see no different from any other foreign policy issue, when you have people advocating from the river to the sea, what is the opposition to that supposed to do? Open the doors and let them come and just do whatever they want? Like, if people say, we will kill Americans, should we open the border and let those people come in?

Speaker 4:
[104:42] That's what we are doing.

Speaker 1:
[104:43] Exactly, we shouldn't.

Speaker 4:
[104:44] And we shouldn't.

Speaker 5:
[104:45] Ahmadinejad, the old Iranian PM, said, we want to wipe Israel off the map. And then, so in the media, they were like, he wants to kill and destroy everyone in Israel. But he was like, no, no, no, the borders need to be erased and it needs to go back to pre-1947. That was what he was saying, but the terms were taken and translated and made to seem like he wanted to obliterate all of Israel.

Speaker 4:
[105:05] But Ian, if you look at it, if you look at 48 though, if you look at 48, so Israel was basically created in 48 and at that time, all of the other Arab nations kicked out about a million Jews in Iraq, Iran, all over the place and they were like, you can't live here anymore and those Jews were like, but our families have lived here for hundreds, thousands of years, whatever. They were like, that's it, you're done. So all of those Jews were kicked out and Israel, the brand new nation had to absorb all of those people who had absolutely nowhere to go. So anytime you hear like this whole thing like Palestinian, my great grandma was kicked out and now I'm a refugees because for some reason, the UN has decided that even if you are the great great grandchild of a refugee, you are somehow still a refugee. All of those people and their keys that they still say that they have to their like old Palestinian homes or whatever that were in Israel, like that group of a million Jews has that same thing all over the Middle East.

Speaker 3:
[106:03] The history of the world is people being kicked out and being refugees and moving somewhere else and creating a new life. I don't have a claim to the land that my family lived in in England 300.

Speaker 4:
[106:17] It's time to go back. Let's go take those castles.

Speaker 2:
[106:20] Half the people, everyone always focus on Israel and they say oh, it's all these Eastern Europeans. More than half the people who live in Israel are effectively Jewish refugees from Morocco or Iran or Iraq. They were Jews that lived all over and they all had to leave and go to Israel.

Speaker 1:
[106:35] We're going to go to your rumble rants and super chats. So smash the like button and share the show with everyone you know. The uncensored portion of the show will be coming up at 10 p.m. You don't want to miss it. That'll be at rumble.com/timcastirl. We got this from NNY. He says, good ad read, Tim. Question, why didn't you suggest the phrase hose mad seems obvious? I don't know. Maybe they don't want to go that route. Maybe they're not trying to target, you know, the Manosphere or whatever people are calling it.

Speaker 5:
[106:58] The pocket hose was kind of close.

Speaker 1:
[107:00] Yeah. Angry marsupial. I can't read this. I can save it for the after show, however. Super Pooper says, believing in God is fake and gay. If you believe in God, you shouldn't be able to vote. God is real. You are incorrect.

Speaker 2:
[107:14] Yes.

Speaker 3:
[107:15] That would be an interesting thing to try and implement.

Speaker 1:
[107:18] Yeah.

Speaker 3:
[107:18] Maybe we can't pass the SAVE Act, but maybe we can pass whatever that is.

Speaker 4:
[107:22] The atheist act.

Speaker 2:
[107:23] They would vote for that.

Speaker 3:
[107:24] Yeah. I think we finally found some way to monitor voting.

Speaker 4:
[107:27] Atheist amnesty or something.

Speaker 1:
[107:29] Omega Rosetsu says, Hasan Piker really needs to rethink his position because if someone robs him, he is rich. Therefore, he stole from someone else to get his riches. He should not have an issue with this. That's correct. That's the point that Douglas Murray made about trying to steal, asking if he can steal the book in defense of looting. And they're like, no. I almost want to go and steal it.

Speaker 3:
[107:48] See what happens.

Speaker 1:
[107:49] Find a leftist bookstore and just take it. And then be like, yo man, more people have a right to read too, you know? You're oppressing me by withholding information. All right, let's see. J. Dirtbiker says, they hate us cause they ain't us. That's right. Mitho says, Somalia doesn't have family trees, they have family bushes. Yikes. All right. Anger Marshal Pro says, dear Tim, Hasan is literally inbred. He's not smart. He's a rich himbo with no original thoughts. He's inbred. Is that true? Are you just insulting him?

Speaker 3:
[108:26] I think that's just an insult.

Speaker 1:
[108:27] I don't know.

Speaker 5:
[108:28] I feel like everything I say about him, I'm going to meet him and I'm going to have to own my words. So I don't want to add hominem.

Speaker 3:
[108:34] You go to a lot of vanity fair after parties?

Speaker 5:
[108:36] Yeah, definitely. That's my style. No, not yet, but I'm willing.

Speaker 1:
[108:40] I think the next 20 years, it's going to be nuts in politics. Like civil war. Guys, the divide between, there are variables that change this, but the divide between left and right right now is so extreme that when these people get into politics, someone's going to get caned in Congress. That being said, Anna Kasparian and Nick Fuentes, it's like watching the same show. I'm not saying this to insult either of them, guys. So if Anna, you are offended or Nick, you're offended. I'm not saying this is, I'm saying there are a bunch of memes where they quite literally show Anna talking and Nick at the same time, and they're saying the exact same things. Like they both call Israel a parasitic nation, the true enemy, all of this stuff. It's pretty wild to watch actually, and she's left and he's right. And so maybe the one thing that will unify the political fashion of this country among the youth is hatred of Israel.

Speaker 2:
[109:33] It is the one thing that unifies them, but I also suspect they're both getting paid by the same people. So that is a big part of it.

Speaker 1:
[109:39] Well, here's the trick though. You don't need to be paid by someone to be paid by them. Let me put it like this. If you run a botnet and you flood someone's livestream and then super chat a bunch saying something like, you should feel this way, then they're going to be like, oh, maybe I should, my audience is telling me to feel the way that I should feel, right? And you can also go into the backend through Google and buy ads against certain content. So the example that I really love is there was a fitness influencer who was getting like 20 to 30,000 views on like, today we're going to do pushups or we're going to work on our basics or something like that. And then after October 7th, he made a video saying, a bunch of people have commented asking me for my thoughts on this tragedy. And I'm not a really political guy, but I know it's considered to be like a serious event. So my heart goes out to the victims. That video gets 100,000 views. So what does he think? Wow. I'll make more money if I do this. So then he makes some fitness videos. Sure enough, a week later, he makes another video about Israel. 100,000 views. Here's the thing, the comments were all critical of Israel. So he gets all these views, and then his audience keeps saying things like, you need to look into this more. It's a false flag. Netanyahu knew it was gonna happen. They made it happen. It's all a big scam. And then within a month, every video he's making is anti-Israel. No longer fitness and he's getting 120,000 views. That happened to me.

Speaker 3:
[111:04] We need more fitness influencers commenting on Israel.

Speaker 1:
[111:07] So the idea is one, this could be an organic trend that people were interested and critical. So when he made a video, he got more viewership because of the algorithm. It could also be that somebody with interests aligned against Israel, saw that video, went into Google ads and said, put 10 grand behind this video to run my commercials. And then this video ends up getting a ton of play because YouTube says, there's a $10,000 budget behind this video, show it to more people. So not that they're running the video as an ad, they're running ads on the video, which results in the algorithm boosting it, which results in the person making more money. And then they say, I better do more of this. And the algorithm says, show more of this. The most, one of the most interesting things that I've heard recently is that the term Erica Kirk as an ad term, generates an RPM equivalent to finance. Finance is the highest RPM. That means for every thousand views on finance, you get about $18. For news and politics, it's about six to eight right now. We're in the off season, right? This is gonna pick up in the fall. Viewership will increase because more ad dollars are gonna get spent. So viewership declines, I'll get some inside baseball. Viewership declines around right now particularly because we are not in any main political season. After a presidential election, views dropped dramatically for political content and the ad spend dries up. So the algorithm says, why promote content no one's putting ads on? Promote something else. Once you start getting into the midterms, so here's the lull in the four-year cycle. As you get closer to the midterms, what happens is YouTube will say, we have just gotten $2 billion targeting specific political terms, run that content. So it's actually pretty easy to understand. If there's 10 people and they all say, we want to run advertisements on political content only, YouTube says, to fill that inventory, we have to get a million eyeballs on political content, so put these political videos on the front page, so we can sell these ads. If someone buys a million dollars on a political video, but YouTube won't show that video, YouTube gets no money. So they promote it. So come fall, we're going to see a massive explosion of political content and money for political content. The manipulation is that you can flub that. So right now, Erica Kirk is generating between $18 and $20 RPMs. This is why you're seeing so many people just obsessed with Erica Kirk, which indicates something very, very weird. Someone is putting ad dollars behind the term Erica Kirk for some reason. The Occam's razor could be that if you are targeting women, women are obsessed with Erica Kirk. So female, like Candice Owen's content largely targets women. So they may actually be just targeting women. And the YouTube algorithm just says, women love hating Erica Kirk. However, that's me trying to rationalize when in fact it doesn't make sense. As a singular term generating an RPM, like finance views are low because interest in finance is low. So YouTube pushes these videos and the ad rates are extremely high because inventory is so low. It's a complicated system, but it's like this. If YouTube shows a finance video on the front page and no one clicks it, it has to stop doing it. That means if you are in finance and want someone to see your ad, you've got to outbid the other guy. So I say, look, there's only a million available views today in finance. I want to get those from my company, so I'm willing to spend $20 for every thousand views. Then the other financial planner says, I'll do 21, and this auction system is what drives the price up. In politics, however, the news takes over, YouTube can very easily put a political show on a page and get a million views and sell out the ad budget. So there's dirty baseball going, I'll put it like that.

Speaker 3:
[115:02] I mean, maybe Candace, even before she started down this crazy path, understood that there was so much interest there, and that's why she kept doing it, because she knew that all of that money was coming into that space.

Speaker 1:
[115:15] We have a new shorts channel, because shorts are bad. They'll kill your YouTube channel. What ends up happening? So we did them for a while. We stopped, because YouTube sends about three notifications per day, and we have the live show plus five segments. You add three shorts to that, and that's going to add to the mix. Shorts are worth no money. Between a minute and three minutes, you're not gonna get any ads or any views, or you're not gonna get a lot of sponsorships for that short of content. So what ends up happening is you dilute your notification reach, adding content that makes no money. So we stopped. But we launched a new channel, fresh, with zero followers, nothing. We just now are just putting up like 20 shorts per day. All the financial issues have the most views. So shorts talking about financial planning, unionization, the economy, gas prices. They're getting like 500 to 1,000 views. Cultural issues have very little.

Speaker 2:
[116:07] Because they need the content.

Speaker 1:
[116:09] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[116:09] But you know, the Erica Kirk thing, couldn't that be... I believe a lot of this stuff on Israel, for example, is just being funded because it divides America, and they're trying to divide us. Couldn't a lot of the stuff about Erica Kirk be, we want to divide the conservative movement? They want to... I mean, and we're just going to use that, destroy us from within to allow the other side to...

Speaker 1:
[116:29] Turning point got Trump elected. So Charlie's dead. The presumption is that it was a leftist who killed him. And it seems to be that there are other leftists involved, because they had foreknowledge. Then you look at the attacks against Erica Kirk, and it looks like a well-funded campaign that, you know, in a political off season, very few political channels are getting a lot of views. In fact, it's only, like Tucker and Candace are getting the most. Tucker largely targets females, and she's anti-Israel and anti-Erica Kirk. Tucker is now anti-Trump and very critical of Israel. They're getting massive viewership. Everyone else, their viewership is way down.

Speaker 4:
[117:11] Wait, they're getting, Tucker's getting massive viewership.

Speaker 1:
[117:13] Yeah, Tucker, I think he's getting like a million on YouTube.

Speaker 4:
[117:16] Every single one of these things is like, Israel is awful and it's so boring.

Speaker 2:
[117:20] I'm not convinced any of that's actually from America anymore.

Speaker 1:
[117:23] I wouldn't disagree.

Speaker 2:
[117:25] I mean, I'm glad-

Speaker 3:
[117:25] They promote his stuff in Russia.

Speaker 2:
[117:28] Oh yeah, Russia Today puts out stuff about me.

Speaker 1:
[117:32] The way I describe Israel is it's a forward military operations center for the United States and the Middle East.

Speaker 2:
[117:36] That's exactly what it is.

Speaker 1:
[117:37] If you are an adversary of the United States, you want the US to cut them off. You want them to stop providing military resources to Israel.

Speaker 2:
[117:45] And as I said before, they beta test our weapons. Yeah. Because they actually have to use them. So fortunately, our soldiers were not in combat as much as theirs are. So they're using all of our stuff, and then they give us feedback on how to make our stuff better. Like Israel has helped develop drone, how these drones fight in close quarter urban combat.

Speaker 1:
[118:05] Chips, they produce a lot of chips too. Let's read this one. We got Arsonistie, is that what it says? Had a baby girl, so I've been away. I saw your Tucker segment. Have you considered that he might oppose Israel over its treatment of Christians enough to break with Trump? I don't. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I've never been tormented by that decision. I just did not vote in 2012, and I did not vote in 2016. I wasn't tormented. I didn't cry about it. I didn't apologize to my friends for having advocated for him. I wasn't tormented over supporting Bernie Sanders in the primary. I didn't apologize to my friends for having supported him when Bernie turned. This is a part of being an adult. You vote for someone knowing their imperfect avatars. So Donald Trump was never going to be... This idea that I or anybody else viewed him as a messiah, I mean, save certainly his mega cult people, that faction of the Trump party. Donald Trump hired John Bolton. I complained about it. Donald Trump fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria. I complained about it. Donald Trump increased drone strikes in the Middle East. I complained about it. Donald Trump gets back in, pals around with more neocons, goes to war with Iran, and I'm like, uh-huh, is Tucker pretending he did not know that Miriam Adelson's funding was tied to certain caveats? His brother even said to him like, well, I guess the Miriam Adelson funding was kind of suspicious, and Tucker laughed. Tucker 100 percent knew what the support from Miriam Adelson meant. We all did. These people are now like, I can't believe that Trump wanted to go to war with Iran. What? What are you talking about? Not only has he talked about it nonstop, but he was taking money from these people. Why are you putting me to be surprised? I look at it like this. Trump offers up a net positive presidency. I can complain about a lot of things that he does. I think the Democrats would be a net detriment, so I vote for Trump. Then Trump does bad things, and I go, huh, well, that was to be expected, I guess. We're gonna go to the uncensored portion of the show, however, so smash the like button, share the show, all that good stuff. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Good sir, would you like to shout anything out? No, I mean, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and hope your listeners have enjoyed having me on. Right on.

Speaker 2:
[120:15] Follow me on Twitter, now YouTube, Instagram, any of the, I don't know, send me a carrier pigeon.

Speaker 1:
[120:23] Yeah, same for me. I'm at at RepFine.

Speaker 5:
[120:25] Also a carrier pigeon. Yeah, send one my way. I don't know if you knew, but the government reclassified marijuana to schedule three today.

Speaker 1:
[120:33] We'll talk about it.

Speaker 5:
[120:33] We didn't get into it hard on the show. Epic, epic news. Follow me all over the Internet. Also, we got Libby Emmons. I want to give an opportunity to speak us out.

Speaker 4:
[120:42] I will shout things out. I'm Libby Emmons. You can find me on Twitter at Libby Emmons. You can check out everything at thepostmillennial.com, humanevents.com, my podcast, The Pod Millennial. You can check that out. And also, I have a daily newsletter for some reason. You could check that out as well. You could subscribe at The Post Millennial. Thanks.

Speaker 5:
[121:00] Excellent. I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks on Twitter and everywhere else. Tim, let's do it.

Speaker 1:
[121:06] We'll see you all over at rumble.com/timcastirl right now. Thanks for hanging out.