IT HAS BEGUN, Subpoenas Filed Over GRAND CONSPIRACY Against Trump

Whether you're solving murders during breakfast,

cracking cold cases on your commute,

or playing amateur detective at bedtime,

Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting.

Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening

to your favorite true crime podcasts, Add Free.

Included with Prime.

When was the last time you felt in control of your business finances?

Expenses tracked, invoices sent, taxes ready.

That's where Found comes in.

Found brings your banking, bookkeeping, invoicing,

and taxes together in one simple app.

Manage expenses, invoice clients, send payments,

and prep for tax time right where you bank.

Join the hundreds of thousands

who have already streamlined their finances with Found.

Open a Found account for free at found.com.

That's f-o-u-n-d.com.

Found is a financial technology company.

Not a bank.

Banking services provided by Lead Bank member FDIC.

Whether you're into unsolved mysteries,

solved mysteries, or creating your own mysteries,

Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting.

Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening

to your favorite podcasts, Add Free.

Included with Prime.

Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing.

You're managing all the things,

so why waste time sending important documents

the old-fashioned way?

Mail and ship when you want, how you want, with stamps.com.

Print postage on-demand 24-7

and schedule pickups from your office or home.

Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping.

That's why over 1 million small businesses

trust stamps.com.

Go to stamps.com and use code podcast

to try stamps.com risk-free for 60 days.

We got him, boys.

It's all over.

We've proven everything.

James Comey has been subpoenaed

in the grand conspiracy against Trump.

So far 130 subpoenas have been issued

and that proves it.

It doesn't.

It's a subpoena meaning they're going to investigate.

Maybe there will be an actual indictment for once,

but I don't want to be black-pilled.

I just don't know that we're actually going to get

any real criminal charges.

I mean, the best it seems

the Trump administration has been able to do

is accuse certain Democrats of like mortgage fraud

for having houses in the wrong location,

which they shouldn't do.

But it's certainly not evidence

of a grand conspiracy against Trump.

So I'm interested to see where this goes.

It is big news, so we'll talk about that.

Plus, the Pentagon is requesting $200 billion.

From Congress to keep funding this war,

which is absolutely crazy.

And well, I guess what are you guys doing?

I'm not doing anything.

Partying.

I'm messing with the computer over there.

Anyway, so back to the news.

I'm just jamming on the guitar.

What about you, man?

Ian's just jamming on the guitar.

The intro is all ruined.

The Metaverse ended and it's really funny

because there's some guy who's like,

I spent millions of dollars in the Metaverse.

That's falling apart.

And then we have an AI movie.

Because you know, we love talking about AI movies.

And you're going to want to hear this.

It's a movie about, I'm going to say it.

Do it.

Impossibly fat milkers.

That is what the AI movie is about.

And it's hilarious, but it's actually a good jumping off point

to talk about how far AI has come.

Because it's actually, aside from the goofy nature of the video,

it's remarkably well generated.

It's pretty crazy.

So we will get into all of them, my friends.

But before we do, head over to Tax Network.

USA, my friends, we've got a great sponsor.

It is TNUSA.com.

Slash Tim.

Do you guys owe back taxes or have unfiled returns?

Have you filed every year?

But you still keep, oh, when did you retire

and suddenly get it with a tax bill you didn't expect?

Your balance is not going to go down.

Penalties are going to grow.

Interest will compound.

And many of you are about to owe again

for this upcoming tax year with no plan in place.

Stop what you're doing and call tax network USA.

The IRS is not waiting.

The IRS is enforcing collections

through wage garnishments, bank levies, and property seizures.

They can even file for you without your consent.

This is where tax network USA comes in with over 15 years in the business.

There hasn't been a tax case.

They haven't seen or resolved.

They specialize in tax controversies

and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track

by resolving back taxes and unfiled returns once and for all.

Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million,

their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt.

And then you do the same for you, but you've got to call now.

They're offering a free investigation call with the IRS.

After that, they put a clear case plan

and place to resolve your tax,

probably get you back on track.

So call 1-866-686-1535.

That is 1-866-686-1535 or visit tax network TN-USA.com-slash-tim.

Check them out.

Don't forget my friends to also smash that like button,

share the show with everyone you know.

Joining us to not talk about this ends so much more.

We have Rudyard Lynch.

Thank you so much for having me.

Grab your microphone, brother.

We can't hear you.

Thank you so much for having me.

It's really a...

Who are you? What do you do?

I run the YouTube channel,

What A Fault History 102.

And you discuss history.

I talk about history, anthropology, politics,

and the intersection of all of those things.

Right, Anja, be interesting.

Kyla is back.

Hi.

You can find me not so to air it out everywhere.

And you're a... What do you do?

I do political commentary, mostly debate.

She's here to yell at us because she's a lib.

Yes.

That's what she's doing.

Of course, Phil and Ian are here,

but we don't need introductions for the people you know and love.

Let's jump to the news from Axios.com.

We got James Comey-Supenet, an alleged grand conspiracy against Trump.

Former FBI Director James Comey has been in subpoenaed

in the wide-ranging grand conspiracy case against the ex-official

who investigated and prosecuted President Trump.

Two sores with knowledge of the situation tell Axios.

The investigation has produced more than 130 subpoenas

since cranking up last year.

The officials, including Comey, have all decried the investigation

as a political persecution and law fair.

The Trump administration's grand conspiracy theory

posits that democratic officials bent the rules, broke the law,

and lied under oath to investigate, prosecute,

and otherwise undermine Trump from his election in 2016

through his federal indictments in 2023.

The Comey-Supena issued last week

relates to his alleged role in the drafting of a January 2017

Intelligence Community Assessment concerning Russia's election interference

that favored Trump.

The assessment referenced the now widely discredited steel dossier,

whose inclusion ran counter to fundamental trade-craft principles

and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment

according to a trade-craft review,

completed in June under Trump's current CIA director, John Radcliffe.

Radcliffe then referred to Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan

for prosecution.

Well, all I can say, folks, is this proves it once and for all,

it is now beyond a reasonable doubt,

and we will just assert it as fact.

Great.

It would be nice.

It would be great if we could do something like that,

but I don't want to do that.

We can.

It doesn't mean it's correct.

Well, I'm deaf, shouldn't.

I just think that it's going to happen.

It's going to be so proven guilty.

Comey, you're innocent.

Until we find out.

Well, if this was a standard of due process

and like every single lawyer that we were talking about yesterday

is like beyond guilty compared to Comey, right?

I'll agree.

They're all guilty.

They lock them all up.

Lock them all up, right?

But like, obviously, like due process matters.

And it's good that we have due process

because it protects, as a literal,

I want due process so that when my side,

but I don't really have a team,

but when we want due process

because we want to ensure that people

who have vested interests against us

can't weaponize systems.

And I think that there's genuine concern

that the DOJ is being weaponized against Trump enemies.

Yeah, I think it was weaponized against Trump.

I think it's been weaponized.

Both of those instances, if that was the case,

if these are the case.

That's why I just don't believe in due process anymore.

Like it's like the tooth fairy to me now.

Like you can say it exists

and we understand the concept.

Like, yes, when I go to bed

after my teeth fall out,

hopefully not at 40 years old, that would suck.

But I put under my pillow and then money is there.

Like something did happen.

And then I'm told it was the tooth fairy.

That's how I feel about due process, right?

Something does happen most of the time.

But when it actually matters, there's no due process

because the left makes the same exact argument I'm making now.

You've got that dude in California who raped that one chick

and they said he had afloos.

That's what it is.

Afluenza.

Afluenza from raping that chick.

Yeah, so he didn't, there was no functional due process there.

He was too rich to know what he was doing wrong.

The afluenza is spoiled into being.

I'm not saying I understand that.

It's crazy.

We like fluenza.

Yeah, they said he suffered from afluenza

because he was too rich to understand what he was wrong.

So that's from the left.

The left has made that argument.

I think it's fair to say both the left and the right agree

that the legal system is just a function

of who wants to exercise power against their enemies.

I think that these going behind the backs of the backs of people

and like spying on opponents has been the norm through history

even though they will tell you we have due process.

And I want to rub your,

I really want to get your take on this

because since the internet feels like people like Donald Trump

actually have a chance at bucking the system,

did this kind of thing ever happen in the past?

So I have a few different takes here.

The first of which is we have to be very careful

about eroding rule of law

because that's been the English speaking world's great advantage.

And if we erode rule of law,

it's going to have very negative downstream effects

on everything between the economy, between politics.

Because rule of law is the set of rules you use

to establish all social interaction.

And if that goes away, you won't make companies

because someone will steal the company you make.

But I have another thing.

The second thing is the left has been weaponizing this already

and there's been a huge issue with conservative judges

and with conservatives making the argument

that you're opposed to saying,

oh, we can't do this, blank, blank, blank.

The left has already done a weaponization

of the political process to an insane degree.

And when conservatives push against stuff

where it should be illegal to discriminate against white men

under civil rights law,

it happens on a mass degree.

But conservative judges don't stand against it.

Conservative judges don't stand against

the rampant abuse in the family court system against men.

They don't stand against the rampant biases

against white men where the left has been doing this

to an insane degree.

And even defensively, the right does not protect itself.

Well, so to your point about how we want to keep the rule

of law, I would agree, but when it's gone, it's gone.

I want to keep my car nice and clean.

But if a bunch of vandals come and smash it with crowbars,

there's nothing I can do about it.

So to point on the couch thing you guys are talking about,

he wasn't under affluenza.

He was under the influence of intoxication,

Ethan couch.

The argument was that he shouldn't get the harshest penalty

because he had, quote unquote, affluenza.

It's a nonsense term that meant he was so rich

he didn't understand right from wrong.

Yeah.

So he did actually end up getting charged.

He did.

Yeah, and the other was that he should get the harshest

of penalties for what he did.

Wasn't it like there was a past out woman

and he was raping her and then some guys caught her or something?

This was like a me too.

So this isn't the left, right?

This is his defense attorney.

No, no, no.

The left was upset that he did not go to prison

in the most harshest of penalties

because the court system failed us.

Sure. Yeah.

I, again, I don't know.

Are you conservative?

Texas, well, he's from Texas, not California.

So the left narrative isn't working here.

But also in this case, he was intoxicated

and under the influence of drugs and people.

No, he disagrees.

Yeah, which is, which is all bad, right?

Agreed.

But I think it's progressives were upset at the time of this case.

Because they wanted a very harsh penalty against him.

The judge gave him a light sentence

citing what she called affluenza.

I see his defense attorney citing affluenza.

I can't find the judge citing that

as the reason why she gave him.

But 10 years from racing.

Neither, neither here nor there.

I mean, it's an old story.

We were lightly referencing where people

on the rest of the website about it.

I sure, I saw the clear.

But to the point back to Red Yard, like I was saying,

I have a nice car.

I try to protect it, right?

I'll park it in my garage.

Then one day while I'm sleeping,

a bunch of, you know, whoever antifa comes

and firebombs the garage, it's gone.

So you talk about the rule of long,

we want to maintain it.

But at the same time, you say that the left has been

destroying it and roting it.

I mean, at a certain point, they've destroyed it.

Yeah, that's, it's the,

you oftentimes it's the balance to opposing things

and figure out where between these two

is the reasonable conclusion.

And I understand what you're saying,

where, I mean, Russia gate was a lie.

And it's crazy.

There's been no prosecution for this staggering lie

because there was no actual evidence

that Trump was colluding with Russia

or that the Russians tilted the course of the election.

This was just a story the left made up.

And Slander is incorrect,

especially Slander on that scale.

And you can't let that go back.

And I think another thing is we have laws against treason.

And we have seen mass treason among the population.

And I would need to actually, I'm not a lawyer.

Do you mean like codified legal treason?

Which I would, I would say this.

The actual law is when it's your,

you're providing material resources to an enemy

at a time of war or, you know,

aid and comfort wherever it's specific.

Sedition is general undermining

of the government in the United States.

Yes.

And there is treason.

There, because this happened when Trump said it,

this is like, you know, sedition punishable by death.

That is when the military seeks to undermine.

So there is a special sedition there.

I would argue that many of the people

you may be referring to,

you could perhaps argue treason

because they are adherent to say China or whatever.

But we are at war with China's by being adversaries.

Iran now is where it's interesting

because you've got a lot of people

that are accusing Tucker Carlson of treason directly

for communicating with Iran before the US,

like as the US is preparing strikes against them.

But as I would, I would say for the general leftist,

it's seditious conspiracy.

You're correct.

I got the words wrong.

I mean, what I'd say in general is there's been

a complete and utter abuse of the rule of law so far.

And it's been done predominantly by the left

across a variety of different fields

with everything stretching from the national level,

to the social level, to the family level.

And this has been justified by the court system.

And so you have to be careful

that if you remove the institution of law,

we're going to devolve into being a third world dictator

I think we are.

Right?

So Trump won the popular vote.

He got a plurality, which I think was like 49.8%.

The American people expect something to be done.

But he's being obstructed by judges,

eras, by the way.

And then there's this tit for tit back and forth

where it goes to like three appeals,

and then finally he wins.

There was a recent ruling with the RFK junior

where we wanted to change the rules on vaccine safety

and then once again, a judge blocked them.

And you famously have this judge in DC

that just says literally no to everything.

There was that particularly important court case

where these judges were arguing that any district,

actually the left was arguing that any district court judge

can overturn anything that Trump does.

And then the Trump administration argued

this is insane because at the time,

they had a appeal granted,

allowing this immigration practice,

I forgot the specific executive order.

As soon as it was granted,

progressive groups filed a lawsuit

and another federal jurisdiction which put a stay on it

so they can't both be true at the same time.

I think it's fair to say that while I agree with you,

the left is absolutely just saying

by any means necessary

and the right is saying slow down their Democrats.

The left is breaking rule of law.

What they're doing is not,

it's not justifiable and it's not fair.

And the English common law was established

in the 12th century under a certain context

with a certain aim in charge.

And this was not the end point of the context

or the aim that we were trying to reach.

And you have to parallel the left for where they're at.

And it's quite,

I'm trying to articulate something complicated

where in crisis periods like this,

you set precedence that you can't go back.

And so if you compare the English Civil War

to the French Revolution,

in the English Civil War,

you had a political crisis.

And at the end of it,

England became a democracy with rule of law

and in France spiraled into being a military dictatorship.

And these are very different outcomes.

And you have to be careful

about not establishing precedence

that future generations can look to

because if you...

Whether you're into unsolved mysteries,

solved mysteries,

or creating your own mysteries,

Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting.

Just download the Amazon Music app

and start listening to your favorite podcasts,

Add Free, included with Prime.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to chambacacino.com, let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group.

Voidware prohibited by law.

CTNCs, 21 Plus, sponsored by ChambaCacino.

Go to Latin America.

There's a lot of countries in Latin America,

like Argentina that's...

Argentina is more white than America

and it's a temperate climate.

And Argentina is poor because they don't have rule of law.

Where if you can't establish a company

and assume that a social superior

is not going to steal your company,

you can't have a capitalist economy.

So let me ask you this question.

What is wrong with a military dictatorship?

So there's multiple tiers, 95 plus percent

of regimes in history are authoritarian.

And authoritarian is one strong man on top

who runs everything.

There's tiers though where some of them are enlightened

and when you look at authors like Aristotle,

they were talking about the benefits of monarchy

and I'm not a monarchist.

But monarchy is you have a long-term incentive

for the leader to care about the population

and that works a lot better

than something like the Soviet Union.

Well, I wanted to ask you specifically about

what you mentioned, what's going on today?

You compared that to, say, British or the French.

So my question is more so,

what would be bad about the United States

becoming a military dictatorship?

The military would be,

you could have a situation where the military is corrupt,

it shuts down capitalism, it shuts down freedom,

it shuts down the functioning of a society

and the good things we take for granted die

and those things are fundamentally dependent on freedom.

What if a military dictatorship

emerged in the United States

that was based entirely upon traditional American conservatism?

And the military by force said,

we're not going to allow leftism anymore,

we're not going to allow the courts

to supersede the will of the people

and they just through military rigidity

enforced the right cultural worldview.

That's why I said there's a huge overton window

for authoritarianism because you're trusting

the leader of God.

If you looked at Emperor Augustus,

who is the first Roman dictator,

he was one of the greatest statesmen in history.

So when Rome did the transition from democracy to monarchy,

they had one of the best rulers ever

and things governed very well

until Tiberius and Caligula showed up

and then it got a lot worse.

And with monarchy is our authoritarianism,

you're trusting the,

and the reason that a lot of the older authors

preferred monarchies to military dictatorships

is that the monarch has an incentive

to pass things on to their children.

So the monarch has a multi-generational incentive

so they're less likely to hurt things like freedom

or the free market

because I put rule of law above democracy

because if you're a society with rule of law,

it means you have functional freedom,

it means you have,

you can have capitalism because keep in mind.

So let me ask you,

would you, how would you feel

if there was a military dictatorship

that enforced the things you wanted to exist?

Everyone wants the things they forced,

everyone wants the things that they believed to be enforced.

So would you be happy if Donald Trump became a supreme dictator

and used a military to enforce laws

but it was everything you wanted in society?

I would not be happy with that.

What I will say is that the reason,

you could not have Tim Kast in any other Western country

because they've had left-wing authoritarianism

remove the rule of law and personal freedoms

where once you start pulling that away,

you very quickly end up in a society where you lose a lot

and it's one of those things where I put property rights

in rule of law above everything else in my framework.

But so I guess my ultimate point is,

when you look at the history of the United States,

they're varying degrees of cultural enforcement

across the board,

obviously not military dictatorship

but until you get to Abraham Lincoln,

I suppose when things got pretty serious in Civil War.

But there, blasphemy for instance,

was illegal up until like the early 1800s.

My view largely is that if everybody in this country

was morally homogenous,

they'd be completely happy.

Like let's say everybody in this country,

100% of people were Christian theocrats.

They'd have no problem with a member of Congress

proposing a bill of a commandment law.

But Christian theocracy's felt at the hands

oftentimes of Christianity because the idea

that people will stay like wholly unified

in the perfect way in so far as that people will be happy

just doesn't happen.

Agreed, like the United States today,

used to be morally homogenous to a great degree

and then it started fracturing.

I would argue that since the Civil War,

like the bifurcation actually started around the time

the country was formed because Thomas Jefferson

wanted to actually complain about slavery

in the Declaration of Independence

but they were concerned that South Carolina and Georgia

would not join the effort.

Yes, they voted that grievance.

And so there was a general bit of,

let's call it acrimony,

but it started to bubble up in the 1820s

when there was a perception in the 1820s

that a civil war could actually happen in the United States

though it didn't.

And then it did happen in 1861.

Since then, you've had this clash

between two polarized worldviews in this country.

My point ultimately is if you have a group of people

that believe the exact same thing,

the things they argue about are the minutiae.

You know, in the 90s,

it's a little bit of minutiae though, right?

Sure, and it can spin well that of control.

But in the 90s,

Democrats and Republicans lived together, got married

and their arguments were over like,

how much in taxes versus like,

how long a woman should be allowed to have an abortion

and it was like their Republicans were like,

I think 16 weeks is too long and Democrats are like,

it's got to be 18 weeks.

That was just the political.

No, that was the political over to Overton window though.

There were studies that I'm saying is that

when you look at the moral world view

of Democrats and Republicans,

the majority of the country in like 1994,

they overwhelmingly overlapped.

And so they were pretty okay with like,

I mean, like, certainly we had protests

for the American Afghanistan War,

but still people generally were like,

well, you know, 9-11, right?

They rallied around George W. Bush even after 2000.

Ultimately, my point is this, just to simplify.

No one would care about a military dictatorship

that was enforcing exactly what their world view was.

Only the dissenters would.

So if you had...

Well, it was only, don't care about that, I would say.

Everyone is a fool.

Well, I don't think everyone's a fool.

I think like the art,

the one of the things that I love about like America

and like American tradition, like Greek philosophy

is that like we're built on a tradition

of people thinking beyond just their own skin and preferences.

This is why you're probably familiar with roles

and like the veil of ignorance, right?

So it's great.

It's this great kind of political philosophy

where it says, you should imagine a world

where you can't know what body, gender, et cetera.

You'll be born into.

This literally sounds like an argument

against universal enfranchisement

because the average person doesn't conceive of the world

like that.

And as much as you're like, this is what it ought to be

and I agree, this is not the reality of the world

that we live in.

So I agree that it's not the reality

that the world we live in to some degree,

but I think that like...

To a large degree.

Well, sure.

And I think that that's a sad thing.

I think the fact that we've like lost the connection

to the things that matter beyond just our own skin

that we've failed to understand

that principles matter fundamentally and deeply

and to hold to these principles,

to understand why we said everyone has to be equal

before the law.

Even if I hate that guy and why that matters

is a failing of our society

and it doesn't matter what side of the world.

Don't we have to deal with the world as it is?

We have to meet the population and meet the world

where it is.

We can't be like, well, you know, it should be this

and it should be that.

There's this saying in psychology where we say,

if you meet people, if your expectations for people

are exactly where they are,

all of all do is be exactly what they are.

Whereas if you look at people and you say,

I know you can do better.

I know that we can collect and do and unify.

They might not get up here,

but they're probably gonna get here.

Right, let me ask you a question, right?

Like murder is wrong, obviously.

We all agree.

Generally except for like self-defense,

but all of them are.

Well, that's not murder.

Self-defense isn't murder.

Murder is the intentional killing

another person without a warrant.

Okay.

And so if you walked up to a person and just shot them

and they died, we'd find it to be murdered

and Rudyard Alt, this is for you too.

Let's say that you live in a small village

in the countryside and the year is 1,300 ever.

And it's your French.

So you're all like white, brown hair,

blue-eyed people or whatever.

Whatever they look like in France

and they're sitting there going ha-ha-ha-ha

and inventing croissants.

And then you get people who are clearly distinct from you

and they show up and you say,

well, we don't just kill people.

We're a little apprehensive.

And then you meet and you talk

and the guy pulls a knife and just stabs your village

elder to death and then throws fire

in your village and then flees.

So like the Romans.

So then the next day, a similar person shows up.

Do you just say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

we must stand by our principles.

We do not attack.

We do not, you know, or when a similar person

in the same garb with the same physical appearance

carrying a torch, do you say one more move and you die?

I would say that both of these philosophies

were silly to begin with.

I don't think that the philosophy of like generosity

means naivete.

I didn't ask.

I asked you a specific scenario to get to tell me

what you thought.

I'm telling you why the scenario already is flawed.

I think that the principle that they had initially

probably was uninformed and uncomplexed.

And it does have to be outdated.

Don't bring outsiders.

But it doesn't have to be outdated to an extreme opposite side,

which is often what people do.

They go from one side and then they swap to the other side.

And the reality is that the truth is a lot more times

in the middle of what is a proper dialectic of wisdom.

Let's back to the question.

Your proposition that is, the village should not allow anyone

to peacefully greet them out of fear

that there could be an act of violence against them.

No, of course not.

How would you take that away from what I just said?

You said the initial response they had was probably flawed.

Right, but I said, don't just do the opposite also,

which is.

So so if a guy throws a torch at your village

and burns on your house and kills one of your people

and then flees.

And then a person who looks just like them

wearing the same clothes, the same flag,

whatever shows up the next day, do you treat him the same

or do you do it?

Do you adapt your, your, you should adapt.

But my caution to people is that when they think adapt,

they want to go to the opposite extreme end.

When in reality, oftentimes wisdom falls

between the middle of two dialects.

Sure, sure.

So just, what do you do?

I would probably be cautious, probably have arms and weapons

ready in case you whips out his torch to start stabbing

and murdering and burning things, right?

But unquire him, ask why he's there,

see what his intention is in the village, right?

You could even treat him cautiously, say he gives you

all of the perfect answers that makes you go like,

all right, he's actually a defector from that village

and he's got to go.

What if he throws a torch at your village

and burns another building down and runs?

Well, hopefully you guys, guys ready and he's far enough away

that we can read him, yeah, he does.

And then the next day, a similar looking guy

in the same clothes shows up with a torch.

Do you shoot him with an arrow?

No, you let him throw the torch again.

No, you do neither, right?

You do need.

Oh, yeah, like,

why are you walking white on this?

Like the reality is that like,

I'm just giving you a simple scenario,

like, how do you do?

I'm just answering the scenario.

And it just happened over and over again.

I agree.

And I'm saying the scenario of human nature

is to go to black and white thinking immediately.

And what I'm saying to people is that black and white

thinking is just as destructive.

What if that next guy showing up with a torch

is just about to show up and like bring blacksmith

and like ironworks to your village

and like revolutionize your technology?

I'm going to answer both of you.

I said that I liked freedom and property rights

and I didn't say how that's enforced.

So in many cases,

monarchies or authoritarian regimes

provide more freedom and property rights than democracies.

And democracies supercharge the character

of whatever people they're in.

So of the top 1% of societies,

they're predominantly,

the top, among the top 1%,

they're predominantly democracies.

That includes Athens,

Rome's, Rome, America,

the Netherlands.

And democracies can also supercharge negative characteristics.

Yes, they're not good because they're democracies.

They're good because they were good societies.

Exactly.

So democracies supercharging negative characteristics

are the Latinsphere and the Middle East.

France was better under a monarchy

than it was under a democracy.

So was Brazil.

So was Greece.

A bunch of lower trust societies.

Same thing with in the Middle East democracies

have performed better.

The in the Middle East democracies vote in the preferences

of the majority group.

So in America made Iraq a democracy,

the majority Shia voted in to oppress the minority Sunni

and then they sided with America's rival Iran.

Yeah, but this, it's not just sure.

But the issue is like,

this is why when we look at democracies,

there are different systems that work better, right?

Like there are certain like,

I'm sure you probably oppose like direct democracy, right?

Like the Greeks did because it doesn't work very well.

It leads to a lot of tyranny, right?

There's the tyranny of majority to be feared in democracy.

It's also slow.

It is slower.

But democracies, the point of all these systems

is to build counters to the major failings, right?

In the case of a democracy,

you have to be afraid of the majority, the tyranny of majority.

And so you have to build into the system checks and balances

to prevent against the tyranny of majority as much as possible.

You're appealing to wish you washy concepts

where if there's an external threat,

you have to assess it for what it is based on context.

And you pick the highest quality person

to do the assessing of context.

And the thing with John Rawls

is that's not an accurate depiction of the human condition

to randomly pick what individual you would be

because that's not how this works.

Individuals have their own genetics

and groups of different genetics.

And people are rewarded for the choices they make.

And so. That's not a reputation of Rawls.

I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that.

So you're saying that Rawls doesn't work

because there's no baked into genetics,

but that's not the point of the high-tech,

I'm going to finish the argument.

So Rawls operates under an underlying Christian assumption

that there's indeterminate souls

that you shove into a population.

That's not what happens.

A population is made up of individuals

with different traits that make choices.

And so you can't say if I were to randomly pick

a certain population, what would I be

because there's nothing random.

An individual Rawls is the aggregation

of all of the choices that went through them.

And so you can't say I would,

if I were to be born in a blank society,

because the society is informed by the contextual decisions

of everyone involved up to that point.

It strips context in the entire human condition.

So instead of saying trolley problems strip context

because they like engaging high-tech souls.

But let's say instead of saying Rawls

just to make the argument of just articulate the argument.

Sure, yeah.

The veil of ignorance is the thought experiment

in the way that trolley problems are thought experiments,

which is designed to help you decide

which principles you want in your society.

So if you imagine a society where you can't know

who you will be in that society,

what are some of the principles you hope are there?

Rule of law, right?

And like fair treatment before justice

would be one that we would all be.

Whether you're into unsolved mysteries,

solved mysteries, or creating your own mysteries,

Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting.

Just download the Amazon Music app

and start listening to your favorite podcasts ad-free,

included with Prime.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to chambacasino.com, let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group,

voidware prohibited by law, CTSC's, 21 plus sponsored

by Chamba Casino.

Before, because I don't ever want to be in the minority group

that just gets treated poorly by the justice system,

because I happen to be in that minority group.

So how would you define society?

The way that we use it, or a collection of people

with somewhat unified cultural values

probably bordered by a nation state

that like unifies together.

That's a great definition.

I would argue that by that definition, which I agree with,

there are several distinct societies

that exist within the United States.

And each and every one of these societies

is willing to use violence and law fair

against those who have threatened their moral worldview.

What does this have to do with the veil of ignorance?

So you're saying in a society,

like, who would you want to be?

What rules do you want?

And I would say, yes, that works wonderfully

in a collection of individuals

with a shared moral worldview and probably a national border.

But what happens when that society

is up against another society overlapping

on its territories with a completely different worldview?

Well, this is part of how you can engage

in the veil of ignorance is going,

well, I don't know who I am in this society,

but how do I want that society theoretically

to engage in foreign policy?

Well, one of them's, I would say,

I want my government to protect me as a citizen

of whatever this nation state is,

because I don't want other nation states coming in,

stomping me and killing me and taking more.

This is more so, like, an example that I'll use,

it's probably the least egregious,

would be open air fish markets in New York City.

I think they're absolutely disgusting,

and they shouldn't be allowed.

Because they smell.

It's not just that, it's the rotting fish

and flesh that don't get out of the street.

And it just, yeah, it's all over the street.

Spray with a hose.

And then it's just rotting for days.

And when you go to low-reside,

it's just everywhere you go, go to Houston.

The people who, right, the people who live there,

that's their society.

They're largely Chinese and Southeast Asian.

They don't care about open air fish markets.

But the people of New York have started to move away

because they don't like it.

And this is created an entrenched enclave.

Enclaves are bad, and I believe,

like having a group of people

that form their own subdivision,

that have their own rules is going to create animosity

and violence because you will create

two distinct moral worldviews at odds with each other.

Now, the reason I cite this example

is because it's one of the least egregious meaning

that people of New York don't really care

all that much about the open air fish markets.

They just move away.

They stop living in the area,

more Chinese people moved in,

and now the area is dominated by Chinese.

But you could take a look at this

and then bring it to its most egregious,

and that is like Chicago crime and shooting violence.

So you have areas where there may be

a middle-class black family,

and gang bangers will come into that territory,

or just young black men who are violent,

for whatever reason they may be.

And they will create crime.

This will cause the higher-income people to flee,

and then just dramatically impoverished the area

and create more crime and violence throughout the area.

So then the argument we would make is,

what rules do we want?

Well, our principles would suggest

that you are innocent until proven guilty,

and you should not be searched or have object seized

without, you know, some of that warrants it.

Probably, and probably cause.

And so what happened in New York, as they said,

this neighborhood is where most of the shootings

and violence happens.

So this is where we're going to stop and frisk people.

It also coincided with being a black neighborhood.

The progressives then said,

why are the majority of stop and frisk's black?

And the government, which these are Democrat,

appointed police, said, that's just where the crime is.

Then they said, no more stop and frisk,

you need to stop because you're doing it to black people.

So you have two distinct moral worldviews.

You can't do this only to black people,

and, but it's just the neighbor where the crime happens.

Your principles are meaningless in this regard,

because both groups are going to assert power over the other

to make their world happy.

But this is where democracy can be beautiful or bad, right?

And so what the thing you're posing, right?

Say you say, I don't want to have enclaves in a society.

And my counter to that would basically say,

I think with the size of nation states,

it's almost unavoidable,

even just think about the way that geography shapes a culture, right?

If you've got a nation that's mountainous and full of pine trees,

and it's also in a nation with beaches and fishing,

and it's also in a nation with, you know,

insert different geographies, right?

The people in the culture that are going to emerge

from these, even just geographies alone,

are probably going to have some of the different values.

They're going to have things where they want to prioritize

fishing industry more,

but it's possible that the lumber industry is like having issues

and they want more advocacy.

And so they'll always have these competing interests.

And I think the beauty of a democracy that's functioning well

is that it takes two things

where actually there might be reasonable concern, right?

They're reasonable.

Let me ask you a question.

Can I finish my thought and then I'll let you ask a question.

This is a long, long point.

Hey, you went for five minutes.

I'll get two minutes, okay?

You've been doing this to me for a while.

I'll get two minutes.

If you can succinct on what happened.

Okay.

The beauty of a dialectic of a democracy

is you can take two opposing values

and what the idea is is to find a compromise within both where,

ideally, you find the best piece of each one.

So here's why I'm interrupting.

Yeah.

I feel like that is a root, that is rudimentary.

And we understand that completely.

It's not the point that I'm making.

So I'll give you a better example.

Dearborn Michigan has several instances

of female genital mutilation among young girls.

That is explicitly illegal in the United States.

But in that community, it happens

because there's no law enforcement that will stop it.

You are not going to get a white cop

to go into a Muslim community and say,

stop doing this because they'll say it's our community.

In fact, they even have their own defect

over versions of police.

And they likely won't report it either.

That's pretty pretty interesting.

So what is the solution then?

Should the overarching government

dispatch some white people who are non-Muslims

to take over their government,

to force them at gunpoint to stop?

Yeah, I mean, this is the great federalist question

as to what extent should the...

Now, that's a violation of the principles

of the locals who voted that in.

It's true, but it might be for superseding

like cultural values that we value more.

This is the constant tension that happens

with the federalism like amendment number 10.

Go ahead, sorry.

So I'm going to say a few things.

First of all, is thank you.

You're not stating Rawls' full argument

where for the argument that Rawls gave,

you could also apply that to Aristotle

because Aristotle was saying,

what is the abstract concept of good

that we can use?

And Aristotle said there's three different political systems

which are useful under different contexts

that have their own issues.

Rawls is also operating under the principle of equality,

which is demonstratively false.

Equality has been continually disproven by the science

as well as there are genetic differences

between populations that's disproven

among all of the academic community.

And so when you're looking at the Rawls,

he's automatically jumping to socialism is good

because equality is good.

And this is all operating under the assumption

that enlightenment morality is correct.

Rawls is incredibly critical of socialism.

He rejected a gallery.

So it depends on your definition of socialism

because the socialists play a game

where there's multiple definitions of socialism

used at any given time.

So you can pick one or the other based on context.

Rawls are response to the Marx idea,

the democratic socialist,

which is still a meaning of the word socialist.

I want to move on to the next big story,

but I do want to just conclude by saying

I completely agree with Kyla.

I think we should exert force over Muslims

who refuse to adhere to our traditional balance.

That is not my position at all,

but I would love to flush it out with you,

but sort of my position.

It's like 50% of my position.

Well, I think that, again, we're going to go on in the next.

I want to clarify their argument before we move on.

The point is, when there are people who enter our society,

who have a religious practice that is in a front

to our moral worldview, we will exert force

against them to make them stop.

Yes, to an extent.

The thing is, well, of course, to an extent.

That's why I said to an extent.

No, but not to an extent.

We will use force up to whatever amount of force

necessary to get them to stop.

So it's not to an extent.

It's literally not to be,

she's saying we'll tolerate some of their religious beliefs.

Like I want religious freedom as well, right?

And so this is like the cons, this is why I'm saying,

there's this tension all the time

between like individual rights of freedom of religion,

but also state values of things like,

we don't need it like children.

Sorry to interrupt, but we really do have a lot of stress here.

I think Tim is correct, but continue.

I got to stress one more thing.

This argument still only works

so long as you maintain the monopoly on violence.

And if you state,

yeah, you, you're more aware of you.

Not the state.

If you as a society with a moral worldview

have the monopoly on violence,

you can stop, say, female general mutilation.

But if there is a new cultural worldview

that is emerged, a new moral worldview,

that's called leftist, that tolerates and supports

what Muslims are doing.

They will take from you your monopoly on violence

and then you get to the, then you get a civil war.

So a lot of leftists get into this weird tension

with like Islam because they're very pro-

I don't want to have an argument about leftist and Islam.

My point was, if there is,

if you have a monopoly on violence,

you can assert your authority.

If there are two distinct factions

with equal use of force, you get civil war.

I agree with that.

The issue is, I guess I'm just correcting the leftist idea

that they just want FGM.

They don't just want FGM.

In fact, they acknowledge this tension,

your outlining exists regardless of the party side

that you're pointing to.

My ultimate point, as we move on, again, sorry,

is that your principles only apply to the people

who agree with you.

And that is universal to all moral groups.

End of story.

Sure, yeah, I live in a society, true.

Yes, like you might believe in the right to keep in bear arms,

but you're not going to give an Islamic terrorist a gun

and be like, you have a right to bear arms.

Sure, it's why I like the liberal principles

where we said, well, we should have a couple of basic rules

that we all apply to because other things

we shouldn't impose on that.

So when you have two distinct moral worldviews

operating in one country, and I would say more than that,

you are not going to abide them.

The same rights as you would someone of your society.

Sure, because I would say free speech

is better than compelled or controlled speech, yeah.

Like I would say, if someone is an advocate

for the destruction of my country,

I will not defend their right to speak.

I will not defend their right to keep in bear arms, either.

If a man comes this country, he's giving Aaluhu Akbar,

and starts throwing bricks at cops,

I'm not going to say he has a right to keep in bear arms.

I'm going to say absolutely no.

What do you think is a right for assault, right?

That's already barred out.

The point I'm making is, if someone expresses clear

ideological sympathies for ISIS,

we will not give them a gun.

Possibly with ISIS, I think that's the case in America,

but I think that there's like good statutory reason

if you're like a terrorist, sympathizer, whatever,

but like in general, like.

Right, my point is.

Well, we don't want to say people who we just disagree

with can't have rights.

Your domestic terrorism doesn't exist in the United States

because of the First Amendment.

So that's why Trump, his declaration,

was actually just a statement he made

and not anything actually informal.

He would have to do an international declaration.

This means, and I'll say it again,

if someone is antifa and says this country should burn,

I will not defend their right to keep in bear arms.

These are people who have expressed a violent intent,

and we have seen in the past them use a violent intent.

So, and that's the more egregious example.

Let's jump to the next story, otherwise we'll keep talking.

It's from the Washington Post.

The Pentagon seeks more than 200 billion dollars

in budget requests for Iran war.

Some White House officials do not think

the Defense Department's request

is a realistic shot of being approved in Congress.

One senior administration official says.

Additionally, we've got more updates as more Marines

are being deployed to the Middle East.

And of course, Donald Trump has said Israel was angry

and bombed the South Powers gas field in Iran.

Gas oil, crude oil is now up to $119 per barrel.

And gas is expected to go up.

I've seen reports, correct if I'm wrong,

because I haven't read too much into this,

that China is now cutting off fertilizer exports.

China.

And guys, I know the Republicans are going to say,

stick with the plan.

But as of right now, I don't want to be pessimistic.

Let's just say, holy crap, this is bad.

How about what plan?

I've heard Phil loves China, actually.

So I'd love to.

Phil's a communist communicator about China is an adversary.

I will say the $200 billion, the request from the $200 billion,

if I understand correctly, is to replace stock stocks

they've already used.

So it's not technically to continue funding the war,

not that it's not a slush fund.

Then he was essentially at the Pentagon.

But it is to replace the stuff they've already used

because you don't want to have your stock piles

of weapons.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

But to be used is the point is, the trillion.

Guys, we spend several hundred billion on Israel

for the past 50, 60 years.

We spend 250 billion on Ukraine in the past four years.

And now they want another 200 billion.

I understand we spend like, what's the budget

pretty like $7 trillion?

I don't know.

I have no idea.

It's some psychotic number like this.

My point is, we are looking at their discussing

removing sanctions on Iranian oil at sea

because they, is it $7 trillion?

It's $8.38 billion.

So that's what up to $1 trillion?

$1 trillion, you mean?

Billion, billion.

Billion.

$838 puts up a billion.

This up, this up, this up, this up, this up,

but really, this up to $1 trillion if they get it.

It aims to cover sustained military operations.

We replenish to pleading munitions and accelerate

weapons production and mid-intensity strikes

over the past three weeks.

So I mean, like, look, look, look, look, I get it.

I don't like the Ayatollah.

I don't like his son.

I don't like their government.

I don't like them constantly being a thorn

on the side of all the countries in the region

that are trying to sell oil.

I'm not a gratitude bird.

Bring the oil on, baby, drill, baby, drill.

Let's have some capitalism.

Nobody, gratitude bird doesn't even care anymore.

She's demanding oil gets sent to Cuba.

She doesn't even care about climate change.

She's just, my point is, the Iranian government

sucks miserably.

But as we already discussed, Eric Prince,

he was quoted as saying, the problem with the run,

it's a world of dice, you don't know if you can succeed.

This is not a quote Charlie Kirk in June.

I think it was June 17th.

He said, this is a developed nation of 90 plus million people

that you cannot just easily go in and topple.

You cannot just ideologically change

like some smaller countries.

This is a serious war.

Now, again, I think it's fair to point out

after Trump launched those strikes on the bunkers,

a day after Charlie Kirk did say, I stand with my president

and I want him to win.

And I can respect that.

I feel the same way.

I want to win, I do think it's ill advised,

but I think we have to just be realistic.

And I'm saying optimistic,

but let's at least recognize a $200 billion budget request.

Oil at 120 bucks, this is not good news.

This is not good news for anybody.

I would implore the Republicans to pay attention to this

because if you ignore it or poo poo it,

you're gonna lose the midterms worse than you may already be.

I'm in a real like crossroads in my own soul about this

because we're all in.

We put our, as Sean said, we put our dick in the light socket.

So here we are electrocuting.

And we're all the way in, baby.

There's no going back.

I don't know, I mean, obviously we could leave,

but then they'll attack us for 20 years.

It's like, what do we do?

Destroy, do we level this country to the ground,

kill 100 million people?

However many millions of people got to go.

There's 90 million of them.

Or do we, or do we, do we yell to stop the war?

Because I feel like I'm on board with this motion

of American hegemony, free speech, property rights,

all over the planet.

If we stop this thing, I think the whole system will crumble.

So, but I don't want to kill a million Iranians.

I do want the country to be called Persia though.

So it's less confusing.

Iran, Iran.

Well, I mean, so it's been, it's been Iran for a long, long time.

I know that it was Persia.

It's the Persian, it was Persia like back in the Persian Empire

and stuff, but it's actually been called Iran

for a long, long time.

The, the, the, the term Aryan comes from the word Iran

because they were, they were like with the caucuses,

I guess the region is similar.

But the, I don't have so much of a problem

with the request for the money.

Whether you're into unsolved mysteries,

solved mysteries, or creating your own mysteries,

Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting.

Just download the Amazon Music app

and start listening to your favorite podcasts, Add Free,

included with Prime.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to chambacasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group.

Voidware prohibited by law.

CT&C's, 21 plus.

IT HAS BEGUN, Subpoenas Filed Over GRAND CONSPIRACY Against Trump

About this Episode

More from Timcast IRL

Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech

THE MADMAN HAS DONE IT, Trump Moves To Checkmate Democrats

Bullet In KIRK ASSASSINATION Does NOT MATCH Says Court Filing

Fireball Sightings SURGE Amid Drones INVADING US Military Bases, Rumors It's ALI...