Loading...
Loading...

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Rudyard Lynch and Kyla Turner to discuss the James Comey Subpoena, Rudyard debates a liberal on democracy, The Pentagon demands another $200 billion amid Iran War, a US Territory becomes a hotspot for birth tourism, an Insane Theory suggests Trump is the anti-Christ, and Hollywood is cooked.
SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/
Join - / @timcastirl
Hosts:
Tim @Timcast (everywhere)
Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/
Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/
Producer:
Carter @carterbanks (X) | @trashhouserecords (YT)
Guest:
Rudyard Lynch @WhatifAltHist (everywhere)
Kyla Turner @notsoErudite_ (instagram)
Podcast available on all podcast platforms!
IT HAS BEGUN, Subpoenas Filed Over GRAND CONSPIRACY Against Trump | Timcast IRL
For advertising inquiries please email [email protected]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sponsored by Chambacasino.
Because of the fact that it is to re,
to restock the depleted munitions, right?
So I, I, you can have your problems with the,
with the war, you can have your concerns,
you can, you can address all of the real,
actual, tangible problems that this is causing.
But to say that, you know, the, the,
the returning to whatever baseline level our munitions are,
or should be, I think that that's something
that we should do because the idea of allowing the United
States to not have the overwhelming military power
that we do have, allowing that to be degraded,
is far more of a problem for the US than, for,
than to, than to say, oh, we're not going to spend
200 billion dollars.
How do you guys feel about Trump in general,
like promising peace, promising no wars,
promising to end wars, and dragging you guys into a,
like, does that bother you?
Were you four Trump's promise of peace?
Like, how do you, how do you, uh,
I, I, I view Trump on foreign policy as generally better
than every other president in my lifetime.
And, uh,
despite him being so hawkish,
on, he's been hawkish on around the whole time.
Well, he's hawkish everywhere, right?
He like, he pretends, he pretends deterrence
is like, devilish policy, right?
Like, yeah, I, I, I actually, I respect the hawkishness.
It's, it's a question of, are you going to actually go in?
I think, uh, my, my view of getting involved in Iran
was skepticism, but hope.
Venezuela was the same thing.
I think Venezuela played out very well.
So, wow, for, for, for us,
not for the, like,
actually,
actually,
Venezuela seized our oil assets.
We had a treaty with them, okay?
We shook hands with Venezuela and said,
we're going to build oil and they said,
you got a brother and we were all sharing in money
and they were the wealthiest country in South America.
Then they elected as a democratic socialist
who came in and stole our oil assets
and our country did nothing about that.
So I, again, say the Venezuela operation skepticism,
but then when Trump goes in, takes out Maduro
and just brings them to New York,
which will be where do he's found that guilty?
I don't know, that'll play out.
But then we get our oil assets back.
I'm like, well, that's what I call justice.
Now, as for Iran,
this is a big question over the trade of four moves.
And I thought, did, didn't they steal their own national,
didn't they nationalize Venezuela companies?
These were American built multi-billion dollar investments
to build oil infrastructure in Venezuela.
But it's, and we had treaties with them to do it.
And it was an estimate of 10 billion dollars
and as it's stolen.
Sure, but,
you do not get to,
hold on, this is your property.
This is private American dollars, right?
Does the American government
owe private companies military protection?
Yes.
If a government that they went into trade with
buys out the company that they wanted to,
I don't know if that's true.
I don't know if that's true.
If Walmart has,
I don't care if it's true or not,
it's more, it's an opinion.
You're going to think about the principle here.
Like, let's take it out of Venezuela.
If, say Walmart has a close relationship with China,
there's a Chinese private company
that they're working with.
And as a result of the Communist Party
China goes, we're actually taking all these assets
and they take like 10 billion dollars
worth of Walmart principles.
Should America go in there and take private company assets?
We should spend taxpayer dollars
to take private company assets back on why?
So, first and foremost,
the question about China would actually be a question of,
can we be militarily successful in doing so?
In terms of what Venezuela stole,
we had a treaty with them,
which was at the governmental level,
which we do have a treaty with China on trade.
So if they're violent and it's not just private assets
that are being violated,
Venezuela stole 10 billion plus dollars in assets.
We did nothing about it.
All we did this time was discombobulate,
take their leader out and take back our oil industry
from them, which we agreed to build with them.
They broke the rules, they stabbed us in the back.
Question, I got to say,
if the Chinese buy a bunch of farmland in the United States
and then the Americans are like,
actually this is our land and they seize it
from these private Chinese companies
that did everything legally.
Are we in the right?
And I would say yes,
because it's American sovereign.
So are there citizens in the right
taking their sovereign territory back?
It's different because it's Venezuela.
That's the problem is you justify,
I mean, it's justification of monkey tail,
you gotta do the strongest,
hardest, brutalist, winning tactic to survive.
There are, the first thing I would say is,
you are absolutely correct in that I will always be biased
for my society and my way of life
and what I think is right.
And I think that if I enter an agreement with another country
to build oil assets and they share in those profits
and then they take them from me,
that is a violation of our moral agreement.
Then if you start privately buying up under my nose
through our legal system,
farmland near our military bases for what you can surveil them,
I'm gonna tell you to knock at the F off.
Yeah, I'm gonna take that land back.
The product that they're actually talking about matters too,
like oil is definitely a geopolitical tool, right?
Like it's literally civilization juice.
So there's that taking,
Chinese health, we've already addressed it.
We've already addressed it.
They were, they, they, they, they,
the farmland they're buying is near our military bases
for which they're surveilling our military.
I agree, but they're doing it.
That's different.
That's not what they're doing.
Well, let's say in the hypothetical,
what, quote on in the hypothetical,
it's more analogous to this situation.
Well, that's not,
because I'm assuming you're not saying that America
was actually making it military assets secretly
and I think it was actually private companies,
oil drilling, so say it's private Chinese companies
as private as they can be,
that own and buy a farmland on our growing soybeans
in Canadian, in Canadian, in American land.
Venezuela is one of the least defensible regimes you can pick
because the Venezuelan government alienated even their own people
where Maduro needed to use Cuban mercenaries
in order to establish his power,
where Maduro was a democratically elected politician
who installed himself as dictator,
he was profoundly unpopular,
so he used Cuban mercenaries to install himself in power.
But nobody's defending his alien here.
Nobody likes Venezuela.
I mean, I didn't defend Venezuela.
I'm going to say it for the third time.
If I have an agreement to produce oil in your country
and we share in the profits,
and you have a problem with that,
negotiate the treaty, sever it or otherwise.
Which they did negotiate and pay out a million dollars
just to finish.
Don't steal it.
If you are buying land in our country
that is a threat to our national security,
you are a threat to our national security
as per our assessment.
So the issue is?
There is a moral distinction between these two things.
I will still add on top of that.
We are the United States,
and we are always going to operate at our behest
and not for the benefit of anybody else.
So if that means, we in good faith negotiate a contract
with Venezuela to build oil and they steal it,
we take it back.
That's not an accurate way of describing what happened.
That means it's trying to buy land in our country,
and we deem it so we will seize it from them.
We do.
Cause we are America working for our interests.
Sure, but then the principle that you're not mad about
isn't that they're stealing from us.
It's just that it's America.
It's just that's all the principle is and what I'm saying is that's probably not good
foreign policy.
For example, in the Venezuelan thing as quickly as I'm looking, Chevron took a billion
dollar payout because they agreed to dip and they stayed actually as minority partners
with Venezuela for a long time.
The issues that the two other oil barons didn't want to take the deal and then in that case
it got seized.
And then they went through courts to try to get their assets back, which they were not
successful.
And now the taxpayer is paying so that mobile can have their assets back.
Yes.
The American taxpayer.
Uh-huh.
I'm not sure I'm for spending taxpayer money.
What is the point of the public of the public coffers if not to defend the public from
foreign adversaries?
I would say in this case it would be, okay, what's in the good of the public, making sure
we have oil.
Let me ask you a simpler question.
Hold on.
The guy is on his dinghy fishing off the coast of Florida when pirates show up, why should
the private taxpayer have the Coast Guard go and save him from some other country's pirates?
These are literally the points of our companies individuals.
What does that have to do with what I'm talking about?
Well, you're comparing a company to an individual on his boat.
What does that have to do with the, well, an individual having their live and safety threatened
by pirates?
No, I want to steal his mobile.
No, I want to steal his boat to the Coast Guard stop.
It's his individual property, right?
In this case, it's a company's property.
Just call it an Exxon tanker.
Yeah, there's an Exxon tanker at a bunch of pirates rate it should the Coast Guard stop
the pirates?
Probably the pirates, yeah.
What's the difference?
The difference is that we're negotiating out with pirates.
The Venezuelan pirates.
It's a nation state that we have to negotiate with and we can't just go to war with everyone
with us.
So we let Venezuela seize our tankers?
I think we, they, when they happened, we had massive sanctions.
I believe large NATO sanctions were put against Venezuela.
Nobody else, as you've said, nobody likes Venezuela.
I don't like Venezuela.
Let's go back to the original question about arguing against America's interests, which
should be the opposite of the American government.
You're not using rational consistency.
You're arguing against the interests of American power in each individual context.
I'm, I'm, I'm not actually because theoretically, if the American government is for American,
like success, the thing at question here isn't mobile.
Why, we don't owe mobile anything as a company.
We owe Americans.
Does mobile pay taxes?
No, but the mobile.
They do pay taxes, but we could negotiate a new trade deal.
Do they pay taxes?
They do.
Do they pay taxes?
Or buy of oil from somebody else, right?
They pay taxes.
And instead of spending money to go blow up Venezuela, we could have negotiated contracts
with other oil suppliers.
These companies pay taxes, which includes money for public defense for which they're entitled.
To some extent.
And I will add on top of this that Venezuela seized our oil assets to distribute oil to
our adversaries.
Right.
Yeah, that did happen as well.
Which is why we engage with them.
We stopped it.
But the idea is okay.
The book comes down.
This is the issue in foreign policy when people fuck you over.
You don't just immediately go to might.
We didn't.
It was 20 years ago.
Why?
It was 2009.
War is expensive.
So bad for economy.
But that's what 17 years ago.
And they tried the legal method and none of it worked and Trump said, okay, get our oil
back.
Sure.
17 years later.
It's not a short amount of time.
Yeah.
And one of the issues is we didn't really get our oil back.
Most of the tankers that we seized from them, we've sold off to Saudi Arabia, which only
apparently the Trump admin can actually have access to the $500 million.
So the American taxpayers didn't even make back the money that we spent to bellow mobile.
We also cut off Cuba.
But I want to go back to the original question.
So we can round this one out and jump to the next stories that we have.
And it was a question about how do we feel about Donald Trump?
And I will say I'm a big fan of the Abraham Accords.
When Donald Trump crossed the DMZ with Kim Jong-un, I was welling up.
I was nearly in tears.
I mean, that was an incredible moment for the Koreas.
And Donald Trump crossed into the DMZ without security.
They could have killed them.
They could have captured them.
They could have done a lot of things.
And you can say it was free.
You can say it was a tremendous step towards peace.
And I'd like to see more of that so I tremendously respected.
Donald Trump's at the timeline for getting out of Afghanistan.
None of this, of course, is perfect.
But Donald Trump has been infinitely better on foreign policy than any president of my
lifetime.
Afghanistan poll was horrific.
That was Joe Biden.
It was not.
You just said that the poll up policy was decided.
The timeline was set.
No, it was Biden.
It was not just Biden.
The problem is that when things happen over multiple presidencies, it's typically both
administration.
No, it was Joe Biden.
It was not just Joe Biden.
Trump had like established a timeline to pull out and Joe Biden went ahead and said,
we're not going to do that.
I'm going to just do it now.
He changed the timeline to 9-11 to make a scene and then he surrendered the military.
And then they abandoned Bagram Air Force.
Not only abandoned.
They surrendered military equipment.
Why?
Just because I'm not a fan of the way that we pulled out of Afghanistan at all.
What I'm actually pointing to is a partisan blame of just one president when, like, for
example, when we look at economies, we always just want to blame Afghanistan, what do you
mean?
Trump began the poll out of it, which we all want to create.
Do you agree with?
Not the way we did it.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Not the way Biden did.
Let's go back in time.
Do you support, at the time when Trump said, we're going to get out of Afghanistan?
Is that a good thing?
I'm not sure.
You think we should have stayed in Afghanistan?
Possibly, yeah.
Okay.
I don't.
I think that's morally abhorrent and psychotic.
Why?
But you want to take advantage of it?
Because we spent 20 years in the nation building and trying to throw it over Afghanistan
until South Korea.
How is it possible that overthrowing a nation state sovereignty is cool and based, but
trying to establish democracy within a country which I agree wasn't done very well in
Afghanistan.
Is somehow morally abhorrent.
Who's that important?
The first one seems to be something you've made up.
Venezuela.
You're for Venezuela.
I'm just an invasion of a nation state.
I'm for taking back our assets that were taken from us.
And taking their elected official.
I don't care that we don't like him.
You're for it.
How is this not morally questionable, but in the case of Afghanistan, let me explain
it to simply and monosilobically as possible.
Sure.
But Afghanistan is 20 years of nation building.
Venezuela was several days.
Okay.
Why did the nation building fail?
Because you cannot make Afghani's gay communists.
No.
The reason that it failed is large part of it was too expensive so no, because we nation
built in Japan.
It takes 60 years.
Exactly.
We nation built in Greece.
It takes 60 years.
It takes 60 years.
In South Korea.
That implies that all societies are the same.
I don't think they're the same.
And Afghanis couldn't do jumping jacks.
You need at least three generations, which we did get in the Koreas and in Japan.
You need to establish education.
You need to let girls go to school and you need to establish a middle class, which does
take a long time.
And they were active conflict the whole time in Afghanistan.
It wasn't working and they should have gotten more working.
Well, more importantly, we never worked with local experts of Afghanistan.
We didn't work with the people on the ground.
We didn't.
We didn't.
We worked with the Hazaras.
We worked with the Northern tribes.
We built up an entire Northern coalition.
To pull back, you support the continuation of the occupation of Afghanistan.
I did not hold on.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
I did not say it.
I said, I don't know.
So that's an argument that allows a lot of possible deniability.
No, it says I don't know my answer to that.
Well, you can, but you can't put words in my mouth of what I haven't said.
Afghanistan, Navella, I'm going to say Burma, but I'm going to show it to you later on.
I did not say.
You're being a role in each place.
You are positionally against American foreign policy.
You're not operating under a unified moral code.
No, my universe.
It's America.
You're against the, you're against the American foreign policy and you're picking
whatever the opposition of it is.
Respectfully.
You couldn't engage in a hypothetical.
So I'm not sure how I write an alternate history show for seven years, of course I do.
I can.
Well, you didn't.
Yes, I did.
You didn't.
You said Rawls isn't true because, you know, genes.
Good enough with Rawls.
Rawls couldn't engage in like that at all.
Because you couldn't.
How dare you answer Rawls?
Rawls like this.
Hey, my, here I'll tell you my consistent, my consistent thread is I would like to see
worldwide liberal democracies emerge.
That's what I would like to see because I think liberal democracies tend not to go to
war with each other.
They lift people out of poverty best.
They establish a good medical class.
They establish education and they decrease the idea that every day, the idea that every
society can be a liberal democracy is is totally outside of the realm of possibility.
Like genes like some people are genetically incapable of having a liberal democracy.
Just because of custom.
Yeah, because I have a question.
I have a question on this regard like Liberia, for instance, I don't know enough about
Liberia.
We repatriated former slaves and then established an American constitutional liberal democracy
and it devolved into cannibalism and tribal warfare.
Because why?
I don't know.
Well, the issue is maybe nobody can.
Nobody can.
Nobody can.
I was like, nobody can.
Certain cultures can't.
Certain cultures can't.
My argument would be not all the liberal democracies have to look the same.
When I say liberal democracy, I don't mean superheroes that are gay.
What I mean is free speech, due process, like strong institutions, and now it's the
part.
So you're arguing about free speech.
Like there's a lot of societies that totally reject free speech out of hand.
Yeah.
I'm the wrong.
Well, I mean, so they're going to take a point that I'm making is those societies choose
to be that way.
They choose to not be liberal democracy.
Well, they shouldn't have the choice.
And we can't make other societies have our value.
No, I think we can convince them to have our values.
I want to get to this next story, which is actually relevant to the conversation.
I was going to say one last thing on this in that I think there's a realignment that's
going to happen.
The progressives that lost in Illinois lost largely to APEC-backed candidates, which many
people considered to be a chef, whilst we're seeing that the media...
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.
I'm not entirely sure if the Democrats will be the anti or pro-interventionist considering
they're very critical of Trump right now, but it is shifting.
And with APEC backing these candidates, Democrats may actually end up in the...
We should go into these countries, and then with Tucker, Candice, and Megan being loud
right-wing voices, the Republican may become staunchly anti-intervention, which shifts the
dynamic from woke versus anti-woke into war and pro-war, which is exactly what we were
seeing with Obama versus McCain after the Bush era, where Obama played the...
I'm against the war, and McCain was like, well, sometimes you need it.
So again, I think the point you're making about why we may have needed may have, I'm not
saying we should have, may have needed to stay in Afghanistan, is a point made by many
neoliberals, more moderate Democrats about nation-building.
But let me say this is very important that sometimes you need to do evil to create order
in life, and sometimes you need to create chaos to produce good because totalitarian systems
that have too much role.
So this is an instant to go into Venezuela of doing something predominantly evil to create
order in the realm.
Okay.
We're going to have to always have that debate.
We're going to jump to the story.
We've got some of the New York Post, U.S. territory turns tropical maternity ward has
produced thousands of American babies for parents living in China.
Amazing.
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a U.S. territory northeast of Guam
in the Pacific Ocean.
It's been flooded with so-called birth tourists since 2009, when then President Barack
Obama introduced a visa waiver program for Chinese nationals.
What a scumbag.
I say, strip them all of their citizenship.
Absolutely.
No more birthright citizenship.
Absolutely.
Come back.
Yeah.
I mean, Kyle's gone.
Okay.
I want to grease.
Yeah.
Probably to be honest with you.
She's going to be like, no, Chinese should be allowed to be present in the United States.
It's just that civilizational suicide.
I mean, the idea, the fact that there are, that there is evidence that there are thousands
and thousands of people that are going there just to have children, particularly from
China, right?
China is absolutely an adversary.
They're not a partner.
They're not, they're not some, they're not even rivals.
They're an adversary.
And the idea that they're, that they should be allowed to be American citizens just because
they're born there, then back, brought back to China to be raised as a Chinese people.
That's why I can't stand liberals, man.
Because they're just like, they're going to stand around while the, like these Chinese
people doing birth tourism are literally saying in 20 years, you will start seizing power
and assets from the American people.
And the American liberals are like, they're going to be standing there as the, as the Chinese
guy goes, like, I have every right to take your stuff because I am American and they're
going to go, guess you're right.
Yeah.
And they're going to be used as a vector of attack against the United States.
Is it just that people don't, I'm asking you too, rather you're, I mean, you study this
stuff that people just don't have that outside perspective of the system.
They get, they get in it, they get emotionally involved with like, yeah, we're, we're accepting
of people.
But like, is it just that, like, dumb first order thinking?
Um, so James Burnham has the best narrative about this.
He wrote a book in 1961 called The Suicide of the West.
And the thesis of the book was that liberals do not have a morally consistent code.
They just support whatever degrades the West fast enough.
And so in 1961, he said that this would cause the collapse, the suicide of Western civilization
because the liberals don't have a consistent code.
They would just push for these various policies that would degrade the character of Western
civilization.
And then people would give concessions to moderate liberals, which would then pass
to radical Marxists.
And so we said radical Marxists would take over the institutions, which is what we've
seen.
And these people, I agree with you, Tim, these people have no, this is why I brought up
roles in the enlightenment.
These people have no concept that there are others who do not share their values, who
will use violence against them.
And if someone was willing to use violence and will not share your values, you have to pair
that with violence.
I often notice people are very like laissez faire about, you know, about whatever bringing
new people in, changing the system, they're kind of open to it until it affects them directly,
they get mugged.
And then they're like, like Anna Kasperian, you know, she's completely flipped after she
got attacked by some dude outside her house.
She's completely flipped.
She's definitely.
It was it affects you.
And so to get, make sure that people don't have to face it and have that traumatic realignment
that you can maybe educate them ahead of time and get them to kind of see what mass
migration can do, you know, see how societies can be destroyed with mass migration is used
as a weapon.
But like, to get people to realize it without really experiencing it, I don't know.
I don't know how I played a lot of Crusader kings, you know, watch countries get flipped
with cultural, you know, the culture just takes it and then people vote for their own
demise.
I'm like, that's how I learned, but sorry, yeah, you don't have to establish cultural
traditions to because this isn't a lot of tribal societies do where they have rights
of passage that force people to grow up through these various rituals to make them comprehend
the horror of the world, because industrial civilization has protected us from the brutality
of the human condition, and so people are just not aware of how bad things can get.
And that's why we're having mouse utopia.
And so like horror movies and stuff, is that part of why people like them is because it
helps them see into what it could be?
Yeah, people like horror movies is like a reset button.
But it's because people physiologically process reality, and so if someone physiologically
does not understand something, they're going to have trouble understanding it and abstract
intellectually.
And so, but like we don't expect this is, so I think you guys are like true about something,
right?
Which is that like by and large, people are a culmination of their experiences and that's
about it, right?
What you're talking about, like Anna Kasperin, right?
What you're talking about, like the morally luckily individual, who just happens to grow
up with the whatever morals you prefer, and loves them because they grew up with them,
right?
But I also think that we can experience and observe things and think of things and develop
a sense of self outside of these experiences.
It just takes significant work, right?
In the case of learning math, it's really hard to experience high levels math, Euclidean
geometry.
However, if you engage in it at high levels over and over as like a rigorous mental practice
in the way that you could do with philosophy, right, you can actually come to observe and
understand these things and have it kind of phenomenologically affect how you engage
with the world.
Let's go back to the original question, which is, there's an island where Chinese people
are flying, giving birth and then leaving, so that those babies will have standing to
be president and be American citizens.
Should we put a stop to that?
Yeah, probably.
Should we end birthright citizenship?
I think it's complicated because it's a very American tradition, right?
There's a really good debate between two of my friends, I don't know if I could shout
out other creators.
I think you've had both of them on Pisco and Ryan Mulali when they were at word to
bait talked about this.
And I think both of them had really good arguments, Ryan being saying birthright means an implied
patriotism because obviously the founding fathers didn't know about like planes, right?
So if you were born here, you're probably invested because you're not going to leave very
easily, right?
And Pisco kind of addressed that, well, birthright citizenship is about the individual, it's
not about their parents, and that matters.
So I think there's really good arguments on either side.
No.
It's silly that someone from China can fly here specifically to give birth and then like
fly here a week before birth, give birth and then fly back a week later.
I agree, but there might be a way to like policy carve out in such a way that people can't
abuse it like that.
That is.
But we still protect the birthright citizenship.
No more anger, baby.
Yes, some way to do that work because I think the Pisco points out really aptly, I forget
which amendment it is.
And I'm going to butcher his argument, sorry, sorry, Pisco, I think the 14th, yeah.
But the jurisdiction of the state it's talking about is the child.
It's not the parents.
And a child is not responsible for their parents, their parents sins, their parents heritage,
any of the sort of things, especially in any-
That's not a jurisdiction thereof, was it like, if you look at the debates or for the
better.
No, but in the American law idea, the idea is that you can come here and be born here
and that makes you American and yes, there are people abusing it, but the question
might be, is there a way to prevent the abuse while maintaining the principle of what
it is?
It's all the U.S.
The fourth amendment was specifically for post-civil war addressing the issue of slaves.
And the point of if you were born here, your slave was past tense, not future.
The idea was all of the slaves who were born here are citizens.
That's what they were saying.
There was a debate on this in which the guy said, well, no one's going to construe this
to mean that foreigners, diplomats or their children would have-
Just fly here and eat.
And that was back when we didn't have planes and people were like traveling three months.
So it was actually debated and then it was a-
What was it, what was it, a Wong v. Kim arc or whatever?
I don't know.
I can't remember the name of the local president where they were like, no, no, no,
anybody born here at this point forward will be a citizen, despite that not being the
intention of the 14th amendment.
There was never a moral argument behind it.
It was just practicality.
Only really nations in the new world to do for-
I can't write the United States.
Birthright citizenship is just nations in the new world with a handful of exceptions because
these were countries with high demographic turnover.
If you went to the founding fathers and made that moral argument, they just wouldn't have
a concept for that.
Sure, but the principle that's emerging is the same-
What's the principle?
What's the moral principle?
The principle here would be that you are not held in bound by like the actions or identity
of what your parents were.
Why is that good?
I think that that's good because for example, being held accountable for the sins or like
history of your parents is something that was often done in older world orders that
I think was harmful.
I don't think that I should be culpable for the behaviors-
I agree.
The viewpoints or the identity of my parents.
I completely agree.
Like if someone illegally enters my home and then gives birth, that kids are just living
my house now.
I am not responsible for the climate-
What if it's a really cute baby?
No, maybe it's got to go.
But reality also exists-
I'll call it an act.
We fundamentally exist in a world of distinct countries that have their own histories.
And the reality is not that- we are fundamentally bored because the baby boomers are going to pass
on a crap ton of debt to my generation Gen Z.
By this logic, and we can't- you can say of course it would be nice if we got rid of
the debt.
I am going to be stuck with this debt.
I am going to force the generational inheritance the baby boomers gave me.
And I cannot do anything about this.
This is the fundamental reality of the human condition.
And I believe in creating politics around fundamental realities, not around abstract
principles, and then enforcing them on reality whether or not they make sense.
So if your parents are thieves, should everyone look at you skeptically for the acts like
15 to 40 years of your life because your parent was a thief, might be in your genes?
This was something that the Western tradition had established.
We had already thought this through, where Christianity and the Greco-Roman tradition
said that the individual should be judged for their actions.
But this was something that was thought through at the time.
It wasn't just- it wasn't a post-ad hoc rationalization for a legal structure.
Where we established a legal structure because it was convenient at the time, it was not
a moral principle.
You know, I think we form society based off of literal reality, like you're saying,
but also off of abstract concepts, like our rights are given to us by God.
Well, man, reality is complicated.
And my theory is that it's like the masculine and the feminine, the ideal and the material
match up together.
And so there's a dynamic between them where the ideal can pull a little bit and the material
can pull a little bit and it's a negotiation between the two.
So do you get right now?
That's right.
To my point, right?
What you're saying is what I'm saying, right?
I agree that, for example, the national debt that the boomers created is something that
my generation and your generation are going to have to deal with.
But at the same time, I might be able to say the way that I identify as an individual,
the things that I carry into this world as far as like maybe things like opportunity
and circumstance shouldn't be nearly as neatly tied to my parents.
I think that that's a very old world idea that I don't like.
But if your parents...
Right, there's at least tension between these two things.
If your parents literally birthed you here, then your whole world identity would revolve
around the fact that they did that.
Only if you lived here would have met.
If you were born here.
So it totally depends on what your parents did.
If you lived here.
You're saying it's your identity shouldn't be anything to do with your parents, but your
parents decided where you were going to be born.
Nothing to do with your parents.
The idea is that you shouldn't have to inherit their actions, right?
But you do.
But you become a citizen of the country they choose to birth you in.
To some ex, well, they do, but we don't, right?
My dad, being in...
He's not any of these things, but say my dad is an alcoholic and a thief.
That doesn't mean that I am accountable for the time that he stole from somebody.
This is why like lands rights can get really messy.
And we often say in the case of like, is that stolen land or not?
We go, well, maybe my ancestors, ancestors, ancestors, but for how long do we have to pay
for that, right?
Yeah.
No, 40 acres goes, 40 acres in a mule.
By that...
I shouldn't have to pay for that.
By that logic, white people should not be held to the actions of their ancestors because
we should not inherit the costs of our ancestors.
Wait a minute.
And also, on top of it, I said that the development of these moral codes is a conflict between
the material and the ideal.
What you're basically saying is that if the ideal is a man and the material is the woman,
the man should just totally dominate the woman without reference to the material reality.
That's not what I was saying.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
I want to change my opinion because I just realized something.
Oh, no.
I did it.
For the longest time, I just thought I was a quarter Korean.
But then I found out that I'm actually 5% Japanese.
Now I'm in favor of the sins of the father because this means the government, the United
States government, has got to give me reparations because I'm Japanese.
So pay up.
You have to prove that they stole stuff from you.
No, I don't.
There you go.
No.
I think the Japanese had to smit receipts of being like, hey, but also how do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do you do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
How do I do it?
Partially and politics based on the philosophy that we've become so...
I think we've become so into philosophy with posts...
Thank you, Roger.
Yeah.
Talk me in postmodernism, that we're so philosophical.
Heavy, that we've lost sight with just brut reality points.
We're radically delusional, I think that's just obvious.
Our moral code is no frame for reality.
Yep.
Okay, I'll do that.
Thanks.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
The internet's easy to become something you're not to play.
Well, fantasy, since the end of the Cold War, we've just been cart-blend.
How about repercussions?
How about we go nuclear and jump to this next story, Donald Trump is the antichrist.
Now that I've sufficiently, sufficiently made many of you angry, and I'll say that
I'm joking, there is something interesting because we've got this tweet from Drew Tang.
He says, remember when me and Donnie Darkened and Sovereign Braw went on Tim Kest in December
of 2023 and quoted this exact first to him saying it would happen to Trump.
And then the FBI had the episode taken off YouTube.
Oh, that's right.
The episode was taken off of YouTube.
And Leonardo Johnny, you know what you love her?
She posted this.
What do we think of this?
And it shows Trump with his ear bleeding.
I saw that one of the heads of the bees seemed wounded beyond recovery, but the fatal wound
was healed.
The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast, revelation.
Now what's really interesting about this is that when I saw this tweet, I recalled sitting
down with these individuals and they literally explained to me that Donald Trump would be injured
on the right side of his body in some capacity because that was if he was the antichrist, that
was a symbol of the antichrist.
And so when I saw this, 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
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.
CTNCs.
21 Plus.
Sponsored by ChambaCasino.
I was like, no, wait a minute because they did say it on the show.
So I asked GROC and it said the idea of the antichrist will be injured on the right side
comes primarily from interpretations of biblical prophecy, woe to the worthless shepherd
who leaves the flock, a sword shall be against his arm, and against his right eye, his arm
shall completely wither, and his right eye shall be totally blinded.
Well, in all seriousness, Trump is not completely blinded, but the bullet did hit his right
ear.
And what they said on the show was that Trump would be injured somewhere on the right side
of his face, not necessarily his eye.
And then ladies and gentlemen, Pamard drop time.
Nasty bruise on Trump's hand breaks through layers of makeup.
The president showed it off to Irish leader on St. Patrick's Day.
So this is story the left has been playing like crazy.
Trump's right arm, his right hand, has been consistently bruised for going on months now,
which again, I am not saying is the antichrist, but a lot of these people who believe-
Makeup is pretty antichrist behavior when he's trying to cover up that is right arm.
I don't know why he's wearing it.
He's bruised.
He's perhaps withering.
Damn.
I just think that was interesting.
I don't know.
If the antichrist is here, my personal take is that people can behave in a Christ-like
manor or an antichrist-like behavior, and if they're super famous and powerful, and
you start being sinful, then you're exhibiting antichrist-like behaviors, and you'll be like
one of those antichrist people.
Okay.
That's my personal take.
But that was just pretend that is a guy that is the antichrist.
That means the second coming is arriving.
He doesn't know enough.
Which is what?
The argument is about the war in Israel, and Netanyahu is saying the Messianic era will
come, but it won't be next Thursday.
And then you've got people pointing to Donald Trump.
You've got the efforts to bring-to breed the Red Heifer.
I am not saying it's-it's-it's-it's pop prophecy, but I am suggesting that people want
it to be.
Roger.
Were you going to say something?
Oh.
Trump doesn't know enough esoteric religious lore to be the antichrist.
He really-
Also, Dan first say that he was gravely wounded, in the case he literally wasn't gravely
wounded.
He had his ear next.
You shot in the head.
You wasn't-he literally wasn't gravely wounded.
That was the miracle, is that despite having someone shooting at his head-
People have-
Eventually.
People have produced the book of revelations 50 times, and his get-to have happened.
That is a 0% track record.
Sure, but once it does, then they'll be right.
Then we're all down a bit.
So the antichrist is always-
So if someone were to be the antichrist, they'd have a wide variety of esoteric lore in
order to found the anti-religion against Christ.
And so you could assess their actions and their behaviors based off their knowledge of
religious lore.
Could it be-
He's hiding his power like-
Okay.
He does have the religious lore, but he can't show people yet, because he can't let them
know.
Could his knowledge of religious lore be his knowledge of business?
No.
The dollar is now a people's worship.
They're not transferable.
Are you sure?
Because people see the worship money.
I'm pretty sure.
I mean, money's God on earth, is it not?
No, that's not how the mystic lore goes.
Okay.
So it's going to be like a priest.
They say it's going to be a priest.
If he is making weird esoteric remarks, and he drops these things inside his content,
that demonstrates that he knows more than he says, then you'll know.
What would be an example of a weird esoteric remark?
So-
I'm going to figure out-
He's trying to figure out if you're the antichrist by the way.
No, don't tell him.
I'm not.
So that's what the antichrist would say.
When people, different mystics have different code words they use to demonstrate the religious
tradition they're operating in.
As you can look at the code words they're operating under to figure out what their level
was.
So her medics do that, no sticks do it, platenists do it.
So his philosophy, not one, and not a no stick, not a playlist, but what is he, a secular
businessman?
Yeah, he is.
That's his philosophy.
So he's speaking code?
No, he's not.
Are you sure?
I'm pretty sure.
I'm pretty sure.
I mean, if he doesn't know, if we don't know the code, and no one knows the code, I need
to explain the code.
Phil, is something happening that we don't know about?
I mean, I-
Anything to know.
I don't know, dude.
I think-
I can't do a joke about it.
If there was an antichrist on earth right now, who the fuck else would it be the Donald
Trump?
It would have to be that guy.
It would be the two.
Well, Peter Tiel thinks it would be the Dumburg.
It would be the weirder Justin Bieber.
Or like Elon Musk.
It's just a real-
It's Gratunberg, a no enough esoteric religious morgue, and it would be the antichrist.
Just to thought.
I think it was in Ross's interview with Peter Tiel.
He was like, oh, yeah, it's Gratun, it's Gratunberg.
She's the antichrist.
I can't remember his reason.
Peter Tiel is having a meeting, I guess, at the- or this week at the Vatican or something
like that.
Let me see what-
Okay.
Hold on.
I don't think you're the antichrist, by the way.
I already saw my philosophy.
I think all of us can exhibit the behavior and become it.
So don't say stuff like, I hate my enemies, worship pain on your enemies, because that's
wrath.
That is a sin.
He is a player.
What if Karl Marx was?
What if Karl Marx was the antichrist because he established a religion based upon material
things, and he was also a Jew, and then it was an antichrist founded upon envy rather
than love?
Who would be- then what would happen in the story leading to Christ return?
So some people think that the book- so I'm not a book of revelations guy, that's not my
thing.
But some people think that book of revelations takes- takes course over centuries, and you're
compressing a complex historic event like the fall of Rome into a singular chapter.
So post-talk, update their theory to match like whatever's happened in this timeline
for their preference.
So the response, the antidote to communism would be the return of Christ in the story of
Christ, but it turns into sol-
We believe the communism in Karl Marx's issue.
The 70s, maybe we are in heaven now?
No.
This is hell.
This is just one way of looking at reality.
Yeah.
It wouldn't be absolutely wild if like in two years like literally Jesus just came back.
It would be pretty wild.
Jesus is my homie.
It's really cool.
It would be wild with us right now.
Jesus is as good as within the Christian community.
He's a question though.
When he comes back, does he like descend from the heavens, or is he already here, and
then like reveals himself inside you?
What I would, yes.
Quaker says inside you.
What I would guess is that he would embody- he would embody the spirit within his action
and evil wouldn't notice.
That's what I'm talking about.
It's a verse of dude.
So nobody would know who's here, or-
Why would he not notice?
Jesus knows that he was there, but the return.
You know, it's gonna be really funny when like it happens and the rapture happens, but
then all the orthodox people are still here and they think they're right, but they're
not.
Yeah, all those eobros.
All of the eobros down bad.
This gives a run.
This gives a run.
This gives a run.
It's crazy.
It's crazy.
It's crazy leading up to Christ, and the Jewish community, they would constantly talk
about the rise of their Messiah, and the Messiah was about to come, and the Messiah would
defeat the Romans, and then they didn't figure out it was Christ.
I wrote.
Well, did he defeat- I mean, I guess so I wrote it all down.
So when he comes back, who are the Romans?
Like he's gonna go to Italy and like defeat the Roman Catholic.
This is why I said I wasn't a book of Revelation's guy, because I don't think I can actually
figure this out.
So when Christ returns, he defeats the Romans?
So there was a Christ emerged from a Jewish messianic tradition that stemmed back for centuries
leading up to him.
In this tradition, they thought their Messiah would arise and then defeat the Roman Empire
because Israel was a Roman colony.
That's why they don't like Jesus, the Christian Jesus, because he wasn't political.
Yeah, that's exactly right, actually.
Oh, look at that, Eo Bros.
Jesus wasn't political.
Interesting.
No, Jesus wasn't political.
He believed in God.
And so Jesus emerged, and he said, we should love each other.
We should accept the Roman colonization because the kingdom of heaven lies within, and they
killed him for that.
They were looking for the Messiah, but then he didn't have the message they wanted that
they launch a war against the Romans.
You know, the White House is Roman.
It's Roman architecture.
They even have it as white pillars un-painted as it, because the Roman architecture, all
the paint washed off.
These idiot Americans came and they rebuilt it without paint.
So what is this return of Christ going to come over, throw the vestiges of the Roman Empire
that's the guys of the American oligarchy, and like reset the system to a republic again?
Everyone used Roman architecture at the point.
But they forgot to paint the stuff.
The Roman statues weren't white back in the day.
That's what they get wrong.
Yeah, they were all crazy rainbows.
Yeah.
They were woke.
The Jews will be freed from the tyranny of the American Empire, the British Empire,
and then the ones that have strayed and have forgotten what God is will return to God.
They need to rebuild the temple and then the prophecy can be fulfilled.
No, and the Red Heffers.
Oh, yeah.
They got to get the cow, genetic engineering.
They're trying too.
Like which is crazy.
They're trying to manufacture the end of times.
I think this whole Jesus...
I like this reality.
I don't want this reality to end.
Yeah, it's good.
But one of my simulation theories is that we're just an AI-generated television entertainment
show for the progenitors, so they made this...
Think about it this way.
Instead of making a show, like we view a show, you create...
You get an AI to auto-generate the stories, and it's like a real-time, aggressive thing.
You can just turn on and watch, and then be like, I love the Trump show.
We just watched President Trump be crazy, you know?
This AI is an absolute sexual freak.
But it's not AI.
It's just for sure, bro.
A couple of men.
A couple of men, what a watch.
A couple of men, what a...
What if reality is a true fan's, makes money.
What if reality is a dream by the gods in order to simulate different realities, to figure
out what does and doesn't works that they can repurpose this into the tree of life?
Yeah.
And it's not AI.
It's I.
That's why we think about this.
So we call ourselves I.
It's intelligence, intelligence.
This is ancient way.
We gotta jump to this next story, so we can explain to you.
My friends, you need to understand just how powerful AI has become.
While I wouldn't describe this as family friendly, maybe you don't want your kids watching
it.
But it's very funny, take a look at this AI-generated trailer for a movie that you wish existed.
Three years after a string of brutal unsolved local co-eds with impossibly fat milkers, the
women of Delta Delta D will mend against the Space Station as part of NASA's project
box.
Scary, the titty killer just disappeared.
We're going to be 250 miles up.
The only person watching us get changed is going to be a 60-year-old man, it keeps an
idol.
You know, I heard in space your boots actually get bigger.
Why exactly are they sending a shuttle full of sorority girls to space?
Son, the only thing bigger than the NASA budget after this is going to be the strain on
those girls sweaters.
This is like the plot of a movie written by a 12-year-old boy.
This is the first time I felt safe since the titty killer.
I don't think it's him.
Do you?
Who else would go all the way to space?
To the physics class.
Boys down here, tell me you're flat as a board.
If that's right, you're basically invisible to him.
You might be our only hope.
This is crazy.
Do you guys remember when we reviewed a capital of conformity?
Yeah.
Amazing.
Let me contrast this for you guys, capital of conformity, because this was a couple years
ago.
I was giving it a pull it up.
And real quick, I only play like two seconds for you.
You.
Oh, man.
Yes, you look so good.
Do you dread waking up in the morning?
Are you feeling helpless in your society?
Perhaps even a bit lost?
Well, look no further.
At the capital we offer an escape.
A new beginning, a lifetime of unending joy.
We have an abundance of attraction so captivating.
You'll wonder how you ever lived without them.
I recommend if you guys have not seen capital of conformity from As I alter,
you must watch it.
And I will tell you what's really sad about this.
This short film, it's two minutes and 42 seconds and it's brilliantly done.
But the limitations of AI video made this movie feel like a nightmare.
Yeah.
The faces are all melting together.
People are walking in weird ways.
It feels like you're in a nightmare and it works perfectly.
But as AI gets better, it loses that.
So now we just have the titty killer, which is really, really good.
And it's crazy that we've gotten to this point in AI generation.
Apparently, Sea Dance 3, China's new AI video model.
It's not released yet, but these are the leaks.
In 30 seconds, it can render a 17 minute short film.
Just think about how psychotic that is.
When this comes out, you're going to type in short film about titty killer 5.
And it will make a full movie for you.
And then, depending on your proclivities,
it might be worse than just titty killer.
Well, I just got to say, we've seen it three times.
So I feel like I know what some people's search history will be in this robot.
Titty killer.
I don't want to die.
I want them to play games with each other.
I want a titty candy land in outer space.
You know, I didn't expect that to open up learning more about you.
But we didn't play it.
It was incorrect.
We played it two and a half times because I didn't see the beginning of the first time when he says this.
Three years after a string of brutal unsolved murder,
local co-eds with impossibly fat melkers.
The whittaker times that.
Impossible.
I mean, fat melkers.
Dude, the movies that people are going to make are going to melt your eyeballs.
This is already good.
They're going to do retro where they're like,
give me a version of it, but AI 2025 March 17th version.
It's just like we make eight video games still.
Yeah, it is worth noting.
It is worth pointing out that it was a very, very short amount of time where you could get that,
I guess, surreal quality in AI videos where it was where it was like almost.
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.
CTNCs.
21 Plus.
Sponsored by ChambaCasino.
It's like uncanny valley.
It was just creepy.
Everyone's familiar with the Will Smith eating spaghetti and how that was almost a nightmare in and of itself.
It was just so creepy looking.
Obviously, that's gone nowadays.
And I'm not even sure if you could get an AI to produce that quality anymore.
I actually, to be honest with you, I imagine eventually it will be able to do that.
You know, they'll be able to say, look, make it as if this.
But you can't get, you can't just prompt it to do something that's that.
I don't know if I want to say the texture is a certain way.
I don't know if that's the right way to articulate it.
Because the capital of conformity was super creepy.
Yeah, I recommend it.
It was the imperfection that was so creepy.
I asked Rosanne if now's the time to stop making movies and to start just focus on AI because the effort.
And she and Jake, her son were like, no, now's the time.
No way.
Look at this.
I mean, look, if you want to make a movie, you just do this.
That's crazy.
I mean, look at this.
The fact that it's funny while you're on set.
Literally while you're not shooting, you could be making another movie.
I'm wondering what made this?
Yeah, we should shout these guys out.
What were you saying, Carter?
Oh, I was saying maybe Rosanne meant that now's the time to make it because there won't be any more time after this gets so good.
Could be.
So like, maybe you should, if you're going to do it, do it now.
And show the world like, hey, human art's still good.
Yeah.
Even though this is great.
Oh, my God.
Wait, there's a part two.
There's actually a bunch of these.
Good.
Are there four of them?
Oh, there's actually one through four.
Let's walk together.
So this is taking on space.
I get it.
I was trying to, I'm trying to figure out who made this, but apparently there's a one through four as well that you can watch.
I hope one of them is underground in the sewer system of New York.
Is that hot for you?
You know, movie was great.
Shud.
I didn't see it that way.
I had a ballistic humanoid underground.
That's correct.
That's correct.
Shud.
Shud.
You know what we need to do?
We need a nuclear war.
What?
We need one.
Yeah, we need a nuclear war to wipe out all of our digital infrastructure so that we're forced to go back to an era of the 90s where we had blockbuster video.
No.
It took so long to do stuff.
Yeah.
All the best culture came from 90s to like 2010s.
Yeah.
All of it.
Yeah.
1994.
I mean, 1994 was the year, dude.
1994.
1994 was the peak.
The city's the shit.
1994 was the bomb.
1997 was the good.
No, no.
1994.
1994 is the greatest year of humanity.
Everybody agrees.
Thank you.
For the totes were kicking off.
I mean, it was a great year.
All of the albums you go from the 90s came out in 94.
All of the songs are not in January, so no, it was on the final day.
I knew that the 90s were theylens in 1994.
1994.
Simonis Dream was before that, I believe.
Yes, that night.
We had one local medal on Big Bend, the coolest horse in the world, 1994.
What happened.
No, not five.
The 90s were always seen cool in retrospect.
It's like that nostalgia.
No.
The thing that was boring as fuck.
Anything from 90s to 2015 just, like, was, I don't know like, wrote Gen Z.
Bro, Jen said, look, they dress better than we ever did, but they don't have any like, they don't have got their puns
Yeah, I know a lot of
A lot of trouble 94 bush 16 stone 94 the cranberries 94 cranberries
Tori Amos, I'm not you know, we're quick
So it was 94. Yeah, we have a hill. Yeah, I mean, that's fine soul coughing 94 all great 90 sort of junior 94 really go back to 91
Let's see what two is kicking it
Smashing pumpkins of course 94 you've got bad religion in 94 you've got
What is it there's a bunch of songs I'm not it's what we're watching with mr. Big to
Grand Zirvana, you know that corn transition
Stuntable pilots are second out all no focus salt so the 90s
Bro I
Am a avid kid of the 90s the off-springs. I'm gonna tell you they suck now, but we'll give them that one
Ian, why do you look at 90 so much? Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you
I'm an information guy like to learn and it took so long to learn anything before the internet it was
Awful you go to read you
Look at books if you can even find the book if you don't even know what you're looking for so it's like you go to card catalogs at the library
I'm like I got to be home by six o'clock
Music was incredibly like good in the 90s. I agree with that. It was extremely good
I listened to it two plus hours a day every day literally radio. I taped songs off the radio
I just laid in bed all I did was like read and listen to music. That was my ride bikes or video games, but
It just didn't have primus nowadays
Primus primus is phenomenal. Oh, you know that pink Floyd had a number one album in 94
And the wall no, no, that didn't come out. I was the division now. Yeah, division was pretty good
Tom Petty's greatest hits was great. Toto's greatest hits past the present
The Lion King was the number one album for like three months. I mean you two
Automate it for the people REM groundbreaking, but so okay. I grew up that but that doesn't make up for season of stars for the next generation
Good, but you had to wait till like Thursday at APM
TV was golden like
It was so much better. We had to wait and we didn't know when you were like you'd you'd pick up the phone and you'd call your friend's house
And you'd be like is Billy home and she'd be like, I don't know where he is
But guess I'm not gonna see him
Just sit around all night. No, I don't want to try and find you go to see if they were there
No, you go to the and then they were and you are like everybody would hang out in the same place
It's gonna how you found each other look for all the bikes look for all the bikes
Then you get beat up if they were the wrong kids. I mean, oh well. Yeah, did you get beat up? Oh when you're a kid a lot
But enough to learn that humans are vicious animals
Condolences. I'm sorry. Hey, it happened. It was because I was too smart
I would always raise my hand in class
Yep, I just can't start picking on me. Just he's so smart in the show sometimes
We also want to realize that they were getting annoyed right here. It's been look just
Wincing and just grow a little call on me. I raised my hand obvious easy answer
They're just repeating repeat what we already told you I'd answer okay next question. They asked no one I'd raise my hand again
And they just look over me at the room like anyone anyone okay Ian I'd answer again third time they do it again
No, no answer I do it again eventually the kids turned on me like they thought I was trying to be too good or something
You should have told them that you were just better than there. I didn't know that at the time though
All right, we're gonna go to your rumble rants and super chants to smash the like button share the show with everyone
You've ever met in your life
Clean your neighbor and their dog you can follow me on Instagram a Tim Kess of course that uncensored show be coming up at rumble.com slash Tim Kess
I RL but let's see what you guys have to say
Pinochet says rule of law. Hello. Well, there is no incentive to follow laws anymore not to mention the laws and systems politicians skirt and ignore
There will never be justice in this country again
But he's Pinochet not never again
Well, his name is actually Pinochet's helicopter tours of course he'd say that he's Pinochet
Justice will come again, but only with moral
homogeneity and
I think every society goes through this where you have a moral homogeneity and then it ebbs and flows and then there's a clash
This is what weren't you saying ruggered that like life is is is built upon opposition? It is yeah
The duality of there must be opposition to our world view for it to be challenged and evolved. Yeah, that's true
Otherwise, we just sit around like dodo birds. You know, I just be all fat. What's the best way to to bring about homogenous?
So that's what the last you know
Economic order wants they want global
homogeneity
Homogeneity
If you want if you want homogeneity
You can either have everyone mate together or you can segment into smaller populations
Well, they're trying that first one. Yeah, and um, I don't want a purely homogenous country because you look at
You look at scans in avia
Iceland the so they're all cousins. Yeah, that's true, but also their hyperconformist societies
And then the place is big as an America. We're not all gonna be homogenous the question is what groups are fighting each other
Yeah, but they're happy to be conformist
I don't think they are they they have a super high suicide rate
Well, that's because of the weather though. No, so liberals and love the gaze. So you guys might not like that society that role the word
That's right. I got the issue with the gaze. Just you know, do you think somewhere else? You know, just like let me black out
The country might be willing to trans the kids no the only issue. I have with the trans is the kids, you know
No kids look they're a very liberal
Progressive
You know what I mean which like it's not liberal to cut off a kid's, you know who who no, I would say that's progressive
Yeah, yeah, so they were liberal and I'm like well, you know
Well, I value liberalism more than progressiveism. I have sensitivities to certain progressive values
But I don't even understand how like the trans stuff is progressivism. Is it like
Progressivism is like it's like a really loose label for essentially like pushing
Dominantly for areas where the like
High just the like high levels of minorities have been like disproportionately
Diseffective basic. I don't know. I like the progressives the early 90 hundreds were you genit you genesis
To the right word mm-hmm
They were they were into do you genics? I don't know how to agree that the progressives were
I would say that was our main that was not the progressives. No, not the progressives. That was the mainstream
That was the mainstream. No, those are the progressives eugenics was mainstream more than it was progressive
There's eugenics was not a mainstream opinion. It was an opinion pushed by small elites
But the term progressive it's had a wildly different meaning from a century
I go then today it used to be Woodrow Wilson was the was a progressive where this is a fact by the way
Yeah, Thomas soul talks about it Woodrow Wilson was super racist
He was also pro centralized state and pro eugenics and what happened is the Marxists took over
Over time and with FDR. You saw a shifting of the term progressive and the term liberal got co-opted by leftists under FDR as well
Sure, it's just it's just like such a such a boring uninteresting talking point
It's like we're we're people of the past into bad things sometime
I think that's why we're boring because it's inaccurate. Oh good one really got him with that one right
Yeah, I did changing of definitions is also the boy. Yes, I did right so like when we well if you want to engage with the actual ideas here
Right like okay. Yeah eugenics was popular
So it was like phenology right and then these fell out of favor although the certain level of soft eugenics has
Almost been held universally even to this date right we just don't want to call you genetics right like most people are okay
For example with like making sure that we try to reduce over time rare diseases that cause immense suffering
Right like people are broadly okay with these ideas and so
Obviously, I'm not a supporter of eugenics, but I think like saying like it was just a left idea
It's like okay, but I could just say conservatives just always really love slavery and just love slavery
It's just like it's a it's an unsophisticated uninteresting way in way to engage with the ideas because it requires
typifying an entire like half of political thought that has a massive amount of history that's unsatisfying
It would be the same as if I did that to the conservative side, which I typically aim not to do
You you would say a different thing in a different context in a different context
We're talking about so in a different context where you're talking about what traits do you want to further inside the population?
Because you accept these principles and I'm not a big eugenics guy. I don't support it
um, I believe in in the a mating free market um, but
So you're willing to accept the principles that are bad like horrible illnesses
But what principles are positive? What are the positive genetic traits you'd select for?
Uh, there there aren't positive genetic traits
There are traits that make people more successful. There are traits that make you more intelligent
Yeah, but I don't want any level of state level pressure to be selecting for that. I think that would be bad
You're willing to talk about it at the extreme, but you don't have a logically consistent code for what you're using as a
Here have you ever heard of the word pluralism
But what does pluralism mean?
pluralism means that you have irreducible moral values that often end up competing against one another
This is what most democracies are built on for example
You've got like Hobbes and Locke that are talking about privacy versus freedom
Right privacy matters and freedom matters and the actual answer is in different circumstances
You might have to prioritize security such as at the border
Whereas we might prioritize freedom such as people can't just come into your house without a warrant and take things or arrest you
Right, so we like have these trade-offs all the time
This is what pluralism is. It's a very accepted standard thing
What's the line between that and just making things up based off context for what sounds good?
Well, typically you would utilize philosophy to build a
rational reason as to why certain values might matter more here
This is what like we mean do you think Hobbes and Locke just didn't really engage in philosophy
They're just some silly Billy guys who just like had preferences Hobbes and Locke could be radically right winged by the current
That's not what I asked you again
Do you think Hobbes and Locke were silly little guys that just couldn't cross your line?
I'm asking your moral philosophy
I asked you about Hobbes and Locke
Can you not answer it? Were they silly little guys?
It's a comparison. I'm making the analogy of your logic Hobbes was operating under a radical modern
Monarchist perspective and Locke was operating under a liberal perspective
They both ground themselves in the Greco-Roman and the Western and the Abrahamic tradition
That's not the modern left the modern left is not operating on a similar level of rationality as those things
Of course, yeah, most of the modern left is broadly built over like Rawls and Utilitarianism
They just make sure that's not true and here's the issue right modern
I can engage with conservatives and actually take their concepts seriously
I think some of the things that you said have been insightful and interesting and should be engaged with and I've disagreed with some things
The problem is that what you're doing instead is I think you I even heard you before saying
I don't even talk to anybody on the left anymore
Plugging your ears and not engaging with opposition that actually has substantive ideas
Especially if such a large population of the amount find some of these ideas valuable is just engage
It's it's just intellectual naivety and baby behavior
It's because we get it more chat
I can engage with you in the way that you should engage with me and what I'm actually saying
Answer my question is Hobbs and Locke's silly because they were engaging a pluralistic question of what is the tension between these two irreducible values that they are?
So the reason I reached that conclusion is because I've spent hundreds of hours or thousands of hours talking to leftists
And I've read thousands of pages in the history of the left
But you don't know me and I came to the conclusion
I've seen your argument so far and I came to the conclusion
Stop that half of my argument
And I came to the conclusion that the left is not rationally consistent and they're not morally consistent
And so a great you're not going to the right is anti-war but they love Trump
They're Christian values, but they have to stop them
Because the right sure I can do this to the right too
That's my point is that it's a straw man
Sure, I believe you I believe you that you have talked to a bunch of really
A composition a coalition of disaffected liberals, libertarians and conservatives because the left is not
Progressive liberals the the left is a pro because the left is not consistent
Moderates who are rational
Is the right because the right has to have a big tent
No, you're talking about specific conservatives
I am saying there is a we refer to the right you're talking about a coalition in modern times
Yep, which includes disaffected liberals, moderates and libertarians
They left the left because the left was morally and logically inconsistent
I'll give you a look up for tons of reasons actually
Probably the number one reason why they left the left wasn't just logic and consistency
It was a poor left behavior and censorship
Right the way
It was a lot of weird beliefs like in like what is a woman
Uh, it's a it's a performance. I've already answered this
This is exactly the point. No, this is the word game
We know what a chair what's a chair?
A chair is an object with four legs used for a human being to sit on it
Is a stool with three legs not a chair?
It is a chair indeed. Oh, okay, but it didn't match your definition
Well, because a stool is a subset of a of an object which you can tell
So you're doing a performance that no one believes is written
I'm the only one just willing to engage in the actual philosophy of the question here
Right rather than just doing this something like silly concern
No, no, no, no, I'm willing. I just don't want to interrupt
I'm gonna make his use words to convey ideas
Sometimes we have a mismatch in the definition of words between cultures
Everybody understands what is meant when someone says what is what is what
That's why I say to performance if you said to me what do you mean when you say a performance?
By and large when we say a woman we mostly mean a person that has tits
That looks like a woman that typically dresses like a woman and acts like a woman, right?
According to our society. Yes, it is. No, absolutely. No, yes, because you just made up like that
You didn't check my dentist. Yeah, you looked at my breasts
You look at the way that I'm femme presenting that I have long hair and that I talk them in place
And I've talked about tampons or whatever else I've talked about
Okay, I appreciate it. I appreciate it
But come on
Night this is the issue with no one uses the word to mean performance
And you know it and you are lying to say otherwise. I'm not because you are I'm not because the gender movement
Just absolutely said actually let's separate woman from female a female is a biological only people
Would make the argument that the word woman means performance are progressive
2020 individuals who pretend like to start on other
Yes, it absolutely is
Language and definitions have absolutely shifted in utilization and what we mean them to use all the time
depression
The moderates leave
Well, it does it does something that's really interesting
Which is that it creates basically a very simple thing it causes a major question
It makes them look silly if they don't have an immediately satisfying answer
But what it also is doing is it's employing a categorical error and
And utilizing that to say see how simple this is and I would agree
Yeah, 99% of the time this is true, but the issue is that again
We have these fringe instances where it doesn't fall into it
Which is why we utilize
The mainstream left argue that you're plus two equal five to close to equals five
I would I would say I disagree
The mainstream left did and they also could not define woman despite the fact that everyone on the planet can
And they're and then moderates were like these people are nuts the core assumption of the left is sort of the core assumption of the left is social
Constructionism that you can you can use social categories to create reality and that the people in power through
Using social categories can fundamentally alter reality my core assumptions of reality
If you want to look at Aristotle or Plato
Aristotle so that material things exist and that material things are reflections of higher things
But you should assess the material things first Plato thought that the world we live in
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 chamba casino.com. Let's chamba
No purchase necessary vtw group void work prohibited by law ct and c's 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino
And it's a reflection of higher divine forms
Western civilization has used these two different theories
Based on context to assess for different layers of reality
And so the west has alternate between these two core theories and these were the acceptable ones for how to construct your reality
We got we got a grab we got a grab what's money we got a grab what's money
Money is is typically a universal trade medium that represents debt for change between individuals for something of value
Can we shift and change what money actually means and have we what do you mean well in the past for example
We utilize like loan sticks and then we shift it to gold for example
And money is always just been the
Exchange sorry and money has always been the intermediary for value exchange
Sure, but the the way that we've observed and viewed money the way that we've engaged with money modern monetary theory
The technology is this does not change the fact that a woman is an adult woman
Well, the issue is that when technology exists
We discovered that a lot of fundamental axioms that we held about the world are more complex and fractal than we
I'm just gonna I'm just gonna say this again
You do recognize that like 95% of people on the planet disagree with what you're saying
Absolutely, but the issue is hold on at a quantum level for example
99% of the population would disagree if I say if I'm not looking at the moon of nobody observes it does it exist
Everyone would say yeah, of course it exists
But at a quantum well at a quantum level
No, it doesn't that's not true. Yes, it is true
Maybe one year this is this is like the major quantum conversation that happened between Einstein and what's the
Miss understand the double slit experiment can we read more super just this is not about the double slit experiment at all
I don't know why you're doing it. I don't think it is about particle wave duality. Yes. Okay, and
We'll change the division of the term coming this cat. No, let's let me get it. All right. Let's see we got here
Timothy Robinson says always good to see you Rudyard
Rudyard hiss 102's age of the last man was insightful
Could I impose on you for a book suggestion of Cold War history?
The best Cold War history is John Lewis Gattis's one
He's I'm trying to think of any other ones Dan Carlin's got a great podcast too
You know that Cody
Cody a Ellen says what's your favorite death cab song Tim?
Shemen's question. I like the earlier albums
President of what is one of my favorites? I used to play it all the time on the guitar TV trace is pretty good and
Then I would just say like the thing about all their albums is every single song was good title registration has always been a big favorite of mine
I could play that one and then of course transatlanticism
tiny vessels
so good and
We looked like giants. We looked like giants may actually be one of my be my favorite. It's a tough call. What about
but read it. You know
I like transatlanticism
Or the new year actually the new year because when I was in like when that song came out
All of the hipster indie kids like we'd have a party on new years and everybody would play the new year
As soon as the new year hit because we were so cool, but then I'll also get me to have the postal service because that was good to who I will follow
You know the dark is that death cab. Yes, I love that song
See, but that's that's what they got
You gotta be a hipster man some day you will die. That song's so good. Yeah, I'll be right behind
But but to be fair like so meet spot is okay crooked teeth. I really do like body is all I really just love like president of what
I just I've been gibbered is a master lyricist. He knows how to do it
I haven't listened to that death given a long time though. They knew song come out there. Oh, well good for them
All right, let's go minor zircon says this chick is a communist
I thought we figured that out yesterday when she wanted the government to steal people's property
That never happened again, you can you can strum any for as long as you want the issue is that I believe
I in large part come to Tim show because I want to engage
Genuinely with people of opposing ideas if you can't do the same to me
That's fine, but that's a reflection of you. No, actually. We all agree with you. But before you got here
We all talk to each other so let's just pretend like we don't
That's
I'm not gonna lie. We got a problem
Only when liberals show we change the format of the show. Would you think it's right?
Huh, would you have voted for comma?
Uh, yeah, probably
Not even probably absolutely unequivically unquestionable was they didn't have a primary and it was like imperial selection
That's like
I gotta read this
Mark as a person says drug test your guests Tim. Okay. Meetho says Kami mommy
Just to let you know corporations are considered individuals under American law
If you let another country screw over our business interests you are letting them screw over the majority
So that's a good thing actually
The law did it. So that's a good thing. I thought it was funny that he called you Kami mommy
Yeah, all of them are going to call me coming. I'm not a communist in fact
I spend a large portion of my content
Push it
I live in rural Virginia if a pregnant cow a hover crosses onto my land neither the cow or calf become mine
And I could be killed if I try to say they are and birthright citizenship
I want to take the cow
Meetho says Jesus is the third temple his return is the fulfillment of the prophecies
He said before his death tear this temple down and I will rebuild it in three days. He came back to life in three days
Interesting
All right, let's say let's see we got going over here and this YouTube
We got a bunch of big big superchats here on this big ones big
Some say too big, but it's okay the biggest the best mad gap vlogs as I got a question for Rudyard
Have you looked into astrology and the 84-year Uranus cycle the last Neptune was in areas
The last Neptune was in areas was the Civil War the last time Pluto was an Aquarius was the American Revolution
Is it real so I have not studied astrology? I have not put significant effort into it
I heard there were studies by the CIA studying it that thought that
That I heard the CIA did research that there are correlation in political events in astrology
But I haven't looked deeply into that we're talking newton and how he was into alchemy
So Newton was into alchemy and and these things were all part of the same coherent pre-modern worldview
But I have not sunk a lot of time into astrology
I personally I feel like the planets if it is a magnetic universe which evidence is pointing at that they're like
They're like lenses radiation lenses so that the radiation passes through planetary bodies
And it can super accelerate and leave imprints on your body when it's
When it comes out of the mom's EMF frequency body
You're exposed to the radiation and it imprints something on you might have something to do where their stars and planets are
People generally believe that the planets
Informed developed informed stuff over history what I would best guess is it's a correlation thing
That the planets operate under certain underlying correlations were not aware of and these correlations operate across the universe
Because lots like you know um the suicide rate is correlated with the yo-yo purchasing rate and
No one thinks that
Buying yo-yo's causes suicide. I do know
Have you ever seen the website spurious correlations? Yeah, I have it's great, right?
Spurious correlations. I love it sites been around forever. It's so good
Here we go
Google searches. Let's see
The the number of movies Dwayne Johnson appeared in correlates with Google searches for zombies
popularity of the first name Caroline
Inversely correlates with new months stock price
Google searches for zombies correlates with the number of real estate agents in North Dakota
Interesting the distance between Neptune and Mercury correlates with petroleum petroleum consumption in Azerbaijan
Proves that something and it's it's from 92 to 2017 to right right right all these different timelines interesting
I wonder where they can't hold to a consistent timeline for their claims
The popularity of the press after pay respects meme because correlates with Boeing stock price
Naturally, I wonder what happened before 2006
Probably the same thing or before 2011 or before 2004 1999 interesting
Obviously, you think you what you think you just take a little snapshot of them. Yeah, I love this
The number of breweries in the US correlates with Amazon stock price. That is not a spurious correlation
That is not at all a spurious correlation because because they bought whole foods and they put breweries in the whole
Amazon stocks themselves are sentient and they buy beer
No, because Amazon's growth correlates directly with the shuttering of box stores and local businesses
Which creates open
vacant buildings by which people try to fill them with a service that Amazon does not provide
So your local butcher gets shut down your local packaging store gets shut down whatever Amazon.com can replace
There are now empty buildings in your city center and what can't Amazon make a brewery to hang out play games and drink
So this actually makes sense interesting. They do they do have cell beer like in the Whole Foods in Venice, California on rose and seventh
We would go hang out at the at the bar in the Whole Foods
Let's let's create this one from the Apostle James says I'm a combat veteran 22 years in the USMC Infantry
Six combat deployments. I can tell that Kyla has never experienced real adversity let alone seconds to assess potential life and death danger
Okay, just to front low. That's true. No, I was
Serially sexually abused from zero to three. I'm sorry. It's fine. It's nobody's fault
One of the worst things that I think that we do on all of these types of political conversations is we engage in thought termination
Right, we use cliches that will make our audience is happy like being like
What is your woman? It's like okay, I can just scream Trump's a pedophile and my audience is we be happy too
I think one of the worst things what we also do is we assume a lot about each other, right?
You've assumed for example that there's no substance that you can engage with me on which is unfortunate because I haven't assumed that about you
Just like the fact that like I haven't been overly pressed
You've never been in a life-and-death situation, right? Yes, I have life had children chase me with axes
I worked for high-risk youth. I spent most of my career in jails working with like both young sex offenders and their victims
But they're getting changed by due to the accident
I'm not a combat veteran and I would never ever begin to take that away from the shot it or steal that valor
But people people pretending no, I haven't but a Canadian we don't have guns. What's crazy, right?
We have the next one thing I just told you the axes
Close actually very close and I've shot someone said after our hockey team beat the Canadians
They have to give each each person an America 40 acres and a moose
Yeah, but you get only only the Northern territory so nobody cares
And Roger is the fence he did ask you what your philosophy when you guys are going out of here
He asked you what your philosophy was but it kind of got ignored
Sure, the reason why I'm saying that he's not engaging with me is he just keeps insisting you're morally inconsistent
And it's like I'm a pluralist being pluralistic
Necessary like it doesn't mean that I'm not I can't be inconsistent
But you can just ask me how do you draw the through line of your foreign policy and I'll give it to you
But instead you assume things about my foreign policy. I think the point you don't understand is that like this
I'm gonna say this
So the reason I say this is that I've
Spent a very significant amount of time studying the philosophy of the left
And the left uses various rhetorical games and when I hear them
I just throw them out because the rhetorical you you've used many so when I hear the rhetorical games
I hear the mental filtering process. They're used for what is a woman isn't a rhetorical game
So I'm not done. So I'm not done
So, okay, I'll ask you after when you look at what the how the left operates
They have a series of mental games they use and they have a series of
Integrations and why don't we start off the uncensored show with this?
So just keep it okay, sure. We're gonna jump over to the uncensored portion. Also calm me based. I'm taking it
rumble.com
Come me mom rumble.com slash Tim Kastai around about 30 seconds and then we'll add swear words to the arguments
You can follow me on accident Instagram at Tim Kast. Roger. Do you want to shout anything out?
Uh, you can watch my shows. I'm just here man
Just blowing on the universe man. Oh, so I should start now? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I was going to watch over so Kaila what's up?
Yeah. Hey, not so aridate if you actually want to engage in substance
That's kind of the thing that I do. I don't care what you think. I care how you know
Yes, it's not about what is about how we are bridging the gap literally the future is reliant on people continuing to communicate in high stress
Situations like this so keep it going
Ian's a dog. It's a subscriber. You can't trust anything. He said
All I want is to preserve righteousness throughout.
We got to find all those terms.
I'm at Ian Crosslin following their Carter Banks.
Man, this has been a really great discussion.
Thank you both for coming out.
And I'm really excited for the after show.
You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, Phil.
I am filler mains on Twix.
You can check out my Patreon.
That is patreon.com slash filler remains.
The band is all that remains.
We're going on tour this spring.
We're going to be out with Born of Osiris and dead eyes.
We start April 29th in Albany.
You can get tickets at all the remains online.com.
You can check out the band's music at Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify,
and Deezer.
Don't forget the left lane is for crime.
We will see you all over at rumble.com slash Tim Kest, IRL in about 30 seconds.
Thanks for hanging out.



