The Culture War #69 Joe Biden Managing The END Of The US w/Richard Spencer & Andrew Wilson
Host:
Tim Pool
Guests:
Andrew Wilson @paleochristcon (X)
Richard Spencer @RichardBSpencer (X)
Phil Labonte @PhilThatRemains (X)
Producers:
Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X)
Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
Connect with TENET Media:
https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow
https://www.facebook.com/watchTENET
https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/
https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet
https://www.youtube.com/@watchTENET
https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150
https://www.tenetmedia.com/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We're going to have a very interesting conversation today, because it's already getting interesting.
And I love when this happens as we're preparing for the show.
I have to warn the guests to please stop talking about all the interesting things they're saying, because we have a show to do.
But I guess there's a couple of ideas around whether Joe Biden is a good geriatric manager of the decline of the United States, or Trump actually would help resurge and restore it.
And I think this will be interesting.
I won't get too much into it, but we'll start with you, Andrew, if you want to introduce yourself.
Well, it was incredible, and I think there was also a sort of It was a webzine, woke liberal webzine bubble that was obsessed with the alt-right and was expanding it beyond all proportion.
But yeah, I would wake up and there would be five new articles on me.
It feeds the ego, it was incredible, but also kind of terrible in some ways.
I mean, you lose yourself and I'm glad about where I am now.
Well, yeah, I mean, look, in the alt-right days, I thought that Trump was going to shake things up, that all of these tired, boring, dusty conservatives were going to be shoved aside because they opposed him pretty vehemently at the beginning, and he was just going to crutch them all.
And there was going to be a new blood entered into the system, and that we were going to start talking about things we weren't talking about.
Yeah, I had those dreams, and those dreams kind of crashed down to reality.
And I recognized that where I was before that was where I was going to be later, which is being alternative, being independent, focusing on intellectual matters, etc.
So, shall we get started with the, I guess the first question, which I'm not sure I completely understood, is that you said Joe Biden may be a conservative, or you said he is a conservative?
So, if you just say that conservative describes everybody who is conserving any kind of status quo, even if it's a progressive status quo, that's bizarre.
So he is an old man who is promising a sort of return to normalcy.
That was his promise in 2020.
That is why he won, in fact, because Trump—it's his fault in some ways, it's not his fault in others—he is associated with chaos, with insanity, he's associated with conspiracy theories, with QAnon, with J6, etc., etc., and he promised normalcy.
Now, I think normalcy is impossible in our current nation.
I don't think he's going to bring us all together and we're going to all just resolve our differences and find that we all agree.
But in order to step towards that, he is someone who is going to discipline his base.
He disciplines his base in ways that I don't agree with, in fact.
I am highly critical of the bombardment and the death and destruction in Gaza right now.
So is his base.
I agree with Antifa on this one, as crazy as that might sound.
He's going to discipline them, and he's going to maintain a kind of more reasonable, a little bit critical here, we might withhold weapons here, policy on Israel and Gaza.
He's going to discipline his base.
In terms of wokeness and all that kind of stuff, I know it's been very profitable for people to talk about wokeness all the time, but my sense is that it peaked and is on the decline.
If we define wokeness as like all kids should be trans and trans and like, you know, replace the Fourth of July with Vladimir Lenin Day, or just kind of silliness, novelty in terms of sexual manifestations and all that kind of stuff.
I actually think that that is on the decline.
I think Hollywood is going to shock a lot of conservatives when they start going conservative with, you know, white little mermaids this time and traditional storytelling for the simple reason that they want to make money.
So, hold on.
Wokeness is declining.
He is maintaining the system.
In terms of Make America Great Again, all of that garbled talking points that Trump put forward, Biden has attempted to enact in an imperfect way.
The CHIP Act.
That was something that Trump actually talked about.
That's something that Biden went through with.
I'll finish up really quick.
Infrastructure.
He has, again, attempted to build back infrastructure.
You know, I could go on.
Draconian immigration policy.
He at least puts forward his part.
He was in support of a draconian immigration initiative.
He is a conservative in the sense that he looks back to the 60s, the 80s, whatever, as some kind of good time.
I actually agree with Richard that wokeness is declining.
I think we are winning this.
If you look at Target, there was a really, really funny meme in the Vosh, and I know you love the guy, subreddit, where his fans are actually scared because a lot of big corporations have pulled back the Pride merchandise in June.
And this kind of absurd idea that, oh, well Christian conservatives remembered that we could boycott, that we had the most powerful institution on planet Earth, the church.
That's the one powerful institution that conservatives have always had, and we barely ever use it.
One time, once, we were like, well, No, on the Dylan Mulvaney thing, and it kind of caught a little bit of steam.
But no, there's going to be massive backlash.
No, the trans agenda is not going away.
The thing that comes after it that's even worse than that, I don't know what that's going to be, but it's going to be worse, and it's coming.
Richard, your definition of conservatism is typically the liberal definition of conservatism.
I'm not saying only liberals, but This is why the corporate press, the liberal, I would say Tim Poole is a conservative, despite the fact that I'm not a Christian, and I hold many liberal views, and then you have the more right view of conservatism, which is Christian values, which is why conservatives, or people who are Christian, will say Tim Poole is definitely not a conservative, and the left will say Tim Poole is definitely not a conservative.
I have a relativistic, objective notion of a conservative.
If you are maintaining something that is going in some sort of direction, you are a conservative.
Now, let me get at liberalism a little bit, and I'll bring in the trans issue and so on, because I think we need a narrative to fully understand this.
So, progress towards what?
Right?
That's the issue.
I'm a progressive.
What does that mean, exactly?
I think it does mean something.
I think liberalism is, if you go back to the word itself, it is liber.
Liberalism is a The notion of Dionysian release and expression.
Liberalism is very well codified in Euripides the Bacchae, in which he describes a situation in which Dionysus comes into town, into Thebes, demands to be recognized as the son of God, which has some interesting resonances for you, I would imagine.
He Dionysus comes into town and he brings about a massive orgy that will ultimately lead to the beheading and death of of the Pentheus who's actually leading Thebes.
So liberalism, you might agree with me here.
Liberalism, it isn't like rational or about policy.
It's fundamentally about release.
Even democracy itself is a kind of orgy, you could say, in the sense that it is about all people participating, taking part, the majority winning.
When we're talking about these words, though, you and I can agree that when you're discussing a word, how it's used in the commons versus what its kind of academic or underpinning meanings are aren't really that relevant.
Well, I'm going to jump right in the middle, jump right in the middle and say, you know, when you're going into Dionysus and stuff, I'm like, come on, come on, what's the point?
But it actually is very interesting that Liber in ancient Rome, it is the root word of where liberal and these words come from.
It's always about releasing... It's about degeneracy.
You could say that, yes, and I agree.
And it is coming from the wine god as well.
Um, this is the thing.
Liberalism had a narrative, a meta-narrative for much of the 20th century.
While I was flying down here, I actually watched, I don't even know why, but I watched 42, which is a movie about Jackie Robinson, right?
And it was unbelievably sentimental, Over the top, too much, it was a terrible movie if kind of well shot.
That Jackie Robinson notion of a poor guy who tries hard, who's tough but moral, and he finally gets a chance to be part of white society and everyone rejects him and then they accept him and we're all good and the white guy can, you know, embrace the black guy in the ball field and we're all Americans now kind of thing.
That is a master narrative for liberalism.
That justifies them morally, because liberals are kind of moralistic.
They want to feel like they're on the right side of history.
And that has played out over and over, certainly with blacks.
There's a bit of a different narrative in terms of the Holocaust and the Jewish experience, etc.
Definitely played out with gays.
You know, they were oppressed, they were getting They're ass-kicked by the police, now they're here, now they're Americans, and now they're getting married, so they're bourgeois Americans, no less.
And it played out again with transgender.
What I am saying is, I think Phil was saying, like, what's after transgenderism, or whatever.
And so this meta narrative of Americanism and inclusion, etc. is reaching its limit.
No one can plausibly say that, like, oh, blacks are, like, really oppressed in this country when they benefit from affirmative action, when they benefit from, like, moralization in Hollywood, etc.
Biden's an expression of this because he's like a hundred, or he's 80 in fact, but he's like 20th century liberalism has reached its end point and you have this like doddering old man kind of like in a wheelchair trying to keep it going.
That's like the biggest word salad bunch of gibberish garbage.
Okay, so to keep it concise, right, without going off on Dionysus and all of this other garbage, what actually, just very concisely, makes Biden a conservative?
He is taking on a Cold War posture vis-a-vis Russia.
He wants to build microchips in the United States with the CHIP Act.
He's a bit incoherent, but he kind of gestures towards, we've got a problem at the border that we've got to solve, and we need to build back infrastructure, and we're all Americans, hot dogs and baseball and parades.
So Trump, one of the big things with him is he's a hand grenade.
His job was to be thrown in, shake things up, expose the swamp, do those types of things.
Nobody had expectations that Trump was going to be a great reformer.
That wasn't his job.
His job was revenge.
He was revenge of the American public.
That's exactly what we put him in there to do, and that's exactly what he was doing.
That's why he has such a great base, is because we wanted things shaken up as much as we possibly could.
Isn't that a bit nihilistic?
No, it's not nihilistic.
Progressive Michael Moore is the one who explained this.
Progressive Michael Moore is the one who explained this.
He said, "Donald Trump is a hand grenade." - Yeah, a human Molotov cocktail. - The working class is throwing him in because they're so pissed off and they're so jarred by this progressive garbage.
Not only Trump is true, he's a little bit towards LGBTQ, but it seems like it's posturing.
It seems like it's posturing towards it rather than anything really too substantive.
Whereas Biden, Biden's filling his administration with these people.
Under the Biden administration, we had gay sex going on in these Capitol buildings and they're just like, don't care.
It's kind of a joke, too, but let's not get caught up on that.
That, okay, I think it was about a year ago during our last Gay Pride, you know, month-long celebration, when he invited some transgendered women to the White House lawn, and they were, you know, partying around.
Right, right, right.
But this is my point.
This is an expression, encapsulation of my point.
So she took off her shirt and flaunted her breast, and that was just a little bit too far.
Because what Biden is trying to do, and I think it's kind of ultimately impossible, what he is trying to do is to integrate these forces into American institutions in order to manage them.
And if you go cross that line, if she had just partied around and whatever, that's okay.
You get naked, you're starting to offend the American public, and that's when you get disciplined.
If you're integrating all of these external degenerate factors in so that you can manage them better inside, that would be, definitionally, what I would think a progressive would do, not a conservative.
So even by your logic, you say this is a conservation of the status quo, then you give us an example of how he's breaking the status quo.
But I'm just saying if the idea that Biden is a conservative because he's He's kind of maintaining the status quo of what's going on, and then immediately we get an example of how, well, no, he's kind of moving the goal past the status quo, integrating the degenerates in, making it a little bit more controllable for them to then use this group to push an even more progressive path.
I do think, if we want to move to this topic, Republicans were not always like this.
Growing up in the 80s and 90s in Dallas, Texas, Republicans wore khaki pants, blue blazers, they were a lawyer, it's the party of the rich in many ways, the party of the decent rich as well.
What Trump represents is not that.
Michael Moore nailed it when he said it is a resentment ideology.
On one day of the year, a homeless person has the same amount of power as a billionaire.
And because they both have one vote, and they can just clock the system right in the face and just say, F you all.
That is what Trumpism thrives on, is that sort of resentment bordering on nihilism.
I don't think conservatives have any sort of... Why does the nihilism come in here?
Then you get about 60 or so years until you get this militaristic expansionism internationally with, you get the Federal Reserve and Central Banking, a dramatic change.
And so...
I think it's a good point.
I'm not saying, I actually still, my view would be that Trump is a stabilizing force for America in this decline in a way that restores our vision of what things need to be, how they were better before.
But I do think it's interesting, the point you're making, that Biden is an agent of the United States is a strung together hodgepodge that must be strung together at all costs.
Who voted for the Iraq war was it to know he was a total populist who wanted to shut the first thing He did was try to shut down Muslims from coming into the country.
I agree with that You want to shut down the border and build a massive he also said what are you talking about?
He also said a massive walls a stabilizing force he He also said he supported socialized medicine, national healthcare system, in a book called The America We Deserve, ten years before he ran.
He actually started his campaign at GEO Proud, a Republican gay event, or as we should say, a Republican event, at CPAC.
in 2014, he promised more or less that we would have paid family leave for our women in corporations, which I support, it would have been pro-natalist and other things.
He basically offered himself as, we have the system here, He said this directly.
I know how the system works.
I have manipulated the system myself.
I'm going to start making it work for you.
It's populist.
There's no question about it.
Populism often manifests as a sort of centrism that I think Trump offered in 2016.
The American middle class was built on national defense.
The American middle class that you guys love arose during the Cold War and the degree to which it benefited from that type of system can't be underestimated.
That's true, it happened at the same time, but it's because of the post-World War II soldiers coming back, they had the GI Bill, they had tons of money stashed away, they were getting married very, very young, quickly, they were starting families.
They hadn't seen a woman in three and a half years and were fighting Nazis, so they got home, they married their chicks, they had a ton of kids, and they went right to work.
It was a whole different day.
It wasn't because of the Cold War, but on top of that, kind of moving back to this, This idea that these center-left, that Trump was center-left due to the fact that inside of the Democrat Party, trade unions want to somehow bring work back to the United States, that's not how they operate.
They parasitically go company to company.
and they get a union, and then they just begin to rake over the coals any of the profiteering of that company.
What happened to Trump, and this actually happened in late 2016, like December 2016, is that he brought in Mnuchin.
Steve Bannon said this himself, he was like, you know, MAGA is going to marry with the conservative movement, and so on.
So they brought in these Republican parties, and he basically implemented Paul Ryan's agenda.
Paul Ryan's agenda is tax cuts, getting rid of Obamacare, the government shouldn't do anything, you should be able to drown it in a bathtub, etc., etc.
That is what Trump fundamentally did in the first two years of his term.
The century of Trump was not what got him elected.
It was not this idea of, I'm going to pander to the left and I'm going to pander to the right.
What he said was, I know the system and I know that there are a bunch of corrupt dirty bastards that are going to do what I say or we're going to put them in jail.
So I think getting hung up on definitions and the different views of like the word centrist, what is centrist, I don't want to get lost in that stuff.
What I will add is it is actually a big deal.
Nine million Obama voters switched from the Democratic Party to vote Republican because of Donald Trump.
And a large reason was Donald Trump saying, secure the borders, bring our jobs back, which for a long time was traditionally the Democrat position.
And you notoriously had the Koch brothers, which were more in favor of immigration for labor.
Yes.
Kind of flip the script on that, and we saw in 2016, Vox.com, the leftist Vox, called Trump a moderate, and also said that the Democrats had become the party of the wealthy.
But let's not get caught up on the perspective shift, right?
So let's go back to the battle, was it the battle in Seattle?
Or the battle of Seattle?
You guys are familiar with this?
1999 World Trade Organization protest where leftists took over city streets to stop free trade agreements internationally with the World Trade Organization.
And it was Barack Obama championing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it was Donald Trump who destroyed it.
Which is weird in a lot of ways for, and this is where I come from, right?
I'm in this anti-war, you know, anti-internet, like the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, giving foreign corporations legal authority, in some respects, over United States citizens was ridiculous.
These free trade agreements have driven our manufacturing base, and it's recovered a little bit, but out of the country, to China, to Mexico, to Indonesia, to Cambodia... Yeah, but that was all Clinton-era stuff.
And you ended up with leftists that were protesting all this stuff.
And then when Bush comes in, anti-war.
Obama adopts those same policies that were considered like neocon right-wing policies.
He adopts open border, well they call him Deporter-in-Chief, but the open borders trade stuff I'm specifically referring to with like with NAFTA and things like this.
Trump, as a Republican, brought in, he basically embraced populist ideas that were typically associated with Democrats in a lot of ways.
I don't think are necessarily left or right economically.
Supporting the working class and union workers, I don't see as leftist.
We should be populist and for the people, but the machine's view is, at the time, that definitions moved around.
So what I'm trying to say is, when we argue like, oh, Trump was left, Trump was centrist, Trump was right, I'm like, I don't know that that matters as much because how we view left, right, and center today is very different from where it was 10 or even 20 years ago.
In the purest argument of conservatism is to conserve the status quo, What I see with MAGA World versus the Neolib, which includes the pocket of weird leftists they're trying to manage, their attitude is, international hegemonic authority protects the petrodollar and maintains our machine.
Donald Trump's view is more so, this machine is falling apart, we need to shore up our defenses and make sure we can function after this happens.
The Biden worldview is, it's all falling apart, let's ride the wave.
I describe it as, the Titanic has hit the iceberg.
The Biden-Democrat side is, grab as much fine china and silverware as you can and get to the lifeboats before anyone realizes it happened.
And the Trump side is, let's try and steer towards shallow shores so we can all survive and then try and rebuild this thing.
So another way to kind of look at this is, even if we were to be very charitable with how you're kind of defining this, Richard, both of them would be managing the decline.
But I think Trump, due to his personality, due to the fact that he has responded to liberals in their attacks on him, most of which, or many of which, are completely unfair.
The whole Pussy Daniels thing in New York is just ridiculous.
He's responded to that with, fuck you.
I'm never backing down.
I am winning.
J6 was nothing or it was good.
It was whatever he says.
Like, that is a challenge to the system.
If someone is going to push the ship into rocky waters, to continue the metaphor, it actually is going to be Trump.
Oddly, due to kind of personal reasons and not ideology.
But he is threatening their institutions.
When liberals say, we want to maintain democracy or so on, what they're really saying is like, we want to just maintain this.
The way life works, we're going to manage it.
Trump is really challenging it.
I think we're actually headed towards a constitutional crisis.
But I don't think he's challenging it by trying to institute kind of a progressive agenda or progressivism.
I think he's trying to move an agenda to a sane agenda.
A sane agenda of, even if it's not complete isolationism, immigration's the big one.
This is the thing that people have been upset about for the last 15 years.
They're so pissed off they can't see straight about the fact that our country's wide open.
When they see what's going on at the southern border right now with Biden basically just Throwing it open.
Come on in, everybody.
Have a good time.
It's a big party over here.
We're gonna put you up in hotels.
We're gonna give you amnesty.
That is what I would expect from kind of the modern progressive status quo of, let's get more in, more in, more in to complete this progressive agenda.
I actually don't think that Trumpism is entirely about the border.
It's not entirely.
Hold on, hold on.
Let me just make a point.
I think it's actually about a bigger generational and demographic anxiety that conservatives feel, and they have no place to push that energy outside of the border.
Unquestionably, things have changed.
Not everywhere, not where I live, not where a lot of other people live, but you don't, as they say, Tucker Carlson would say or whatever, you don't recognize your hometown due to demographic change, And I would say also that it's not just illegal immigrant Mexicans.
Illegal immigrant people coming from Mexico, they'll come, they'll go, they'll set up shop here, they'll work in agriculture, they'll go home, they'll send their money home.
That's a kind of transitory thing.
We have legal immigration that has Fundamentally changed the demographics of the country and it's changed at the elite level before it even changed in your small town.
Every generation goes through this, and you can actually read about it going back to antiquity.
It's fascinating to read, like, carved in a stone tablet, what have we lost as the next generation is taking over and they shun our values and our traditions.
Everybody goes through this where they remember being a kid and the fun things, the good things, their parents gave to them.
I think what we're seeing now is social media as a major factor, as well as a massive, massive unfettered migration, Has ripped it away way too quickly.
And so I look at how things used to be pre-internet.
The people on the TV would tell you what was so, and people believed it.
And this was always pushing the country in a liberal direction, a progressive direction, and I mean by the modern definition of things.
Acceptance of various groups, now, you know, it was gay marriage, now it's LGBTQIA2S+, or whatever.
The internet emerges, and all of a sudden, real conservatives had a means to defend their culture, and create cultural pockets that actually formed a barrier.
People didn't have, not only did they not really have much access to the internet, but... The emergence of the internet, so I agree, Rush Limbaugh burst onto the scene to a massive audience, much larger than the internet.
It is still around the same time that we saw conservatives begin to defend their culture from a media machine that was intent on destroying it.
So we used to have a center of society that was the church, that was your local town involving agriculture, and so on.
course of the 19th century, you're moving into cities, you're working nine to five, you've left the land, you're going to church less, they have less authority, and so you need some sort of structuring of your mind and life.
He actually called this propaganda in a different sense than Yeah, without the negative connotations of like a pro-war bonds poster or whatever.
He called it propaganda.
What it was is you vote this one day in November.
You might go to church on Sunday.
You watch the nightly news at 5 p.m.
They tell you what's important, all the news that's fit to print.
You subscribe to your local paper, maybe the Wall Street Journal, maybe the New York Times.
That was my life in the 90s as well.
Now, you could say that they were like slowly destroying culture promoting liberalism and I won't really disagree with you, but they also structured people's lives and You know, I mean it's interesting that I'm on the Tim Pool show because I think you're in a way part of this I think you're part of something in a way that you have mixed feelings about and that that that's interesting What is that?
Now, someone who's watching your show is speaking a different language and is totally disconnected and isolated from someone watching MSNBC or someone watching Vouch.
Completely agree.
And that is, you have to, even if you're part of it, even if you obviously support it, there is a certain tragedy in there.
They would discuss things with the community at church.
They would believe things based on how they lived and where they lived.
With the rise of mass media and the conglomeration of it, you ended up with massive corporations in league with the government.
We learned this in the 70s with What was the name of the hearing?
Luke knows this better than me.
The Warren Commission, I think it was, where the CIA was infiltrating media organizations.
What you're saying, Richard, they said, everybody watches Brokaw, everybody watches the World Series, this is the pinnacle of culture and we control it.
With the rise of, in the 90s, actually, Rush Limbaugh pulled it up, 88 was the start of his show.
Syndication, I believe, National Syndication was 92 or something like this.
Drudge Report was 95.
This is when conservatives started saying, they're intent on destroying us.
They are saying things that are not true.
They are insulting the way I live, but they control the broadcast towers.
Things started to flatten out, as to what you're describing, and now I think a big component of the culture war is that, for the first time, those who believe in conservative values have a massive foothold in media.
The irony... The corporate press is... Yeah, it's starting to, but this is my pushback on this, is that So, I mean, you're right when it comes to, you know, kind of the mass corporate media.
They were structuring people's lives and conservatives came on the scene, those bastards, and in the 90s with their AM waves, they started creating waves and hitting back at Tom Brokaw, who told you to eat your macaroni and cheese at night, okay?
And whatever it is that he's commercializing, taking away their precious structure.
But the truth is, is that they were moving towards that anyway.
They were moving towards this kind of, even this control grid of inclusivity, which is moving that way in mainstream media, it was inevitable.
It would be inevitable even without the internet for there to be massive cultural pushback to this, even if there was just the man on the screen of the propaganda machine, 1984 style.
One of the main characters just got ordained as a priest.
They talk about how God, like there's very much a big message about being with God and how God will protect you and there's demons.
Satanists are viewed, there's a character who's got a Satanist church and he's just lying for money and he's laughing about it.
They overtly show demons torturing people and stuff like this, but then There's this scene I just saw in season three, and this is the point about mainstream narratives and culture.
The mother, one of the main characters, has four kids.
They're all girls.
And she says, we're going to make a family Ten Commandments that you must follow.
And the first one is, thou shalt not lie to mom.
And then one girl goes, but can we lie to other people?
And she goes, no.
And she goes, what if we're hiding Jews, like with Hitler, or we're hiding immigrants, like with Trump?
Hiding immigrants, like with Trump.
And she goes, those are good points, but we'll talk about that later.
That's the kind of stuff they inject in these mass corporation shows.
I suppose the argument from someone like Seamus, or perhaps you, but you're not Catholic, are you?
Yeah, but that's how you sell the best lies, is with mostly truth, right?
So you sell kind of the best lies if there's mostly truth behind it.
So it wouldn't surprise me if they had a great dynamic with good and evil and then it peaks your interest and you're involved and then they kind of associate these things which aren't evil with evil.
Which is to say something like, look, I think Trump is bad because his tax policy does X, Y, and Z. For instance, when China did A, B, and C, Donald Trump's response was, the real argument I'm trying to make is about China's policies, and I'm masking it by assuming it's true within a separate argument I'm trying to convince you of.
So they make a show, they say, here's what's going on, and then a split second they say, Trump is going to attack immigrants like Hitler attacked the Jews was the point they were making in that show.
So anyway to wrap this up...
If it were not for AM radio at the time, which now definitely has shifted more to podcasting and social media, that would be the presupposed truth.
Right.
When these comedians go on late night and just assert a thing is true like Colbert does, I can't remember what it was, it was with the civil fraud case in Trump, and Colbert in a frantic rant just asserts these things as fact, omitting all of the key details of the case.
And there are, fortunately, substantially less people who watch that show today than used to, so their influence is waning.
Were it not for the rise of technology and the capabilities of your average person to point a camera at their face and say whatever they want and broadcast that message, It'd be 25 million people watching Colbert say that.
They'd all show up at work the next day and just say, it is the truth.
I don't think it's liberal progressive state or anarchy.
It seems like such a kind of massive spread here to say if it's not some type of centralized progressive state that tells you what to eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner with the sitcoms, then it has to be anarchy.
And this is why I often tell people laws don't matter.
The laws matter in that if you break them, you go to jail.
But whether or not a police officer is willing to enforce that law is more dependent on the culture.
Example, in West Virginia, drag shows in public are illegal.
Including children with them as an aggravated offense, and the police, the DA, and the state will do nothing to stop it because they're terrified of the cultural ramifications.
But I think that culture, just like politics is downwind of culture, I think culture is downwind of theology.
I think that what informs culture at its base is always theological, and it's always the ethics behind that theology which then moves into the mainstream.
If you want to know why you have such a cultural breakdown now, you can just look at how effed up the theology is.
How messed up the theology is, it's across the board, nobody can agree on any of this.
It could be the idea of monism, sure, or it could be the idea of, like you were saying, there's no central Catholic kind of synergistic relationship with the state anymore.
My point was simply, as Richard was mentioning, an apparatus of culture.
I'm pretty sure that every conservative would love it if every television network, every movie studio maintained Christian moral frameworking for all their content.
The problem is that degenerate leftists have infiltrated major institutions.
The New York Times is a really great example.
You've had people who have used to work there quitting, saying it's been taken over.
The Washington Post is a really great example.
Their executive editor comes in and says, no one is reading what you're writing, this ship is sinking, and the response from the staff was, have you considered hiring black women?
I'm not kidding.
They said to him, well, why aren't you hiring more black women?
And it's like, that doesn't matter to whether or not the person will be good at what they do.
So, long story short, if there was cultural, I guess, unanimity within certain bounds, This would be a good thing.
So what Richard's saying is, he goes, okay, there's kind of like a centralized kind of government, liberal authority that's kind of telling you what it is that you need to do, and it's kind of structuring your day, right?
And the kind of Christian response to this is, Yeah, I mean, okay, I guess they can tell you that Kellogg's Frosted Flakes is okay to eat, you know, that's fine, but it's not really giving you any kind of grounding for oughts, what you should be doing, right?
It says, here's what you can do, here's kind of within the framework of society, but our oughts of what we're supposed to be moving towards.
I'm a bit of a Hegelian here, like, we understand what America was because we're living what America is, in the sense that you can claim, rightly, that the Founding Fathers would be totally You know, their minds would boggle if they walked through the streets of San Francisco.
I think where we are in this country is an obvious It's an obvious endpoint from where the Founding Fathers were to where we are now that they could not have predicted.
I think that asserting a moral value or a moral principle or enshrining that in your government, people often don't realize All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
The Founding Fathers' assumption of, let's enshrine these values, and then I believe it was the Anti-Federalists who wanted the Bill of Rights, or was it the Anti-Federalists?
I mix them up.
They wanted the Bill of Rights.
They said, we want to make sure that this is written down in the Constitution.
It's like saying, I oppose the Federal Reserve and want to see it abolished.
I use the banks, I get bank loans, I have mortgages.
And one could argue, why doesn't he just give up those slaves?
Because there's a bit of a tinge of hypocrisy in all of it.
But famously, he wanted to include one of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence was that it was the crown that brought slaves here and has now used them to levy war against us.
But I believe it was South Carolina and Georgia would not have joined the movement for independence if they had a staunch anti-slavery notion that this will be the direction we go.
That being said, my ultimate point is Frederick Douglass.
Dude, amazing.
One of the points he made is that you have written into your own constitutions of your values all men are created equal.
This is the funny thing about why the Founding Fathers didn't want state religion.
They were like, well, we all agree everybody believes in Christ, we just kind of have different branches of Christianity, so we probably shouldn't enshrine one of them.
I don't know if they realized that meant where we would be in 200 years with... Well, did Jefferson not realize that, being that he edited the Bible?
All of the contributors to the Constitution were not deists, but there were a few prominent deists.
The thing is, though, is that it was understood that you had the 10th Amendment, and that if the federal government wasn't making a national religion, that the states could make their own prospective religions.
The idea that the First Amendment created some barrier from states creating their own religion, that's crazy.
Some ideas are bad, but we had a conversation about gay marriage and there were conservatives saying gay marriage Should never have been allowed because it was a slippery slope that led to where we are with all these bad things in public, you know, children being exposed to things, the grooming problem, the books.
And I disagree.
My argument, just because you open the door to one thing doesn't mean you should tolerate anything that comes after it.
The issue is not that the idea of gay marriage is bad.
Now, if you're a Christian, I totally understand why you would think that.
The problem is weak men who allow bad things.
So, if we come to agree Fine, in the privacy of your home, you can do whatever you want.
Just not in public, not around kids, not in schools.
What happens later is weak men continue to tolerate over and over and over again.
And so, the argument I've made, and it's somewhat facetious, is that the problem ultimately was white Christians are weak people.
Especially when you look relatively to Muslims.
Muslims do not tolerate this.
The conservative Muslim nations are Very bad on the issue, and I'm speaking lightly on how bad they are on the issue.
But if you look to even places like Dearborn, Michigan, they do not care for what our laws are in this country.
They will do what they want.
You look at places in the UK where the women have to wear niqab and hijab, how they protest LGBTQ stuff.
I had a friend in Chicago whose family were Muslim.
They would not allow any man into the house.
The only family members were allowed in because the women were there and the women were covered.
Conservative Christian men very much are very tolerant and they tolerate everything.
And as the generations progress, they're always willing to accept a little bit more tolerance.
Yeah, but what's going to happen is you're going to see, as Nick says, you're going to see as people move and move more towards traditional—any type of traditional Christianity, They are going to become more and more conservative.
They have to, and that's why they're moving towards traditional Christianity.
Even in the Protestant sects, which are blowing up, they're more conservative sects.
They are more conservative.
The ones that are more progressive, more liberal, have the rainbow flags outside their churches.
They're being left in droves, and you're going to see more and more and more of that.
I just want to quickly point out, because people like to argue against this but I don't believe it, I believe that at the end of the day all of this is stamp collecting when you look at fertility rates.
You don't have kids, you don't exist.
And it is true that the left will try to indoctrinate young conservative kids and they succeeded it, but so long as parents are becoming aware of the issue and keeping their kids safe, Forty years, this is going to be amazing.
And if this doesn't sell you out there to have kids, you know, the more kids you have, the higher likelihood one of them will become famous and rich and take care of you.
Accelerationism, as defined, is the worse the better.
Let's just make it worse and worse and worse.
No!
I actually think Trump is a sort of accelerant.
But I wouldn't mind—we've got time—I wouldn't mind talking about the demographic issue, because I think they're kind of like countervailing forces, and I don't I don't know exactly how I feel about this.
Vis-a-vis, say, Anglicans or Episcopalians, my, you know, stomping grounds, Evangelicals are having, like, three kids to an Episcopalian one and a half, or something like that.
So within a nation, more...
uncouth or you could say fundamentalist are having more babies than mainline high church people.
Between nations, that is also the case.
Now, there's another countervailing force, which is that you bring in education, you bring in modernity, and that is coinciding with lowering birth rates.
That happens all over the place.
That's happening in Mexico.
So people say, like, you know, the Mexicans are going to overwhelm us.
I'm not so sure.
They're going through their own demographic decline.
Yeah, it's because they had a mass IVF program, and so here's what happened.
The patriot portion of this, the patriotic messaging, the propaganda, if the governments of these nations begin a propaganda campaign saying, you're patriotic, go have sex with your wife and give us many babies, Right?
It doesn't take that much convincing.
Israel proved that it doesn't take that much convincing.
It's much easier, real quick, just all they have to do if they really wanted to boost the fertility rate in the United States is go to Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and change the algorithm to I would say 51% of posts on the front page are women with babies, and then what happens is young women and young men see a mom and a dad with a kid getting millions and millions of views, and they're like, ooh, I gotta do that because I don't get famous.
So much of the stuff that we're talking about right now, honestly, I think could be fixed if you did just stuff like what you're talking about.
Started having society uphold family values.
Propaganda.
Well, yeah, I mean, it's propaganda, yeah.
But the fact of the matter is, like, the United States is propagandizing the American people anyways, right?
All of the LGBT stuff, all that stuff is a form of propaganda, and it's not coming straight out of the government, but it's from the, it speaks to the zeitgeist.
I think if a mom and a dad made Instagram videos where they were having kids and the algorithms were promoting that, I don't see that as propaganda.
Let me give you an example.
It has been known for a long time that if you go on Facebook and write getting married or having a kid, it will show your post to everyone on your friends list.
So what people were doing for a while was they would put OMG, I'm having a baby!
Okay, now that I've got your attention, we're doing a big party this Friday night.
If you want to come, send me a message.
Because people are more likely to interact with marriage and baby news, the algorithm promotes those words in posts.
It wasn't an intentional propagandistic thing.
It was an algorithmic thing that naturally occurred, and people started exploiting.
But my point ultimately is, Saying something that is true and good, I don't want to call it propaganda, whether you do or not.
Like, someone being like, I have a baby and I'm so happy, this is so awesome, is different from being like, we need to eat the rich and having a company inject that message.
I understand you're saying propaganda has a negative connotation, I get it.
But I think for the purpose of the conversation we're having when we're saying propaganda, we're not saying it's negative, positive, we're just saying what we're talking about realistically is Brainwashing.
How do we assist in brainwashing, right?
unidentified
The point is just show, just instead of showing alternative lifestyles as the goal or the highest, highest value in the country, show traditional lifestyles.
That's right.
And whether it's, it doesn't matter if it's Catholics or Episcopalians or Orthodox or whatever, it doesn't matter at all.
Just show families in, like, acting like... Because when our families are being propagandized, that's the best we can do.
So it's like, how are these things going to interact?
I'm not sure where I come down on this, but I could argue that even if all of these evangelicals have a bunch of kids, these kids are still going to turn into liberals in a few generations.
Because there's the technological component, but there's also that deep spiritual component, which isn't really being questioned.
Are evangelicals—and I'm just positing this because I don't know exactly where I fall on this—but are evangelicals kind of baby-making factories for future liberals?
I'm just saying that is the ideology of progressivism going to go away because No, the answer is no, it's not going to, but it can be greatly curtailed, and the way that it can be greatly curtailed is it's just a numbers game.
Ultimately, it comes into a numbers game.
Progressives whittle themselves off because they become nihilists.
If you tell men, look, you can go have all the sex you want without any of the reproductive responsibilities of that, and tell women the same thing, and say there's no God, there's none of this, what possible incentive do they have to have children if they can just go live their You know, their two-income job and do whatever the hell they want, go on vacation every six months.
Nihilism, man, that seems like it's a really good, alluring life when you're young.
And then by the time you find out it's not, you're too fucking old to have kids.
I was at a coffee shop in Boston just the other day, and this woman, I was working on this book that I'm finishing up, and I was like copy editing and stuff like that.
Oh yeah, well I mean, but the thing is, you can see the counterpoint now, and the counter-tipping in Japan especially.
You have, I mean, the elder population so far outpacing the youth being born.
That they're not even going to be able to take care of them soon.
They're going to have to open up hundreds of thousands of work visas to foreigners to come in, hopefully to take care of their old people because they can't do it themselves.
They also, the old suck up tons of resources, the young are the ones who are providing them.
So you need to have a lot of young people to take care of an aging population anyway.
Then when they look at the numbers, they're saying that there's not going to be a South Korea In a hundred years.
It's higher among, I actually just pulled this up, it's higher among religious groups, obviously, but I don't know that conservative Protestants uh... are at 1.8 uh... let's see catholics and protestants in general have about two so they're the only balanced demographic i believe in the u.s.
uh... it actually might be higher among muslims and it might be a couple points all that really matters with the fertility rate being under 2.8 we're about a generation or two away from first and foremost social security is already collapsing by 2023, it starts breaking down.
By 2037, they're expecting it to totally collapse.
They'll probably try pulling off some kind of major fiat move in an effort to maintain the system.
You can print all the money in the world that you want.
If you don't have the labor that that money buys, that money is toilet paper.
And so, without the fertility rate... We don't have the human capital.
And so what they'll do is, they will give their thousand dollar check to a social security recipient, who will then walk outside and say, I'm old and I need my butt wiped and I have no kids, can I pay someone to do it?
And this is, if you even read the modern papers from NGOs, these NGOs, they see that this is an issue.
They've foreseen this going to be an issue for a while.
Now that we're in the issue, they're going to bank on mass migration, especially from African nations, which are some of the only ones that have a birth rate, which is raising.
They're gonna, and that's why you see so many African migrants coming in now, as Mexico's birth rate decreases because they are fast becoming a much more industrialized first world nation, right?
It's decreasing, all South American nation's birth rates are decreasing.
How are you gonna pull from them when they don't have the human capital either?
This is the problem of the current administration, and I don't just mean the Biden administration, but the political powers in the United States, the presumption that just bring in as many as you can to bolster the tax base and create kids for the next generation.
The problem is they, as managers of that system, will not last with it.
So if you bring in people who don't know how to run a machine like this, simply because they will do the jobs that you can then tax to pay for the older generation, you will still have an older generation that requires more people.
Eventually you will not, once again, have enough people because fertility is still going to be low, and then there will be no one left to take over and inherit your machine unless you actually segment yourself and your family and your kids and your community away from the machine you built.
Yeah, well this is actually a good segue because we also have a golden opportunity to make our country extremely powerful if we're some of the first to the forefront in getting the birth rate back up, especially through propaganda.
I mean, the whole world's about to suffer from this.
If you can imagine if we were one of the few nations on planet Earth in the West, We'd have a massive advantage in human capital, having a homogenous nation.
Our inventiveness would be through the roof.
Everything going forward would be better if we did that.
That should be a number one policy.
Nobody's even talking about it.
A couple of people in Congress are kind of making mentions about it.
That's it.
So yeah, I think that that's going to be one of the biggest problems even in my lifetime.
I don't disagree with so much of what you're saying, but it doesn't solve this issue of, I mean, this radical natalism that is at least suggested by... What the hell is radical natalism?
But if people, if you're just saying have more children, that sounds like you're going to fill up more and more favelas, to be honest.
Like, it doesn't follow that there's simply more people out there, like, who breathe oxygen and are, you know, big-brained apes, mammals, and you're going to therefore reach the stars.
I could easily argue that promoting fertility around... The issue also is fertility around... Right now I'm talking about populating this planet.
Well, I mean, I guess in a bizarre way, but here's the thing.
It really, the main thing is, is that pro-natalism brings about, you know, a human species that I think we need in order to have any of these other tangential kind of issues sorted out.
And right now the antinatalists have been winning.
They dropped the population bomb all over the world.
They said that it was going to be a catastrophe when we reached 8 billion people.
The opposite happened.
More food than ever, more logistics, more food getting everywhere.
There weren't that many people in England and within two or three generations you had Shakespeare and Milton and Newton, you know, coming down the pike.
These small nations, if you look at like what England and Germany in particular and other cultures have contributed towards human advancement and so on, it is often the charts.
So it's not a matter of numbers.
It fundamentally is a matter of a people and a culture who is able to advance.
All of these kind of components which go into the advancement of technology that you're talking about is a massive logistical order, huge, of huge scale.
And the thing that's so interesting about it is, absent the kind of human capital necessary for the massive amount of freighters that are required, and the equipment for these mines, and all of this type of thing, if you scale that down, we're gonna go back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, where we did have real hunger problems, global hunger problems, which have essentially all but been solved.
And it's not because the microchip has solved them.
It's because humanity, having human capital, has assisted in growing more food than we've ever been able to grow before.
Contract all of humanity so that you feel better about going to Africa and being scared by a lion, right?
You might need to do that.
Not only does that seem silly, but I also don't think that contracting the amount of minds which we can create down to the perfect $1 billion or $500 million, that's what the Georgia Guidestones say, right?
You have to be trapped in a confined space with a woman to have sex with her though.
And that's the disconnect, right?
The nihilism which is leading to everything from incels to not wanting to have a relationship until you're in your 30s, until you feel like you're set, right?
So people in their 20s, that's the fertility years.
I believe that, based on, for the United States at the very least, we are high up on how much land we're using for farming.
That being said, we have fat homeless people.
So I don't know that the, uh, the up, like, I'm not suggesting this means we're close to the upper limit.
I think it means more so we have a cultural imbalance in that we produce tremendous resources, and then we have people who don't utilize them properly.
Well, I think that the homeless people are getting fat on chocolate bars and, you know, Cheez-Its, not on ears of corn and tomatoes grown in the Midwest.
I think it is horrible, but it's... That's the direct consequence of what you're saying.
No, no, no.
The consequence of me saying, let's at least sustain what we have, at least sustain what we have, is not a consequence of, well, now there's 50 billion people on planet Earth and there's cities in the United States with 10 billion people.
But I'll make, real quick, I want to make this point.
Carrying capacity will change dramatically based on how we structure society.
The sort of liberal machine right now, I hate using the word liberal, but the, whatever you want to call it, establishment, is put everybody in cities.
Biggest mistake you can make.
The example I like to give is If you take, you know, ten chickens, and you let them loose in a big field, they will walk around that field poopin', and the grass will grow greener.
Thomas Massey has the Cluck's Capacitor, he calls it, where it pulls the chicken coop very slowly, so it spreads the chicken poop out, and then there's a big trail of lush green grass.
But what do you think would happen?
If you put those chickens in one small area within a day, there's no grass left, and the amount of feces has piled up to such a degree, it is toxic, the chickens are getting sick from it, it smells horrible, and the rain can't dissipate it.
That's New York City.
New York, LA, we have hyper-concentrated all of our waste products, so it cannot effectively be dissipated into the environment in positive ways.
So it's not so much about overpopulation, but hyper-concentration of population is extremely destructive.
There is an overwhelming secular urge, and it's extremely intense among Zoomers, towards anti-fertility.
And so I guess what I'm saying is I understand that, I love that too, but might there be a silver lining towards the sort of bottleneck that we're all experiencing?
Because what we're breeding, it's not just religion.
We're also breeding sort of anti-social behavior to some degree, and that's actually, you know, an equivocal matter.
It's the people who are passing the shit test who are having sex.
Now, that could be a multi-millionaire who has a great home and four kids, you know, Gavin Newsom-style kind of thing.
Or it could be a lot of, to be brutally frank here, a lot of kind of dumb people who don't give a fuck.
They don't have enough foresight to put on a condom, etc.
They're just kind of producing this and there's a tremendous amount of social dysfunction involved in the people of high birth rates.
It's actually the middle.
The top, say, 2% to 9% are reproducing themselves.
The bottom, like 40% are also reproducing themselves.
It's the middle that is, those dinks are middle class. - The top percentage also not reproducing much. - They actually are-- I know, but they are reproducing themselves.
A little bit.
If you're super wealthy and stuff like that, you are likely to have children.
The bottom are reproducing themselves, and it's actually dysfunctional.
And we also have this kind of issue of the Zoomers not even having sex.
the amount of virgins that we have.
So we're in this bottleneck.
Only a few people are going to survive.
Are you just badass enough that your genes are going to go on?
Are you the guy who has tattoos and a leather jacket or like heavy metal band, you know, kind of that chicks love it because you're a fucking alpha.
You're a badass.
They want your babies, whether they're going to admit that to themselves or not.
Those people are going to survive.
People who are highly intelligent and functional are going to survive.
That's why I didn't say it was a program, but in a way, social eugenics is, if it's being postulated, you know, socially, if we're going to do, isn't there really kind of this silver lining that kind of the ADHD people and some of the people who are antisocial are just going to kind of, I don't know, wink out of existence and that, and that they're not going to have children and that that's good because then we have kind of this thing, this master I don't think that's a silver lining.
I don't think that just because, you know, you are antinatalist and you create even what you would consider to be some type of social paradise— I don't think it's a paradise.
I think that all you're going to end up doing is creating a population of more starvation and of more suffering.
I think you need to have the human capital available to support even a billion people.
Not just ships, and airplanes, and freighters, and everything going between everywhere.
You have to have the human capital, and you have to have the human capital to get into the mines, and get out the gold, and get out these different resources.
Even refining those resources and recycling them take human capital.
It's not scalable.
The reason it's not scalable is because you don't increase labor by double by having two people.
You increase it four times, five times, just by having a second person.
So yes, labor multiplied by people, yeah, we need it.
And we need it in a big way.
I don't know that going back to, you know, a billion people, 900 million, is necessarily going to make for this kind of utopia.
If you had 100,000 Individuals that were born into this culture of, like, Spartan-esque warrior and scientific values, you'd probably become a space-faring nation very quickly, as opposed to a billion people who just want to eat Cheez-Its and, you know... Exactly.
I think that is, we're gonna get into the race thing, but I think that's an overgeneralization, too, because Nairobi, for instance, actually has a tremendous technological research hub.
Because you live on this planet, and you can't just pick and choose.
Like, I could argue that—you're saying the productivity argument, if you have four, that's not four times better, it's like 16 times— Yeah, it's like 24 times better, yeah.
I'll grant it to you.
I could also say with dysfunctional people, it's like 16 times worse.
There's this really funny meme of income by IQ chart.
And it shows IQ, or income is on the left and IQ is on the bottom, and it slowly goes up.
The higher the IQ, the higher the income.
But there's one person with an IQ at 75 who makes the highest, it's like 1.4 million per year, and people are like, damn, I gotta get, I gotta figure out what that is.
And it's like, oh, he's a professional athlete.
I'm not trying to be a dick for professional athletes.
I mean, you can become successful, powerful, wealthy, and IQ doesn't guarantee that.
Persistence does.
But ultimately, though, I think the issue is, for me, I don't care about where you're from, what you do.
It's about productivity.
So, you know, you mentioned Africa, for instance.
It's managerial power.
So you need people who can carry bricks.
You need people who can solve math.
I don't care where that comes from or who can do it.
What your background is, just do the job.
So in the United States, the problem we have is People have brought this point up in China.
They ask a child, what do you want to be when you grow up?
They say astronaut.
You ask an American kid, they say influencer.
Influencers don't do anything!
Like, like, what am I doing?
I complain on the internet for a living?
Heavens help me.
We need, we need, uh, I've longed for this since I was a kid.
We need a society that champions astronauts, engineers.
I'm glad Elon Musk has become as popular as he has been as a celebrity for being an industrialist.
Because the idea needs to be, as we're talking about TikTok algorithms promoting family, If we had award ceremonies and national television shows, like, you know, major, the Emmys, was more about technological advancement, scientific advancement, or labor achievement, that's what people would look up to and want to be, because at the root, for most people, they're just trying to figure out how to be accepted.
So if some little kid is like, I want people to clap for me.
Perhaps it's because people don't want to think about work.
It's like, dude, I did it all day.
Now I kind of want to do something else.
So we have hobbies and you like watching sports on TV because it's just like, let me relax.
I love construction.
I'm the best at it.
I can, I can talk you around a building all day and night, but after I'm done with it, I want to zone out and relax to recharge my batteries.
That's probably why people like watching other things.
But I'm just saying, in general, if our society, from the ground up, was promoting hyper-productivity, then we'd be spacefaring, right?
A society that neglects its youth, and this is what the United States does, that produces degeneracy.
The example I'll give you is always quite shocking to me, growing up.
The most important formative years of a human being's life, and this is scientifically proven, is 0 through 5.
The development of neural pathways in the brain exponentially larger and diminished after that age.
And so a baby from 0 to 5, their brain is rapidly developing and creating the pathways which will allow them to function, calculate, think, solve problems.
But what's fascinating is when they have discovered children who are chained in basements by evil predators or who were neglected, they can never learn to speak properly.
The famous story is like the little girl who was found chained up in a basement.
She was 14 and 15.
By the time she was in her 20s, even with as much education as they gave her, she could not speak English.
She could only grunt.
She could say, hungry, tired, but she couldn't articulate complex thoughts because the neural pathways never developed.
I think that it's what's being interpreted, also, which is the big problem.
That's why I think that if you're watching Sesame Street, right, now as bad as Sesame Street is, I think it gave you different values than what you're talking about here.
If the TV is raising you, maybe at least it's raising you with an idea of something that's not whatever that is.
But I agree with you that the interpretation of how children do things, walking through the shop with dad, going out with their parents, seeing mom and dad love each other, - Playing physical, playing, playing, playing eBall.
They're terrified of leaving their home. - And it's crazy too, because people don't realize this, The media will insult incels all day and night, but women are in the same boat.
I shouldn't say the identical boat, in a very similar position as young men.
There was a viral video where a 20-something-year-old attractive woman was saying, like, haha, I have no friends, and I've never dated a guy before, and haha, I don't know what to do, and haha, all these guys think I have it made.
Very socially awkward, weird, but attractive, and I'm like, kind of wild.
If she just went out and partied with friends at a bar, she'd meet a guy.
Uh, I don't like, so like, you know, I'm gonna call out The Daily Wire specifically, but though, with respect, there's other people who can call it, that's worse.
Uh, like Chip Chilla.
You know, they're doing a kid's, where it's like a, um, what is it?
A chinchilla family.
And I'm like, don't give kids anthropomorphized animals to identify with.
But, I understand why they're doing it, so with all due respect.
I think this kind of thing, it's a cascade failure, where one beleaguered generation will produce an even more beleaguered generation, and it will continually decline.
Perhaps, however, this is the natural flow of its natural selection.
I mean, I agree, but what they're saying is they're like, if you're a Christian and Christianity is what informs your value, you can't rule like that.
You're not allowed to rule if that's the case.
Yes you are, and you should, and we need that more than anything.
And so this was a huge con job, from my perspective, how many conservatives went over to libertarianism, and they really shouldn't have, because it convinced them not to seize what you're talking about, which is power.
We have a right to move towards power.
When you're talking about Christian populism and Christian nationalism, the reason it's becoming popular is because the people who are promoting it are saying the one thing that we've forgotten for a long time.
Okay for you as a Christian to wield power, even absolute power, just like it is for the secularists.
This is what I just, I absolutely cannot stand, is like, the left is right now screaming, liberals I should say, are screaming, if Donald Trump gets elected, he's going to come after his political enemies.
I'm like, I said this a couple years ago, when you come to me and say, oh, you can't say that because these liberals are... I'm like, that's France.
That's like coming to me and being like, your stance on immigration is wrong because you're going to lose the people over here.
They don't like what you're saying.
And I'm like, why do I care what France is doing?
I am not France.
I do not participate in their elections.
They operate independent of themselves and they try to exert authority over internationally as any nation would do.
When you come to me and talk about New York, And how liberals are complaining about stuff.
I'm like, why do you care what New York liberals think?
We are so separate at this point.
All that matters is you recognize the power systems as they are, how to win elections, and how to wield the power you've gotten, defend your values, and make this country a better place.
Well, you make a good point with this, and I've seen this a lot, the kind of liberal media tour on, if Donald Trump is elected, he's gonna go for revenge!
And you kind of brought this up just a second ago.
The reason that's such a good point is because you're also right.
The entire fiasco going on with Trump right now, his prosecution, that's all revenge.
100% that's revenge.
There's no doubt that that's revenge.
When the verdict was read, the entire internet went crazy with leftists going, that's right!
Next is the orange jumpsuit!
We're gonna get you!
And you MAGA people are next!
It's total revenge.
But for some reason, The idea that if Trump gets elected, he's gonna come in and clean house with your ass next, that's unacceptable.
What's sad to me, though, is that conservatives of all stripes fall for this shit time and time again and go, no, we're gonna be better than you.
Don't you think that that's kind of a terminal take?
So if you look, especially a terminally online take, if you look at what the average Americans are thinking when they're looking at this, I think that they can.
I think that they can see a future past Trump and Biden.
I think that if they just have a normal, run-of-the-mill liberal, you know, kind of presidency next time, they'll be fine with that.
They'll be fine with other progressives like Clinton coming in.
I think they'll be fine with that.
It's on the Republican conservative side, I think, that we're having the trouble seeing past the populist.
We're having trouble seeing past the, how do we get back To anything that's not Trump-like, anything that's not that kind of social Molotov cocktail or hand grenade thrown in to wreck the establishment, I don't think the progressive left gives a shit.
I think they're fine, like you said, with moving the status quo towards progressivism, and so the next liberal to them is meaningless.
He's talking about how the left needs to start learning how to use arms.
The John Brown Gun Club, the Red Guard.
You've got various factions of far-left groups that are training, that are armed.
There's videos out of Portland.
Where you'll see, like, an old white guy with a big white beard, body armor with a bunch of different magazines on it, rifles hanging from his chest with a sidearm, and then he walks up, and then he's got a communist patch on his chest, and he's like, what can I do for you?
And if he took that communist patch off, the media would call him far-right.
But these are leftists that are doing this.
Everyone is saying we don't know what happens after November.
I have no idea.
I do think the most likely outcomes will never be And this is because people don't read history and they're first-order thinkers.
They're like, you really think the states are going to fight each other?
No.
Like, there's no civil war because the states won't fight each other.
Stop thinking that the world is like 1861 where there was a union that was a billiard.
And what I think might actually happen is, I don't think you'll see interstate conflict.
I think what you'll see is In 2020, Texas filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania under original jurisdiction.
That is, when a state is a state, the Supreme Court hears it instantly.
The Supreme Court said no.
Texas argued Pennsylvania was in violation of the Constitution in how they operated their election.
And if they're allowed to run their elections improperly in violation of the Constitution, their votes should not impact how Texas gets to vote.
Basically, hey man, We all agreed to this system where we vote, but that guy's cheating.
And the Supreme Court said, yeah, we don't care.
We don't care whether they're cheating or not.
48 states, I think it was 48 states, got involved.
Numerous states were also accused of the same thing.
There was half the states filing amicus briefs on behalf of Pennsylvania, the other half on behalf of Texas, and the Supreme Court said, leave me the F out of it.
If, in November, we get to a point where now that Republicans are aware of how the Democrats played the game with the executive branches of states changing the rules of the elections and judges, that violates the Constitution, only the legislative branch of the states determine how elections are run, you are going to have state legislative bodies prepared For how they're going to be delivering electoral vote counts and results to combat what the governors do.
Republicans currently control the House.
It doesn't mean too much, but this means that come, I don't know, December, when electoral votes are being submitted, A red state, I should say a swing state with mixed government, a Democrat governor with a Republican legislature, may submit two slates of electors that are both deemed legit.
Now, this actually happened in 2020, but the governors certify.
So the state legislatures are saying, no, no, here's our actual slate.
The governor says, I certified this one.
And now they're trying to jail the electors that we're trying to submit through the legislative bodies.
The potential for catastrophe right now is insane.
Maybe it doesn't happen.
But there is a potential for a scenario that I believe, if it were to reach conflict, would be really, really light, really simple, terrifying though, and we don't want it to happen, in that several states have dual slates.
The House then says, we can't do this.
Again, we did it in 2020, and it's chaos.
You're going to have state legislators giving press conferences saying, our governor is submitting false electors.
Those are not our electors.
We certify.
The governor is going to say, no, I certify.
It's going to be 2020 on steroids.
The end result is not that a January 6th things happen.
Texas then announces they're teaming up with Oklahoma.
What happens is, There will be, moving into January, a legal battle over who is going to be inaugurated.
It will likely, in that instance, then defer to House delegations for choosing the president because there is a legal dispute.
The House, which I believe it's something like 28 delegations are Republican, obviously are going to side with Donald Trump.
Democrat states will then say this is an illegitimate election.
The people have spoken, likely citing the popular vote and the states where they say governors choose to certify electors.
Then what happens when California says outright we do not accept the authority of a Donald Trump administration?
In 2020, The Boston Globe reported that Democrats ran a war campaign with Republicans, where they said if Donald Trump were to win, they would encourage West Coast states to threaten to secede from the Union unless Trump conceded on all their demands.
What's to stop that scenario from happening once again, knowing many of these people fear criminal prosecution, as they've already stated?
You will see Podesta, Clinton, and anyone else in the event of a Trump administration saying, OK, Trump is going to come after us, or at least he will demand, his base will demand he does, and we're going to face some serious consequences.
So they go to California or Washington.
Washington then says, and this is really simple stuff, Federal authorities, we will not allow you into our state.
Let's take a look right now at Donald Trump's charges in New York, because I've already argued this should be the case.
New York filed criminal charges against Donald Trump on a bunk pretense so absurd that even CNN called it nonsense.
Fareed Zakaria.
Even MSNBC political analysts were like, we do not understand this.
A misdemeanor charge, which is normally a slap on the wrist, altering business documents, beyond its statute of limitations, was upgraded to a felony, citing three potential criminal elements that were never met or proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
With that subcategory that's never been proven to the public, they asserted this one crime is now a felony they can charge Trump with, from New York to a resident of Florida.
What should have happened is, Donald Trump, because I'll tell you what I'd do, go to the governor, DeSantis, and say, When CNN comes out and calls this illegitimate, I think we have grounds to challenge this at a federal level and refuse to acknowledge this attempt.
We're now learning, I think it's Missouri?
Is it Missouri has filed a lawsuit against New York challenging the lawsuits against Trump as an attempt at election interference?
It has begun.
In this scenario, Donald Trump says publicly, I understand there's been criminal charges filed.
Even CNN is calling them ridiculous.
This is beyond its statute of limitations and has no legal merit, and I will not waste my money nor taxpayer dollars of any state or the federal government to answer to a clearly political charge from a man who campaigned on criminally charging me and currently hired a guy who was just working in the Biden administration.
Ron DeSantis would then be met with the, do you allow federal authorities, marshals or otherwise, to go to Florida and physically apprehend one of its residents who is not legitimately charged under any real statutory authority.
DeSantis...
He's got a really tough decision on his hands if that's the case.
Allow federal authorities to effectively kidnap the frontrunner for the presidency and one of your residents using external authority that you will not stop.
Proving yourself impotent and weak.
Or, outright say, it would be a criminal effort for federal authorities under false legal authority to come and take one of our residents and we will not allow it.
And then when they do everything that they do, Republicans with experience from 2020, and I'm not talking about federal level who seem to write a lot of angry letters, I'm talking about state level guys who are a bit more aggressive.
Say, we've prepared for this eventuality, and we've already lined up our legal documents, our legal teams, and we hereby challenge you cannot move forward, and you end up with a constitutional crisis.
And if he does, and I think he will, I think he'll concede to it and I think he'll finally go off because he'll be like, there's just no way anymore to get into this system.
I think that the likelihood lies with establishment forces meeting with Trump and saying, If you bow out gracefully, make it look real.
We'll get you a few good licks in, and then throw the match.
We're going to leave you and your family alone.
And Trump is clearly saying no.
I don't see a reality where they're like, let's destroy everything and bring ourselves to the greatest risk we've ever faced, going to war with a man this popular.
The first thing any strategist is going to do is say, a pyrrhic victory is not worth it.
The risk to ourselves and the damage we incur from going to war with Trump is not worth it.
We need to first try and cut a deal to see if he's willing to end the fighting and give us the victory.
It's why every legal battle ends in a settlement, and not literally every, because the cost of the suit is greater.
I just don't see how Trump supporters, regardless of what Trump does, are just going to be like, well, I guess this is our country now.
Let's entertain this thought.
Donald Trump says, you know, look, we tried.
We really did.
That's the end.
I'm gone.
Good luck, America.
Then I think the probability is a handful of guys in sparsely populated areas Just do not recognize the authority of the government.
We see people stop paying taxes, smaller and smaller pockets, but the federal government only has about, I believe it's 100,000 federal law enforcement authorities active in the United States.
That cannot police 160 million people, which it wouldn't.
Let's say half and let's say 10, let's say a million people just completely lose confidence and then just decide what's the point.
Not any intentional act, not a mass protest.
They just literally say, This letter means nothing to me.
I am from the clown authority, duly elected, and you will be put in clown jail!
You'd be like, what is going on?
Understanding how absurd that scenario sounds is what happens in middle America after Biden wins a second time where the entirety of the independent media apparatus is saying the legislative bodies have called Trump the winner regardless of whether Trump concedes.
And then you get some guy at his house and a federal authority shows up and he's like, who are you?
And he's like, I'm a federal authority with a warrant.
He goes, my county doesn't recognize your warrants.
My sheriff has already said you guys can't come here.
Yeah, I mean, I guess in that case, though, that would be will then.
Then people would have the will.
If you had a split legislative body who said, no, he's the actual winner, then yeah, I think then you can make a case for maybe people having the willpower to have some sort of resistance to this.
I think this still looks at, like, a simplified view of how these things typically happen.
In California, in Illinois, in New York, roving bands of marauders are destroying department stores.
These are people who already don't care about the authority of the police.
It's not a question of willpower.
They're not saying, like, guys, we need to stand up and defy the police, because, no, they're just like, Those cops can't do anything to us!
And they're doing whatever they want.
When that mentality reaches average Americans in sparsely populated areas, not because they stand up and say, from my cold dead hands, but because they're like, man, the government really can't do anything, can they?
My homes are being looted.
Illegal immigrants are murdering my neighbors.
These people aren't even aren't even the authority here anymore.
So let's say it starts with this.
In eastern Maryland, you had a woman killed by an illegal immigrant.
And I think Justin Ransom, West Virginia, not too far from here.
We're in West Virginia!
Is that what it was, Cullen?
Illegal immigrant killed some woman in Ransom or something like that?
unidentified
Yeah, it was right on the border of Ransom, Charleston, and Harper's Ferry, that area.
Illegal immigrants who were brought in under Biden's policies are committing crimes all across the board.
What I see as a potentiality is with the political instability, you get five guys sitting at a bar drinking and being like, one guy's crying his eyes out, screaming and punching the wall because his wife was just murdered by an illegal immigrant, and the other guys go, we gotta do something about this!
And they say, guys, take our numbers down, we're making a group chat.
Anybody you see causing any trouble, we're gonna deal with it because there's no law enforcement anymore.
Then what happens?
Neighborhood Watch.
That's it.
Neighborhood Watch.
Neighborhood Watch shows up, they're going around, illegal immigrant once again, because we've been seeing it across the country, or roving gangs smashing into a department store, and a couple of guys who said, we need to protect our neighborhood, show up with guns, and they say, on the ground now, they scream, a shootout happens.
Federal government says, we have nothing to do with this and we won't be involved.
Why do I think that'll happen?
It already does.
In places like Chicago, for a long time now, already the feds do not intervene when these mass shootings happen.
The media doesn't report on it.
When that stuff spreads because of the mass illegal immigration, which is already resulting in people getting shot and killed, you're going to have locals with guns.
Just like, look at the guy in Arizona, the rancher.
And so what they do is, they illegally acquire the guns because they're scared of the gun violence and they become criminals.
So a lot of the stories out of Chicago, it's not gangs, that's just something the media says because they want to dismiss the gun violence.
It is honor shootings and local disputes, particularly over women, and the view people have of each other.
Meaning a guy says, you disrespected me, and they get into a gunfight.
Then you end up with a lot of stories Where a father, typically a black guy, goes to Indiana and buys a gun because he's like, they're shooting up my neighborhood.
Sure.
Then the police of Chicago come in and beat the crap out of him and arrest him for having an illegal gun and his only crime was having a gun.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is I don't see inside of like areas where there's actual gun ownership, where it's not criminalized the same way it is in Illinois.
The federal government will not enforce our borders, and now criminals, rapists, and murderers, and some I think are good people, But the bad people are coming across the border with no enforcement, and the people of West Virginia are strapped to the teeth.
But this happens constantly, and I haven't seen a great shift of political will in this.
There's no political will required.
The areas inside of major metropolitan areas where they won't allow citizens to have guns, and they tell the police to stand down and you can go break in the stores, the people there put up with this shit.
When that mentality reaches West Virginia is when social order at the federal level breaks down.
When the people of West Virginia who are armed to the teeth begin experiencing people looting and illegal immigrants killing people is when illegal immigrants will start getting shot.
I don't think I think the big hole here in your argument is that I don't think that they're going to move into places where there's heavily armed store owners and try to loot them because they will get shot.
When I look at Black Lives Matter, when Black Lives Matter started to go out to rural districts, they were opposed by people with guns and they left.
They got out of there.
They beat feet because they were like, wait a second!
Andrew, what you're missing is I am saying, if X then Y, and you are saying, but before that happened, that didn't happen.
What I am saying is...
Illegal immigrants, we now have a story in West Virginia, which is the second most Trump-supporting state in the country, just passed constitutional carry, loves its guns, had an illegal immigrant murder someone at a time of heightened alert around the problems we're seeing of homelessness and crime in various cities.
But it's escalating.
So what I said is, If those problems come to West Virginia, you will begin to see people say, federal authority is gone.
If you had, like, some type of a situation where you had illegal immigrants busting into stores or what you see in Chicago with, you know, when they go in and they loot the entire place, right?
And then they run out with all the gear and you can't do anything, you're hamstrung.
Not only is that what I think, but I think a catalyst event, like what you're talking about, of kind of like, oh we're going to go enforce it ourselves.
We're going to go enforce it ourselves with guns and this type of thing.
- Already have them in the way. - They don't really even have access to them.
Like California, the areas in California where that kind of stuff is prevalent, you can't get your hands on guns.
And if you can, it's highly regulated, and the penalties against you for driving around and doing anything with it are extremely severe. - This is what I don't understand.
What I'm describing is, in essence, hey, if this thing that's already happening gets worse, Like, we already have had instances where the far left has taken over cities with weapons and pointed them at drivers.
And now it's like profoundly worse considering the mass waves that we've seen, and now people are shocked that in like Harford County, which is Eastern Maryland, which don't, you know, that's liberals at common, but in Western Maryland you had this and in West Virginia you've had it.
Yeah, I think that there'll be a social upheaval, but I don't think it's— I don't think whatever the social upheavals will be are going to look like that.
I don't think it's going to look like conservative Americans beginning to get together and take the law into their own hands while the feds don't intervene.
Do you think that most Trump supporters know this?
Yes.
A tiny fraction of Trump supporters, let's call it 50, in various swing states might show up with guns at various polling locations where they're legally allowed to be armed at a certain distance.
Well, I think that they'll observe it a lot closer.
Yes, I do.
But the thing is, is when you're talking about political violence, okay, like the scale that you're talking about, usually that requires... What scale is that?
I'm not talking about large scale militia or violence.
I'm talking about what happens when small pockets of people recognize or believe, I believe to recognize, that the federal government is no longer enforcing the law.
In 2018, The Atlantic ran an article where they interviewed, I think it was 2018, where they interviewed a dozen or so national security experts and asked them about the prospect of a civil war in the United States in the next 10 years, and the estimates were at the low end 30% to the high end 90%.
But they all agreed a substantial likelihood was coming based on what they've seen.
We had that woman from the CIA, forget her name, she said that this is what she did.
She analyzed countries to assess their political stability for the CIA and the U.S.
government, and she sees all the hallmarks happening here, and has determined the United States is in the period known as Civil Strife, which is bleeding Kansas.
It led to the Civil War.
Nobody thought the Civil War was going to happen, even when the Civil War already started.
Fort Sumter Civil War started, Battle of Manassas, they still didn't think they were in a civil war.
So with all of these factors...
2018, I say, wow.
You get a professor from Princeton saying, we are in the Cold Civil War.
It is political, it is legal, it is technological, and it's not gone hot.
So we talk about these stories, we talk about the conflict, we talk about the Summer of Love riots, we talk about people on the far left seized sections of their cities for months and murdered people.
They took over a police department with rifles, started doing ID checkpoints, and I'm like... They burned a police station down on live TV.
Absolutely, more than one, more than one.
And I said, these are, this is civil strife, and unless something happens to contain the violence, civil strife becomes civil war.
And the funny thing that happened was, several, a year later or so, Ryan came on the show, and I feel like it was kind of an ambush, you know, no disrespect, because I like Ryan, but we're talking pre-show, everything's fun.
As soon as the show starts, he abruptly goes, where's the Civil War, Tim?
You told me there was going to be a civil war, and I left kind of feeling worried, but everything seems to be fine.
And I said, on January 6, 1,000 Trump supporters stormed into the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral College vote count.
I was like, I don't understand your question.
Are you saying that we have not seen a dramatic escalation of political violence in this country?
Is the assumption that civil war needs to happen the day after someone questions whether we're on that track?
Since 2018, if you went back to 2018, When I first cited, it might have been 17, I don't know, it's been a long time, that article where they referenced those national security experts, if you went back then, and I made a video where I said, in the next six years, they will file 90 criminal charges against Donald Trump, they will threaten him with prison, they will have arrested his CFO, they will have arrested four of his lawyers, in multiple states they'll be going after him, they will be trying to stop him in every possible way.
Steve Bannon will be in prison, Peter Navarro will be in prison, they'd be like, Slow your horses down, you nutjob!
That's not going to happen.
And I know, because it did happen to me.
When I was in these group chats with tons of D.C.
conservatives and I said, you don't understand, the potentiality for these things escalating may be 10%, but if you're not calculating as to what it would mean if that happens, you're ignoring the problem.
And the response I got from all of these Trump supporters and all of these lawyers was, the federal government would never allow this level of destabilization.
They're not going to criminally charge people.
It's never happened.
It'll never be done.
No one's going to prison.
No one's taking over city streets.
Within two years, Antifa on the far left, with rifles, took over numerous cities.
And I view this as the plugging the ears and going, la la la, never happened, won't happen, can't happen, despite the fact it has literally all happened over the past seven years.
I don't think there is a... I don't think unless you have a population.
That's actually hungry and is unentertained that you're going to see real actionable civil war.
What I think instead is happening is you're pointing to leftists who use Black Lives Matter as a kind of a propaganda tool, told their own police to stand down and let them burn their own cities.
You're making a great point though, because it's exactly like, you're making a great point.
Like in 1861, when the people of Atlanta, in the heart of the Confederacy, came out and said, we're going to fight ourselves and our own neighbors because we're mad at each other.
No, in the American Civil War, and the Spanish Civil War, and in Russia, it's rural, it's conservative, it's rural, and it's urban.
People in Atlanta did not walk out of their houses and go, ooh, I'm just angry at my neighbors.
No, they walked outside and said, we all agree with each other.
What they're doing over there is crazy.
People in the North came out and said, what they're doing down there is crazy.
For you to say, but those are their cities.
That's not going to spill over.
Well, of course it is.
But it's a staunch bifurcation of this country, and you are living under the orders of them.
When they allow Antifa to take over, when they get George Soros DAs, when they get in state government, and when they use the legal authority of New York State to imprison your popular frontrunner president, It doesn't matter if it's in their cities.
They have taken over, they are willing to use violence, they've killed people, and they will exercise state-level authority at a national level to steal power from you and your conservative town.
I think what'll happen is, come November, Biden's probably gonna win, they're probably not gonna ever let Trump in office, and I think you're not gonna see anybody do shit about nothing.
Because I watched as Black Lives Matter went through, after they locked everybody in their home, Right?
They locked everybody in their home.
They shut down the entirety of the United States.
People were enraged about it.
They were told to wear face masks while these guys were walking around burning down cities.
They said, at a political level, we detach from you.
Now, I don't believe that civil wars follow the suit of the United States because this was sovereign states in a union, which is very different from, say, Spain.
When you had cities and rural areas fighting each other, rural people tend to win because they know how to survive.
What I am saying is...
People in red states will reject the authority of California when California, through illegal immigration, bolsters their congressional seats and electoral college vote count.
And then they say, you in West Virginia can't have guns.
And the people in West Virginia say, like hell we can't.
And the reason why I think this?
It's already happened.
Western Maryland declared itself three counties, I'm sorry, 2A sanctuaries against their own state and the federal government.
Numerous states have declared themselves illegal immigration sanctuaries.
Illegal immigrants are bolstering congressional seats through the census and the Electoral College vote count.
And the question is, will West Virginia and Wyoming Bend the knee to California, who is clearly breaking the law and violating the Constitution to enforce California's laws on West Virginia.
I believe the answer is, at some point, no.
And if we don't get a clear answer as to who the President is, it accelerates that to a great degree.
I mean, if it became draconian enough, where the electoral power of California was such that it could impose its will on these neighboring states to such a degree...
To such a degree that they could say you can't own guns?
No.
California can't tell other states they can't own guns.
I get that, you know, at the federal level they would have to follow some type of federal mandate like all the states, but California unilaterally can't tell them what they can or can't do right this second.
Yeah, you know, the thing is, is that was neat to see Texas finally do something, finally do something about their own border and ignore kind of some federal mandates that were going on.
But ultimately, again, I'm just I got to disagree with you.
Here's what I again, I'll put this on record now because it's not that far away and we can look back on this broadcast later.
Come November, chances are good Trump gets in.
I mean, not Trump.
Biden gets in, and Trump supporters don't really do anything.
He concedes, and that's probably how it's going to go.
It would have to be some large segment of the population, 5% or higher, who are doing some type of sedition or considerable treason, what would be considered considerable treason, to the United States government.
That is what I would consider to be some type of actionable civil warfare.
Yeah, I know, but the point of my hypothetical is to say they're not acting in such a way as though these people, while they say you're seditious or they say you're treasonous, whichever one, they're not acting as though they are.
They might say it, but they're not acting like it.
Well, that's the question of whether Donald Trump gets elected.
The issue is, conservatives, overwhelmingly, they're not revolutionaries.
The question is, do we expect, with everything that's already happened, We're at the point now where, since the beginning of this conversation with Donald Trump, they've accused the president of being a traitor.
I mean, just saying- Every single instance of social- Just saying, five guys running around with guns in some small-scale incursion, that's civil- that's not fucking civil war!
Well, usually you get a revolution or you get a civil war.
Civil wars will end with one power structure typically takes over.
The outright destruction is rare.
Someone always asserts authority.
But you get a revolution when no one fights, or you get a civil war when someone decides to fight back.
What we could experience is a communist revolution in the United States.
If the right does nothing, based on everything we've already seen, the rhyming of history is already happening.
Civil strife is now.
The fascinating, I'll do this because we've gone way over, but I'll just give one final point and I'll give you the last word.
Okay.
It is accepted in every major political circle, I don't mean universally by everyone, I mean progressives believe it, conservative academics believe it, foreign academics believe it, the United States fits the entire criteria of civil strife, the precursor to civil war.
Canada released a report where they said, while improbable, we should prepare for the event because it would be highly catastrophic.
In the UK, the Financial Times published an article saying, should we begin, as investors, considering what a civil war in the United States will do to our portfolios?
Numerous high-level nation-states are being advised on what will happen in the event of a U.S.
civil war and why they should prepare in some way, not that they are.
Academics across the board, as I already mentioned, believe we are in this period.
We are facing an election where we already know from 2020 no one will agree on the results.
To then say, after this election, everything will be fine, I believe is absurdity.
Oh, I love this, because it's in the lawsuits against me too.
SPLC's written about it.
Because in like September of, or it might have been August of 2020, I said, if Donald Trump loses, you're going to see dudes showing up in D.C., they're going to lose their mind and storm the White House or something, because they are not going to accept this.
You're right.
It wasn't the White House.
It was the Capitol Building.
And then they wrote, Tim Pool had foreknowledge of January 6th, and here's proof, because he predicted.
No, it's because I read.
And I said, wow, based on everything these people are saying and preparing for, they're going to go to D.C.
In 2018, when I said escalation of political violence is going to reach a massive tipping point, and then in 2020, they firebombed St.
John's Church and the White House grounds, and they took over numerous cities, I predicted that.
So to say, you've been saying for a long time it's around the corner, and every time you say something's gonna happen, it does, but you're still wrong.
So when you do, when you read articles specifically about various historical periods, you realize that we condense it in our history books.
And so when we talk about the rise of Hitler, people tend to forget that it's like, Twenty years through Weimar Germany, leading up to this point where this guy rises to power.
I think you're either being purposefully obtuse, or you cannot comprehend basic facts.
And being intentionally obtuse is to say, I recognize that many different academics have predicted civil war, state that we're in civil strife.
You said political violence is going to escalate.
The Summer of Love did happen.
You said in 2020 that a bunch of angry Trump supporters are going to go to D.C.
and storm the White House.
It wasn't the White House, it was the Capitol building.
You got that one right.
And you've been warning about how these things lead to each other.
And now today, as of today, because the Civil War didn't kick off at any of those time periods, you've been wrong to predict these things are escalating.
The first thing is, When I say, hey look, here's a guy who said this thing is happening.
That's not me predicting it.
That's saying a Princeton professor has made this prediction.
A former CIA official has made this prediction.
Numerous security advisors have made this prediction.
Canada is saying it's improbable.
So it's not necessarily a prediction, but they're concerned about its potentiality.
Investors are now making this prediction.
We are in civil strife.
I'm not making that up, nor am I predicting it.
I'm saying that's an assessment of Leaders in politics, infrastructure, and culture.
Okay, so again, if you say the sky is falling every single day, eventually you get some keys of it right, but I've been hearing this from you for a long, long, long time, I don't think we're here.
Again, I'll repeat it.
I have listened to you long before I was ever inside of any type of political commentary.
I was listening to you talk about coming civil wars, how this is happening.
Again, Tim, I didn't come in prepared to debate with you, I came in prepared to debate with Richard Spencer, but I'm happy to actually come in again and I will bring a list of everything Tim Poole has been wrong about, if you want me to, from real predictions.
But the idea that I would recognize me saying these things might happen and being wrong about it does not mean that I'm, in general, wrong about the bulk of what I'm saying right now.
The issue is, numerous academics' articles have recognized the basis of what civil strife is.
I don't care if we're looking for a national committee of recognizing civil strife.
Civil strife is a period described as political violence, death caused by political violence, and increasing political instability.
We can then assess everything that's going on and determine whether or not we think that's true, and everyone's allowed to have their opinion.
But in 2018, when I said, hey, this political violence is going to get worse, and then it did.
And then I said, man, I think if Trump loses, you're going to get a ton of these people on the right going to D.C., they're going to lose their minds, they're going to be like a storm in the White House or whatever, and then it happened.
And so those are just two big examples where I'm like, X equals Y. I hope that doesn't happen.
Where we're at now is, all of these things are behind us.
These have all happened.
And I say, if you look at history and what these things tend toward, and when you look at what has been said six years ago and what it has tended toward and what has already happened, things don't bode well for us in November.
An important difference is that with the American Civil War in the 1860s, you had two different elites that were willing to fight one another.
So you had a plantation elite and then you had a federal northeast elite.
They became in conflict.
Remember, Robert E. Lee, all these people, maybe Stonewall Jackson is an exception.
These were kind of like the billionaires of the day.
These were massive plantation-owning people who had something to fight for.
I would say that currently, the elites want the system to continue.
They have a lot invested in the system.
You don't have that situation.
Now, I think a better parallel than the 1860s would actually be the collapse of the Soviet Union, where we're headed for a legitimacy crisis.
We have polarization, which I don't think was as present.
There's just this impasse where both sides are going to say no to whatever happens.
Now, Tim might not be right, and it's hard to speculate about how it unfolds.
the Trump people are going to go crazy.
Trump could win the Biden people are going to go crazy.
There's just this impasse where both sides are going to say no to whatever happens.
Now, Tim might not be right.
And it's hard to speculate about how it unfolds.
I think it's unreasonable to demand that someone speculate about how it unfolds.
But I think he's fundamentally correct in the sense that the likelihood of delegitimization and general social strife and breakdown is remarkably high.
And to that extent, I agree with him.
I think you're getting at something, even if you're, like, might be wrong on the details.
Well, so the way we've literally described it is the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of the oligarchs.
When confidence in the central system breaks, you get in, and this was a couple weeks ago we were talking about this, Arizona has a meat processing plant that's owned by, let's, I don't want to use any specific examples, let's say Meat Processing, Meat Plant, that's the name of the company.
They've got 17 plants all across the country.
Social disorder.
Biden wins, confusion unfolds, and then you get like with Texas's assertion over the river against the federal government.
Let's say something like that happens pertaining to trade in some way.
I don't know how it escalates.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in Ukraine, Guy shows up to a factory with a gun and two of his buddies.
And he says, who's in charge?
They say, this guy.
He says, bring him over here.
He says, who delivers your goods?
And he goes, we usually get our goods delivered from this time to this time.
Who do you report to?
I don't know anymore because it's all broken down.
They're not answering the phone.
Okay, you report to me now.
I'm gonna make sure that all the goods your factory needs get in.
I'm gonna make sure that all your men get paid and you guys eat.
Sound good?
And they go, sounds good.
And he goes, okay, I'm the boss now.
You make sure everybody knows.
That's how the oligarchs got their power.
When things like that escalate in the United States is what I am discussing.
What I'm saying right now with a unknown in the election A federal-level lawsuit, which we've already seen now escalating to its... You know what?
I'll put it this way, as I always do every time I talk about it.
For all you know, Joe Biden walks up to Trump, shakes his hand, they smile, and they hug, they cry, and they say, we cannot let this country fall apart.
It's time to team up and restore the American values, and everyone cheers, and then we're all happy with it.
Or, you have Oklahoma banning abortion in every instance, and you have Colorado legalizing up to the point of birth, and potentially beyond.
This moral impasse cannot sustain itself next to each other.
With more and more issues like that happening, we run into a Soviet Union-style collapse.
Now, the problem that arises in that, with the Soviet Union, you know, Ukraine, of course, is massive farmland, which is needed.
Russia was very upset.
Putin, obviously, was very upset.
He wants to restore this.
But the issue is the geographics of the United States are very different, especially how the states are divided.
They're not built upon natural barriers in the same way in the West as they were in a lot of Europe.
Mountains separating certain territories, certainly true in the United States.
But for instance, what is Las Vegas?
Las Vegas is a production of modernity.
It cannot survive outside of national trade.
People can't live there.
Well, what do those people do?
That's an interesting question to what happens when you're going to get social breakdown.
Arizona has already tried to take Great Lakes water.
The only reason they can't is that the Great Lakes region has a treaty with Canada, with Ontario, because Ontario borders the Great Lakes.
Due to this international treaty, It supersedes the authority the federal government have to actually intervene on how other states can take water from the Great Lakes.
Arizona doesn't have water.
They need the Colorado River.
Southern California does as well.
If we see any kind of destabilization, even 20% of what the Soviet Union went through, you are going to have a major crisis in the Southwest when California says, it's our water, but upstream they can't control it.
They have no access to it.
So what?
Does California send a delegation to Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado to negotiate the rights after the federal government stops enforcing things?
Or maybe Arizona says no?
What happens if one state says, we've seen a major influx of people from Las Vegas because they have no food into our state.
We need to fill up a basin so we can supply water to these people.
California says that construction would disrupt SoCal.
We got 13 million people.
You can't do that.
And they say, well, we got 10 million.
What are we supposed to do?
There's treaties, perhaps, but, you know, we didn't see, like, great warring factions between the Soviets, but you did get Chechnya, you did get Georgia— There was huge warring factions between the Soviets.
I just—no, but I just mean, like— It didn't break out into World War III.
It didn't break out into, like, the nukes weren't firing at each other.
You will get negotiations and trade, but my concern is if confidence breaks in the federal government because people can't figure out what happened for the second time around, and if the escalation is that Trump supporters refuse to accept a Biden presidency, like we've already seen with Texas rejecting federal authority on the border, California on drugs, I think Tennessee and West Virginia and Maryland on guns, and Virginia, then
If that trend continues, which I don't see why it wouldn't, I'd love to understand why it wouldn't, you end up with a Soviet-style collapse, you'll end up with warring factions, and the issue I see in the United States that I don't think would be as similar as Soviet Union is hyperpolarization, which didn't necessarily exist, and for sure Portland is Portland, but Eastern Oregon is very, very much not happy and has actually voted to secede from the state already.
Thirteen counties, I believe, have voted to secede from Oregon.
I don't see how those people, in the event of breaking of confidence in the federal government, just say, we resign ourselves to our fate of being ruled by far-left degenerates who have taken by force the capital of our urban centers.
This kind of resides around the idea that The feds stop enforcement, or that the feds stop participating, or that the feds stop with the power dynamic of the people who are in charge of these states, and don't have the power to cut off federal funding, and don't have the power of the bribe, and don't have any of these things, and I think we're a long way away from that.
So we will wrap up because we did go way way over, but I guess my final point is, and again I will give you the last word, is I've never argued it was soon.
Soon is a relative term, which could be, we are in the Weimar Germany period and by 2040, with the collapse of social security, this is when it really breaks down.
Everything we've seen so far is not indicative of peaceful goings-on.
unidentified
One of the things that we regularly say around here, or at least I do, and it's kind of caught on with some people is, "I just don't see the off-ramp." Right?
So maybe it's not in the next five years, maybe it's not in the next ten years, but I don't see the solution to the problems that we have, or at least I don't see people people gravitating to what seemed to be the solutions.
And honestly, I think the solutions are against stuff like we talk about focusing on family and trying to hold that as the centerpiece of society.
And I don't see anybody doing it.
And anytime anyone does, they straight up get attacked by the left.
Feminists are all over you, you get attacked as some kind of misogynist just for saying the family is good.
Look what they did to the Kansas City kicker just because he said that he, you know, he espoused his religious beliefs and the left was apoplectic.
So it's not that it's going to happen here, now, then, or whatever.
The first discussions of civil war in the United States was actually in the 1820s.
The concern over slavery was bubbling up at that point, and numerous political compromises had been made that kept people kind of calm.
And it reached ahead in 1861.
Bleeding Kansas, seven years before that, for, I think it's like 15 years before the Civil War, people were murdering each other over the issue of slavery.
John Brown had walked up to a guy and blasted him in the face, just killed him outright for being a slave owner.
That was before the Civil War had happened.
And the last thing I'll say, The Battle of Fort Sumter, where only one guy died, it was only by accident, is historically recognized as the start of the American Civil War, and even though it had started, people of the United States did not believe civil war was happening, and they went to picnic at the first Battle of Bull Run, and they watched people get their heads blown off, and it was bedlam.
Andrew, if you want to give your point and take the final word and then shout anything out as we wrap up.
So I will say that the United States also prepared for a contingency with a massive war to our neighbor to the North, Canada, which we were assured.
I mean, they were positive that there was going to be a conflict with Canada and that they were going to have to invade Canada and that Canada was going to invade the United States.
And they had massive military contingencies for this.
Do I see that there could be a solution, an off-ramping solution, because of the birth rate crisis?
I do.
I think that that's a natural off-ramp.
If secularist loser degenerates can't reproduce and aren't reproducing, That bodes pretty well for the future.
I'm not so sure that people with full stomachs are going to be doing massive, widespread political activism to the point where they're actually harming people in the street.
I don't think we're to that point yet, and I don't think the feds are going to back off at all when it comes to federal enforcement, if anything.
I just don't... I don't see that happening.
Not even in my lifetime do I see that happening.
And then, you know, further from there, shout out to The Crucible.
That is my channel.
It's the fastest growing debate channel on the internet, to my knowledge.
I appreciate the spirit of debate with you, Tim, and with you, Richard Spencer.
I love how Phil has the most normal outro and the most normal thing to say of everything we've talked about.
unidentified
I mean, look, the politics stuff is important, but the point of all this, in my opinion, is to make America the America that we want to have, where we can actually have A society that does work together, that is not dysfunctional, that is not trying to rip itself apart.
And to do that, I think we have to be able to put politics aside for entertainment, and that's why I don't put politics into music too often.
