Tim Pool joins Scott Greer & Rudyard Lynch to discuss the parallels between now & historic events that have led to Civil War. Scott Greer is a journalist, author, and commentator known for his conservative views on politics and culture, often discussing issues related to immigration, identity, and free speech. Rudyard Lynch, also known as Whatifalthist, is a YouTuber and content creator who focuses on history and geopolitics, exploring alternative historical scenarios and the impact of historical events on the modern world. Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guests: Scott Greer @@ScottMGreer (X) Rudyard Lynch @WhatifAltHist Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
This is an article that came out from the Washington Examiner about how this survival camp network is calling in its members, those who are in areas of high volatility, to come to the camp for the week of the election because things may get absolutely crazy.
Right now, in the national aggregate polling, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are tied.
I don't think that means this country is actually divided.
I think if Kamala Harris is up three to five points, it might show a division.
I think a tie actually indicates with Democrat bias and the margin of error that Trump is probably winning.
But it's still you don't need a 50 50 split for there for there to be a civil war or major conflict.
In fact, it could be even as small as only a couple percentage points of people who are willing to get violent.
And that's pretty worrisome.
But we're going to talk about all of it.
We've got a couple of great guests today on the culture warm.
We got Rudyard Lynch back.
unidentified
Thank you so much for having me, especially so soon.
As I said before, I am a 23-year-old with no credentials who bets against God.
And I run the YouTube channel What If Altist, which talks about history, anthropology, philosophy, that sort of thing.
And we have close to 700,000 subscribers and...
The thing I'm most known for is my prediction of a thousand deaths by April, where I think America will have a civil war or revolution within the next year.
Well, who's doing the killing and who's doing the dying?
That would be my question, is who are the thousand people being killed and who's killing them?
Is it the government killing them?
Is it who's rising up?
Is it the left or the right?
I don't think there is going to be that type of violence, even if you compare this to some, like, 2020.
We had a whole summer of unrest where...
Every city in the country, people were burning down buildings, cops nowhere to be found.
There's a high level of violence and insecurity and turmoil, all dealing with COVID lockdowns, BLM, everything going along with that.
People were really worked up in 2020.
If you see it now in 2024...
Either from the right, Trump has been indicted and convicted with not that many protests.
People are still supporting him, but they don't feel like taking it to the streets.
And it's the same with the left.
The left doesn't have the type of aggressive, violent demonstrations that they were having in 2020 or even during the Trump years.
So I don't really see the thousand deaths happening unless the economy completely craters.
It's something worse than the Great Recession.
Even if it's a very close election, I don't think we're going to see Stop the Steel again.
It might be Stop the Steel 2, the direct-to-video version.
But even then, I don't know what that would look like.
With the left, I don't even think there was going to be that large of the women's marches.
They don't seem as activated right now.
They're even more resigned that Trump is going to win.
There's this awareness that there's a good chance he's going to win.
I think even among a lot of liberals, their gut instinct is saying Trump's going to win.
Well, in 2016, they were so outraged and took to the streets because they're like, there's no way this could have ever happened.
And then it happened and they were they lost their minds.
So but you may explain who who's doing the killing and who's doing the dying here.
And that might explain the situation.
unidentified
It's hard for me to know where to start because the lore I've established around this is so extensive.
I've made like six hours of content just on the one Civil War topic.
I operate off probabilistic assessments.
And so if you look at, let's say, dominoes or cards or anything or poker, anything like that, you have probabilistic assessments up to a certain range.
And then you don't know the individual events.
And that's how I feel about Civil War, where – It's one of those things where I know that something is going to happen and I'm not entirely clear what exact form it will take and it's highly dependent upon the individual context.
I'm going to use World War I as an example.
There were about 15 different places where World War I nearly started before World War I. It was a war that – building up for decades and you happened to get the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and – That set up World War I in a way that didn't have to happen where Britain might not have been involved in the war.
America might not have been involved.
Hell, there's plenty of timelines where Austria and France were allies against Germany and Russia.
So that's how I feel about this where I look at the incentive.
I think the right and the left have to have a war.
And on the last show I was on here, we talked about – But you mean at like a philosophical level, the divergence between the left and the right precipitates some kind of conflict?
You said they have to have some kind of war.
unidentified
What I meant by that is that the forces of history have built up to the level where it's the only way to solve the equation.
Where we're at the point where no other – we don't have any other mechanism to solve the underlying issues going on except war because you look at – I think there's like 10 issues killing America between wages being too low, the healthcare system, aging.
There's a bunch of these and Congress isn't going to solve them.
And so issues will gradually pile up until you have a war.
And I've assessed – I used to have a wider timeframe, but I'm making the bet that it's going to start this year for a variety of reasons, and I'm open to being wrong.
I make these bets so you know I'm not just a charlatan making stuff up, but I think it's going to start this year.
When I talked to Eric Prince about countries that have collapsed, and I said, I asked him, you know, in your experience with countries that have been these states of turmoil, revolution, civil war, what do you see happening in the United States?
He said, the one thing he can tell me is that no one sees it coming.
Everybody he's worked with has been in these countries.
One day, everything's normal.
The next day, the Internet doesn't work.
The power is out and people are fighting.
So how do you actually know when that flashpoint is going to be?
Maybe it is November 6th.
I wonder.
You know, we're looking at the national polls.
And actually, let me pull these up for you real quick.
So this is the national aggregate from yesterday.
And we covered this with Kamala Harris in aggregate up nationally 0.2, which is a statistical tie.
As of today, RealClearPolling has a literal tie between Harris and Trump by aggregating all of the existing polls over the past two weeks.
A tie would indicate a Trump victory because the polls have historically favored Democrats by about three to five points and in the battleground states four to seven.
And I'm going back to 2016.
Those are not my numbers.
That is not my opinion.
That is literally what happened.
And if we extrapolate that and apply to today, Donald Trump may actually win the popular vote by a minimum of three points.
Who knows?
Who knows?
Polls change and things change.
It's just we're looking at the past to try and predict the future.
What happens?
You know, everybody's predicting we're not going to know the results until 13 days later or 10 days later because of mail in voting.
But what if Trump wins so handily in early voting and absentee voting that on Election Day, the big networks say there is no point in waiting any longer for the existing mail-in votes.
We know how many there are, and they will not change the outcome.
Could that, on November 6, trigger a leftist reaction?
You don't...
Let me try and describe it like this.
If I were to say right now that tomorrow there will be a 1,000-acre fire wiping out large portions of Appalachia, you'd be like, what?
Is that correct?
Yeah, a guy may be driving a truck with a chain dangling off the back, and he makes a sharp turn, whips, snaps the ground, igniting some tinder, and that tiny little fire that no one saw coming explodes into a wildfire where fire is spreading 70 miles an hour across the top of these trees.
That is a potentiality, but does that mean it's a high probability?
I don't think there's a high probability of wildfires starting, but when they do, how do you stop them?
And I suppose what I'm trying to say is, to say there's going to be this big, grandiose eruption of fire all across California, people are going to be like, well, that's a doomsday scenario.
Yeah, but it could really just start from someone flicking a cigarette.
unidentified
Yes.
The calculation I make, and this is one of the weird logical issues in our society, is that a civil war will happen when the civil war is the rational calculation for the players involved.
And this is one of the horrible things we don't want to realize, but war is normally a completely rational calculation.
I can probabilistically assess that my side will beat your side.
We can take your stuff.
And I believe the 2024 election is going to set things off because for both sides, they've entered into a position of fundamental weakness where they have an incentive to start a war because it's safer rather than continuing with the peace because peace is often more dangerous than war.
And so for the right and the left, they've pushed their hands too far and now they need to pull their hands back because they can't survive as things go on.
For the right, it's the money printing and the immigration.
And those are two things that people have no comprehension how big they are.
For money printing, we've added $900 billion to the deficit just since July.
And we don't understand how big $900 billion.
Yeah, yeah.
And that's bigger than a lot of countries in the world.
I'm sure someone can look up in the comments and say that's the economy of like, I don't know, some European country.
And so that's the first thing.
It took us all of American history to reach the amount of debt we had in 2014, and we've doubled it in the decades since.
And the money printing under Biden, it can't go on.
It's just killing the economy.
And I don't believe the official numbers.
I think they're being doctored.
I think things are way worse.
And And so money printing is one.
Another four years of Biden will destroy society.
And then immigration.
We've had 15 million illegal immigrants during the Biden administration.
That's adding a Pennsylvania to the country.
And it's a Pennsylvania overnight without the centuries it took to build up the state.
And so – Four years Biden, 15 million more illegal immigrants, and Elon Musk has done a good job talking about this.
I think I really admire Elon Musk's latest stand.
And basically, if the Democrats can keep flooding illegals in, they can win a bunch of states if the illegals can vote.
However, if you actually calculate the total illegal immigrant population of California, they may have as many as 10 or 13 extra illegal votes.
Let me clarify this.
So if you have a district, a congressional district, which is 775,000 people, but 200,000 are non-citizens.
They can't vote, but they do give that seat.
You would do the math.
Democrats can then invite in non-citizens, spread them out in such a way that they create extra congressional districts.
So this is what's funny about the national popular vote and the national popular vote initiatives.
It's not completely true.
We saw Adam Kinzinger, everyone's roasting him because he said we should get rid of electoral college and go to a popular vote, but a popular vote may actually favor Republicans.
California's got 10 million Republicans, many of whom are demoralized and feel like, I think they end up getting about 6 million votes or whatever.
If it was a national popular vote, you may see blue state Republicans voting and it could shift things in a way people don't predict.
So right now, the numbers are that there are more blue state Republicans than there are red state Democrats.
Red states tend to be sparsely populated.
There's not that many Democrats in the red states relative to how many Republicans are in blue states.
If you go national popular vote and those Republicans vote, combined with the rural states, it may turn this country deep red.
But anyway, I digress.
So when we look at the Electoral College, you have to factor in that Democrats likely are getting five extra Electoral College votes by having non-citizens spread out through their states, which is why Chicago is getting flooded, New York is getting flooded, California is getting flooded.
It's a long game because the census is every 10 years.
But you also have to consider at the federal congressional level— This means that Democrats have extra members of Congress voting.
So when you say, Rudyard, that the civil war will start when it becomes the rational decision of either side, we are – I would agree we're at a point where it is terrifying, but you may actually see people make that argument that has become rational for them to engage in some kind of – and people – I want to make sure I clarify this when I say civil war.
It's not necessarily going to be – It is not a standing army, you know, ordering their troops to go march on another state.
That's ridiculous.
This is people who watch too many movies.
It could literally just be a state suing another state at the Supreme Court saying, invalidate those votes.
Because these are built upon non-citizens who are influencing our government.
Then you get a federal law.
Let's say a federal law passes narrow margins and then you get a few red states arguing that due to the inclusion of non-citizens in the congressional apportionment, Democrats by winning by one vote in Congress to pass a law that say would would encroach on gun rights or free speech rights violating the Constitution.
And then a Biden or Harris signs the bill.
They say, no, we refuse to enforce this under this ruling.
It goes to the Supreme Court, which, of course, is conservative.
They rule in favor of the of the red state.
The Democrats then say something like, you see, this is Trump stacked court and they're now overturning Congress and the president.
We can't allow this.
And you get two sides arguing that they are morally justified in their use of force to whatever degree that is.
And then it could be starting very simply.
Texas says we will not abide by this national restriction or whatever.
Texas, as we already saw with illegal immigration, then starts making moves to remove illegal immigrants.
Let's say the issue is illegal immigration.
Texas was already in conflict with the federal government on the border setting up razor wire and barring the feds from jurisdiction they claimed they had a right to.
This is how things like this could start, where it's two cars speeding towards each other and neither side has any means of resolving this.
With a situation like Texas, which was scary, and this is only in the past year, Alaska is talking about sending down troops to aid the feds.
Then you had a handful of states, even Florida, sending National Guard and State Guard to go defend Texas in Texas assertion of right over their border.
You had the Supreme Court involved.
When it comes to something like this, we are looking at dry tinder on the forest floor, and then you get CBP and federal agents demanding to be given access to a border they claim jurisdiction over, while the state is saying no, and we're laying razor wire.
concertina wire, and then all it takes is one accident.
Somebody, not even flicking a cigarette, but a chain.
This is actually a story that started one of the fires.
A guy apparently had a chain hanging from the back of his pickup truck, and as he was dragging it, it was bouncing off the ground and sparking, and it lit tinder.
There was no intention.
So let's say something happens where it's late at night, it's two in the morning, and the feds say, look, this is our jurisdiction, we're going to do a patrol.
State Guard or National Guard are down there and they see some guys walking and they're wearing polos and khakis or something.
They don't know that they're supposed to be there.
They're not in direct communication.
Something happens and a bang goes off.
Maybe it's a Mexican army or a cartel member opens fire or something.
These guys don't know what's happening, so they draw their weapons.
Both sides see two groups drawing weapons on each other with guns going off.
They take cover.
Somebody shoots.
It could perhaps even be a cartel member intentionally trying to spark conflict, but a National Guard member or a federal officer gets shot and killed.
Then a guy who that's his best friend who's been working with for 10 years sees it happen and just starts opening fire.
And this is this is where you get something nobody expects.
It spirals out of control.
Texas says federal agents open fire on our guards and the feds say they shot my friend.
They were shooting at us.
Does that resolve simply with, everybody calm down, we don't want to go this route, or is it an escalation of tensions where they say, the feds come in and say, we're going to start arresting National Guard, everyone involved, you turn their names over now.
The state says, we will not turn over the name of our guardsmen who are legally authorized to use these weapons when you were shooting at us.
The state then says we demand the feds withdraw and you turn over the men who shot our guys both say no.
Do they back away?
We have no idea.
We have no idea.
Now, I would say that seems like a one in a million or a one in a hundred million.
Who knows?
But you can imagine a scenario like that being dangerously close when the only difference in that story is.
We have no idea.
And what literally happened is that the feds ultimately said, we're going to back down, everyone's going to chill out.
But imagine if an accident occurred, the flicking of a cigarette, the sparking of a chain, that wildfire grows rapidly and you can't control it.
How about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand?
One guy dying, igniting World War I. But I would say they would calm down in that situation.
Even when it looked at the situation with Texas last year with the border, or I think it was even earlier this year, with the wire fence, the Supreme Court didn't order Texas to remove it.
It simply said the feds now had the power to remove it.
And I think that Texas made it annoying to remove it, but they were able to remove it eventually.
So Texas would not go up to that level to spark lethal violence.
And even when they send State Guard down there and National Guard and state law enforcement, they're told you can't really use your weapons.
And even in the situation at the night, but they're not going...
First off, I don't even think of nighttime patrols that are doing that many nighttime patrols.
In any case, if that situation happened, the state would take most of the blame, even nationally.
That which would be bad for Texas.
And I would support Texas in this regard.
But if Trump is the winner, we no longer have to worry about this situation because Texas is going to back federal immigration enforcement with Trump being the person running it.
The first thing I want to respond to that with is...
No one thought the first Civil War was going to happen.
Fort Sumter wasn't even considered the start of the Civil War.
The Battle of Fort Sumter, only one person died.
It was an accident.
After that battle happened, the history books have declared the Civil War hath begun.
Except the people of the United States still didn't believe it.
And so when it came to the first Battle of Bull Run, they were picnicking.
And they're like, there's no Civil War.
Nothing's going to happen.
And then there was a massacre with, like, there's this famous drawing of the mayor frantically running.
It's a drawing because there's no photos.
And Then people realized we are in a—and in fact, even at that point, they still didn't call it the Civil War.
It wasn't until a couple of years later it started being called the Civil War.
It was called a rebellion or war between states or something like this.
So in the instance of something happening in Texas— It may be an accident that no one wants to take responsibility for.
But even then, if there's one accidental death, the history books may say that was the moment things ignited, even if we here in the weeds don't see it as such.
But anyway, I digress.
We'll understand another scenario.
Let's say you're completely correct.
California.
Donald Trump is going to implement massive immigration reforms and deportations.
He says he wants to use local police and military now.
When I asked him, he said local police.
Now he's saying we would use military to a certain degree.
What do you think California does if Donald Trump sends in federal authorities to start going door to door, not just ICE, but expanding ICE and ordering local police and sheriffs and National Guard?
I think there's a possibility that it starts here.
Trump says we're deporting the illegal immigrants.
They're not allowed to be here.
They need to be here legally.
And so he sends an ICE. California blocks him.
Trump says, we need the law of the federal government to be enforced.
And as such, I am invoking my right to direct the National Guard of California, which the law states, if the law is the federal law states that if law is not being enforced, the federal government can assume command of the National Guard to enforce the law.
So then he says to the California National Guard, you will go to these homes.
You will take these illegal immigrants and load them into buses, get them on planes and send them back to their home countries and processing centers.
What if California says no?
And then California, the governor, says to the National Guard, do not obey those orders from the federal government.
You are California National Guard.
You will not obey Donald Trump's fascist Nazi takeover.
And South Carolina was no longer in the U.S. Or it declared it was no longer in the U.S. Not according to the Union.
But it had declared itself, and it was another entity firing on the federal government, on the U.S. According to the Union and the Federal Troops, it was a state-level entity attacking the federal authorities as one country.
But it had already seceded.
North Carolina already saw itself as a separate country.
They thought that war, when the South started seceding, there was this desire to see what would happen.
And they were hoping that the South would come back to its senses, that even the seceded states, that they would make these compromises, and that they would come back and avoid war.
But once Fort Scepter happened, and both sides are raising armies, and then sending them to Manassas— We're not raising armies.
I'm pretty sure that happens after Fort Sumter, but that could have also been.
But they were utilizing all – both of these – both sides were utilizing the state militias and what troops they could find and deploying them out in the battlefield.
It's not like they're just firing blanks at each other or- We have a tremendous amount of primary sources from this time period, and Tim is right, where people didn't think the war was happening until way past the point they were already in it.
And it was by the end of 1861, several people had died and everyone knew that this was a war.
unidentified
So if you look at the Democrat platform and then you look at the various political politicians, the various positions the politicians had, there was tremendous coping about the war until pretty far in where people would say, oh my God, the South's going to back down.
It's all the things you just said, the The South's just doing this for attention.
The South, this isn't a real conflict.
This is just a constitutional crisis.
And then it kept spiraling and spiraling and spiraling.
But Fort Sumter was the break that's saying, oh, shit, this is— I'm unclear how this relates to the point we're trying to convey, though.
unidentified
I was going to say that I agreed with Tim's point that these— You have gasoline, and then there's a match, and it's unclear what the match is going to be, but there always has to be a match.
But even on that, I mean we did with the – Conflict between federal and state authority, we did have that in the 50s and 60s over integration and the federal authority won out.
And even the states could call upon mobs of violent young men to side with them, even in the case of Ole Miss in 62 when they were trying to integrate it.
And at Little Rock, they had not just the National Guard and state police, they also had these mobs.
And I don't think California would have the type of...
Imposing mobs they had in Ole Miss and Little Rock aren't going to be the middle-aged cat ladies who are going to come out to prevent people from enforcing a federal immigration law.
So we'll pause here, and I'll say it's interesting to entertain the similarities between 1860— And technically, you'd go back through Bleeding Kansas, and you'd even go back to 1820 when they were already discussing civil war.
In fact, there was already contention during the sign of the Declaration of Independence over slavery.
You look at that, and what you have is sovereign states with a weak federal union, and when they decided the federal union was going to go up against the states, what was stronger?
That is not typical of any civil war ever.
That is, the United States as sovereign states, effectively in a large-scale war, which is kind of more like Europe than anything else.
If you take a look at Spain or Russia, a tiny, tiny fraction in key areas uses violence to seize control from a rather apathetic general population that doesn't want to be involved.
And so what we see here is it may not be...
It may be that it's our bias of 1861 that we say maybe the feds will come into Texas.
Maybe Trump will try and enforce a mass immigration thing.
We saw this in 2020 when Democrats ran a war game where they actually entertained West Coast states seceding from the Union.
If Donald Trump were to have won in 2020, that was Boston Globe reporting.
They literally got – like John Podesta was hanging out with these other big uniparty neolibs and neocons being like, OK, if Trump wins, we're going to need Oregon, Washington, California to secede from the union unless Donald Trump guarantees constitutional reforms and things like this.
So that conversation was happening, and it's kind of crazy, but I think it's largely due to our biases that we think that's how things would play out.
I think it's entirely possible that what we end up seeing is more like Chaz Chop level times 10 times 100.
So we actually had a period in this country where for a few months in the Pacific Northwest, there were autonomous zones set up to the point where they had armed guards.
They had taken over a police department, kicked out the local police force, surrounded that, and were in control for a couple of months and actually murdered people, actually killed people.
Then you have the Atlanta Autonomous Zone.
Same thing.
They torched the Wendy's, took it over.
People were killed there.
There were shootings.
I know the Wendy's Autonomous Zone is – but, you know, it's funny.
It seems crazy to us, but this would be like saying – I don't know.
People may get offended by this, but the Alamo, right?
A singular building that's seeming, you know, is taken over.
Where George Floyd Square was occupied to the point where there was a guy on a rooftop with a rifle that people had reported seeing all the time, and there was nothing stopping any of these people from taking this territory.
Now, we may look—maybe nothing happens.
You know, fair point on the civil rights movement.
Many people thought this could lead to a second civil war.
There's also, I think it was, was it 1876, where they thought the civil war was going to erupt again.
They had the corrupt bargain.
It didn't happen.
We said, guys, we're not going to let it get that far.
But today, what I think is different is we have militant extremist factions that have already taken over portions of cities.
Maybe it doesn't go anywhere.
Or maybe after Trump wins, they flood these cities.
If you get a state like look when they say when the vice president gives a press conference where she says Donald Trump is a fascist and his Hitler, the message being sent that a lot of Republicans think is she's saying be violent or something like that.
I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I think she's saying you as an individual must take individual action to stop Donald Trump and Republicans from gaining power in any way you can.
Which means I am not concerned about a Democrat cabal or the deep state funneling in 10 million fake ballots in the middle of the night.
That's stupid.
What I'm concerned with is 10,000 random regular people working polling locations, looking left and looking right, then crumbling up a Trump vote and throwing it in the garbage and being like, oops!
But that happens 10,000 times.
That could actually shift an election in one of these key swing states.
And there's nothing you can do because one individual tossing a handful of ballots is oopsie daisies.
But it happening 10,000 times is an irreconcilable conflict.
Something like that could happen.
And then you need only the progressive left, which makes up a small, I think, 8 to 10 percent of the Democratic Party are the estimates.
And they hate Israel.
And they're going to be looking at a choice between pro-Israel and pro-Israel.
They might say, Donald Trump, okay, that's it.
We're out.
We're autonomous zoning.
And then you get urban-level conflict, which is a civil strife period, perhaps.
Like, you were saying, Rudyard, that there could be bombs going off in Chicago.
How do we get to 1,000 dead by April?
Me, I kind of feel like that might be a little over the top.
We're at the point where we have enough tinder to spark the war in the immediate, but I could be totally wrong.
I think maybe it's just normalcy bias or optimism bias where I'm like, I think there's got to be periods of, there's got to, you know, we had a caning in the Senate and it wasn't even immediately after that that people were fighting.
We had seven years of bleeding Kansas.
This could ignite the bleeding Kansas phase, I suppose.
That being said, before Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, seven states seceded from the union.
It may just be the fact that this election is so contentious, groups instantly rise up saying, we will not accept this, and you immediately move into that pre-Civil War phase.
unidentified
I can explain the exact context for why I think it's going to happen now, but I'll need to talk for a little bit because it's multiple points.
So the first one is what I described before, that the Republicans can't handle another four years of Biden because inflation and immigration.
The Democrats in the reverse, and this is one of the big things that got me onto thinking that we're going to have a war, is the left has burned through all of their social capital and they have no backup plan.
This is one of the things I've been studying for years and it's bizarre.
You look at the leftist-owned organizations like Disney, like California, like – I don't know, half a dozen other things in media.
And the problem is they're controlled by insane DEI hire radicals.
The fact, just as an example, the fact that Boeing is operating off DEI hires is an example to me that things are about to go to head.
Where, because...
If the left was purely cynical, they'd think, oh, the industries like DEI and the medical industry will keep the competent white guys in there.
But no, they genuinely believe this stuff, so it will cause social breakdown.
So the Republicans have that issue.
The Democrats are in a problem where they've cut out all dissenters, and at the same time, their institutions are dead and can't survive.
So the left will want to start a war as a way to get out of their own internal – I think?
The thing that I can't overstate on every single one of these podcasts is how completely miserable the average American is economically, socially, on a variety of different metrics.
And about 20% of Americans are doing better.
80% are doing vastly worse.
And I don't think the average American can sustain another four years of this.
And it's going to keep piling up and there's not going to be a solution until there is a war because the problems that make life so hard for the average American are – I'm going to make a video how boomer bureaucracies are destroying America because I think the most dangerous thing to America in the West is the creation of these boomer bureaucracies that just consume everything as they continue to try to support the boomers without the population structure they were invented with.
And so you have the right and the left in positions of desperation.
You have the average American in positions of desperation.
And also, we just have no cards left as a society.
We've burned—so— Let's say you had a horrible breakup and you're drinking to get over the breakup and then you become an alcoholic.
That's what we are.
Every single short-term strategy we would have done, whether money printing, whether burning old social...
Because we don't make new movies.
We don't make new music.
We've burned through all of our old social capital and now there's no good new movies or music.
So we've burned through all of the cards we would use to delay this.
And I frankly think...
Over the period we're talking about right now, so many Americans have been pushed into poverty and bankruptcy that they're just going to say YOLO and that YOLO and I want there to be a civil war because that way there's going to be a debt jubilee.
Well, so I asked our good AI friend to make the average – make a graph showing the average American savings over the past 10 years adjusted for inflation – And you can see that we are now below 2014 levels as of today.
But what's interesting to me is not that it's comparable to 2014.
It's the massive drop-off from 2020 to 2023 existing data.
So it's interesting because, okay, well, we're only as bad as we were in 2014, right?
But imagine how someone feels, and feelings matter more than what is.
unidentified
The thing that doesn't cover is cost of living, where cost of living has skyrocketed since 2014 to an insane degree.
Housing, food, and the last time I was on this show, I was talking about the great wave and the economic patterns used to predict conflicts like this.
And it's high resource price, high food price, high real estate, economic bull runs, massive government budget that keeps surging.
And what I've consistently found is that our budget is ridiculous.
We're never going to repay it.
it, we have to come to terms with the fact that America will end up becoming a bankrupt country.
And so it's only a matter of time before we default on the debt.
And there's no way to default on the debt without a political crisis.
And this is how most of those previous historic crises took place, because you have to get rid of the debt.
And the way you get rid of the debt is by changing the government.
So the new government's not responsible for the old government.
So you can see the average cost of living has gone from 2014 about $50,000 a year to around it looks like $65,000 a year while the average savings has been declining.
So this is actually an interesting point.
Where this goes or how this changes, I don't know, but it does show that at least in the past decade, people have not been accumulating savings.
That is to say that it's like watching, you know, your cell phone is plugged in and you're using it, and it is charging but still dying because you're using more.
In 2014, the income was just about, what, we're looking at $13,000 above the cost of living, meaning on average, people were saving or had a certain degree of disposable income.
We're at the point now where people are struggling to get by.
There's no disposable income.
On average, this country is paycheck to paycheck.
I can give you a real simple human equation.
If the cost of water ever exceeds the wages earned, your society – people – it's civil war, period.
And this is not a real – it's not a real-world metric.
What I'm saying is – You see those videos we were talking about a couple weeks ago where there's like a lion and a gazelle and they're both drinking from the watering hole and they're like, no, no, we're not fighting here.
Because the lions are like, everybody's got to have water.
And the alligators, oh, is it crocodiles they got down there, not alligators?
Everybody cheers and says maybe Trump will turn things around and they're willing to wait for a year, file for government benefits or whatever in the meantime and see if things turn around.
It's possible that Trump turns things around to such a degree that we alleviate any serious crisis.
unidentified
This is the reality we live with now.
And it's funny that I've had to, I've gone on a lot of podcast talk of the civil war.
And this is one of those things I really have to hammer into most podcast hosts.
And they just don't get it where most Americans, 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck now.
40% of Americans have less than $400 in savings.
70% have less than $1,000 of savings.
And it's something people are completely disconnected to.
But the average American can't and make it another four years because there's no countervening force to this.
And when you look at the world, you'll see a measure and you think, what's the pressure against that?
The pressure against that can often equalize it or push it back.
There's no force in America that's actively pushing against that trend.
There's no...
Because AI is the big advance I see recently, and AI is not going to help normal Americans.
Because if I wanted to eat to live and have gas to drive to work, I was using my credit cards.
But then when my paycheck would come in, I'd be like, okay, shoes.
Like I have one pair of shoes and they're fried.
If I want to buy a pair of shoes, if I want to pay my car insurance, if I want to get my registration, all the things I got to do, my paycheck is down to almost nothing, but I have to eat.
And so then it looks like gas is coming on the credit card.
Then I have to pay the minimum balance on the credit card, but then the balance goes up.
Eventually, after six, seven months, I worked there for two years, it got to a point where I said...
I'm working, you know, I was working probably like 40-50 hours a week.
I was picking up extra shifts.
I was working overtime and doing doubles trying to make money, and I'm like, unless I work here 80 hours a week, I can't actually pay for gas, buy food, and live.
I have no health insurance.
I was sleeping on a friend's couch, and I'm like, this is not possible.
That's it's an impossibility.
So if you're at Taco Bell right now and you're like, I am working as hard as I can.
And no offense, Taco Bell.
We like Taco Bell.
I'm just saying they don't pay enough.
And I think it's government factors that play a role in this.
But let's just say you're working a standard entry level minimum wage job.
Now they're going to replace you with a kiosk.
And they've already done it.
The Taco Bell over here, you walk in, it's four kiosks.
You walk up and you just go boop, boop, boop.
And there's two guys in the back making the food.
They walk up and go, number 54, you don't need a cashier anymore.
You just have only a couple of people.
They've dramatically reduced the amount of people who have jobs.
So now you're going to have an increasing number of people trying to file for benefits.
Now we're looking at another equation.
The amount of buying power and resources put into the U.S. system welfare base is going to become less than the amount of people extracting from it.
The deficit will skyrocket.
The debt will skyrocket.
And then eventually, the people who are working are like, 80% of my revenue is going towards people who don't have jobs.
I talked about this a really long time ago, it's pertaining to automation and the dangers of automation.
I'm not a Luddite.
I think automation is a good thing, but it has to be properly managed.
If we get to the point where we say, you know, you don't need fast food workers anymore, let's do UBI.
This is a big push that I remember going back to Occupy where people said we should have universal basic income because automation is replacing a lot of labor.
So now everybody should have a bare minimum access to these things.
So the guy who lives in the city and no longer works at Taco Bell but still gets the equivalent of minimum wage at 40 hours a week is going to be sitting in his living room enjoying life and let's say he's a very upstanding citizen.
He goes to church every Sunday.
There's going to be a farmer who's going to say, why do I have to work 40 hours a week to make the food this guy gets for free?
I refuse.
You will always have, and I don't think there's a way to properly manage it, a situation where someone has to do work and someone else does not with automation.
And that is another recipe for civil war.
unidentified
Yes.
What you're talking about is the same calculation as aging.
And sadly, both of us are hitting – both of them are hitting us at the exact same time where – Aging will naturally end up in an issue where you have a small young population working to support a large elderly population.
And the young population will get intensely resentful about that, especially if you look at the boomers.
The boomers have done very financially well for their whole life.
And so you're asking Zoomers who have basically been screwed over their whole lives to support the boomers' retirements.
And so that's going to end up becoming a massive issue.
Boomers are going to control the military because of their accumulation of base assets, right?
So you take a look at Venezuela.
You're going to have a 25-year-old National Guardsman.
And the boomer is going to say, we control the bank accounts.
We control the flow of resources.
If you want to feed your family, you're going to work for me.
And they're going to say, okay.
But you will have revolutionary Zoomers who are going to say, I am done doing labor for you.
And that's when you get this impasse.
Currently, I think the estimate is between 2.8 and 4 workers to cover the cost of one Social Security recipient.
So as we have an aging population and a depopulation at the same time, I think Democrats want to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible to bolster the tax base.
Yeah, because if you get to that point, which they're estimating 2032, where Social Security becomes insolvent and they can only pay out what goes into it, there's going to be a lot of very angry boomers and older Gen Xers who are going to be saying, I paid into this.
I deserve it.
It's mine.
And they're going to say, except due to the cost of living increase in inflation, you've paid into at one times and you need 2.8 to four times to pay you back.
No, I totally agree on the generational conflict matter, but I don't know if we will have a civil war between the boomers and the villages versus the blue-haired zoomers.
Maybe we could have that, but I do agree with your point that whoever pays the military, that's who they're going to serve.
And it's going to be the boomers and Gen Xers serving them.
But on the automation, I actually have to give some defense of automation because a lot of these jobs that are going to be replaced by automation That's what we're bringing in the illegals and immigrants to do.
I mean, I don't know about the local Taco Bell, but you can go to a lot of Taco Bells, even off the interstate and rural areas, and you'll see somebody who barely speaks English at that job.
And you'd probably be...
I'd much rather have an AI kiosk to help me there.
And that would also...
A lot of these people, if they're like they don't have a job, then they'll go back to Guatemala.
So I think actually there are a lot of Americans who are hurt by this, but a lot of the Americans who are hurt are already on the welfare system as is.
Now, there are some things that negative that would be impacted, but there's other things that would be positively impacted.
Now, on the point of the economic problems, I mean, we've had several severe economic problems throughout our history.
You know, throughout the 19th century, panic of 1837, elsewhere, there was times where people had all their savings wiped out and they could no longer feed themselves.
And this was even the case in the Great Depression.
People were legitimately starving.
The thing about America is that our poorest people are able to be obese, that they're eating too much and they don't have to worry about food and water.
Now, they do have to worry about where they're going to sleep at night, but they also even have iPhones and all these trinkets that the poor people who are literally starving in Africa could never dream of.
And going to your point about the – with the debt, people – individual people having debt and all these problems and then civil war solving that.
But that's an individual – that's on the individual level.
An individual himself cannot start a civil war.
It has to be a large group.
And so if a large group – It'd have to be like a state of something, a sizable amount of people, millions of people who all have the same problem and then saying, okay, this civil war, we're starting that.
And generally, if you look at past conflicts, it's either that they feel that their rights are being denied or that they would like independence for their spot of land or that there is this grave insult that the majority population of the government paid to their culture of some sort.
Then they would go along with it.
But when these individual problems, bankruptcy or whatever, a lot of these solutions for these individual problems is bankruptcy, but you're suggesting it's actually civil war is the better solution for those problems.
True, but I think in America, pretty much, I mean, the thing is, is that people find a way to feed their children, whether it's food stamps or anything.
We have such a system that we don't really have to worry about the mass starvation of a level that we did in the 19th century.
When we get to the level where more people have to pay into benefits and do work, when the majority is receiving these benefits, the system is inverted and it can't sustain itself.
Then you're going to find – perhaps it's a simple economic collapse.
It doesn't necessarily mean everyone is going to go start fighting, but it does mean the system is shattered.
The factor that I believe is on top of all of this is that with all of these issues we are describing, not one single one being a guarantee of civil war, you have to factor in that there are two distinct moral worldviews between the right and the left.
And when these problems, when the system collapses, when there's an inversion, when you look at the willingness to engage in violence from the left already, then you basically have not one moment, but you have ingredients in a single cauldron, which could be civil war.
And again, that's why I'm saying I don't know that I agree.
I said I don't agree that by April is a thousand dead people.
That being said, the summer of love was something like 36 deaths.
And that was a period of, what, four days?
So if we get something like that sustained every four days, 30-plus deaths, I don't know.
We're going to get to 1,000, but we'll certainly have hundreds.
unidentified
A couple of things.
The first is we're acting as if the historic record doesn't exist.
But the reality is the historic record is the only thing we actually have to study.
Yeah.
If you look at the historic record, war is completely normal.
If you want to bet over someone's life whether or not there will be a major war, you should always bet there's going to be a major war in every lifetime.
And keep in mind the bloodiest events in history all occurred within living memory.
People who fought in World War II are still – and lived through Stalinism and Nazism are still alive today.
So we're not better people than we were 70 years ago and war is really normal.
We had a Summer of Love-style level of violence, and it has to start today until the end of April.
That would be 1,645 deaths.
So if we were to cut that by a third and remove two months from the equation and start from the end of December, then Rudyard's estimate makes sense if we get Summer of Love-level of violence now.
unidentified
In December a thousand deaths is also nothing.
It's difficult to convey that point But you look at war and let's say there's a very basic supply chain breakdown even stuff like You can't get medical equipment for a few weeks That's millions of deaths because of millions of people are relying upon very complex medical systems if Los Angeles the port of Los Angeles gets blockaded for a few weeks and Well, who's blockading it?
I asked Chet GPT if we were trying to, I said, assuming that the end of April is the end of this calculation, on what day would violence have to begin in order to reach 1,000 deaths by April?
I mean, the way war works is—and we're acting as if the world is mathematical and reasonable and rational, and the world really isn't.
World War I, there were no deaths, and then half a million men died in a few hours.
And if there's a war, and we forget how big population numbers are, we could easily have 20 million deaths because you starve out certain cities, you bomb certain areas.
People – keep in mind the part of Germany where my ancestors were from the Thirty Years' War, 80 percent of their population died.
Stuff like that is not unreasonable because supply chains are so interdependent and complex.
You could very easily have cities starve.
They would have – people would have no food.
They would have no idea how to forage.
Medical equipment is incredibly – A lot of people have medical conditions that require very complex supply chains.
It's very easy to have lots of people die, and you look at the world wars.
Again, in living memory, 40 million people died in the Eastern Front.
I don't think things will get that ugly, but 1,000 deaths is nothing.
That's like a single charge for a single front of infantry in a battle.
That's 1,000 deaths in a handful of hours, or even—you could have 1,000 deaths, a single— Yeah, I think if you were having the type of riots you were having in the late 60s, a thousand could be reasonable.
I mean, because, you know, these cities throughout the country in 67, 68 were basically going under an insurrection and hundreds were dying.
I think, you know, like hundreds died in Detroit and New York.
So if you do have that situation, you could have that.
But even in our mass riots, we had In 2020, where we had 36 die, but there were far more riots and it was everywhere.
It was still very bad.
I'm not trying to downplay the summer of 2020, but it was less bad than what it was in 68, where the type of violence that was being able to commit was more even back then.
Now, this could change.
Maybe this happens after the election in 2024, but who would be committing this violence?
And the people who would be most worked up about the election, say, if Trump wins, would be middle-aged cat ladies.
It would not be the urban population that you need that were waging this insurrection back in the late 60s.
And even now when people go up and there's enough man on the street interviews with local blacks in Chicago and Detroit, and they're like, I like Trump.
You know, they're like, I don't know if those people People are going to be rioting.
But understand, you're talking about selectively edited videos to make a point where, and I've talked about, there was one recently that went viral where it's a guy working at a gas station, and he asked the young black men coming in, who are you voting for?
And you can see in the background, there are other people, but for some reason, never appear in his video.
Because he's showing the Trump supporters—and it's fine if you want to say, look at these black men I met who want to support Trump, but they're not including the Harris voters, which is the overwhelming majority in those areas.
Additionally, just because there are cat ladies who overwhelmingly vote in one direction doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume they'd be the ones fighting.
What matters is control of assets and the means to control a young person who is capable or willing to fight.
Then there's also, if you live in, you know, this is interesting.
When you look at that movie Civil War that came out earlier in the year, the map they drew shows West Virginia as part of the federal apparatus.
Well, that doesn't make sense, right?
Why would West Virginia?
Because West Virginia is territorially locked and would be conquered in two seconds.
Now, to be fair, West Virginia probably won't be conquered in two seconds because it's mountainous and very hard to move through and gain control of.
But because of its proximity to D.C., it's going to be left.
It's going to be Democrat.
West Virginia is the second most Trump-supporting state in the country.
But it's going to be one of the first moves made by federal authorities in the event of any kind of state dispute.
I'm not saying that's what's going to happen.
I'm saying that's why the movie predicted West Virginia would be aligned with Virginia and Maryland because of proximity.
So my point there is cat ladies are going to sit there and complain and then they're going to vote.
And the politicians are going to say these are the allocation of resources.
Then there's going to be a bunch of Zoomers who are like, look, man, I'm in the National Guard and I live in Maryland and they're ordering me to do this.
The point I was bringing up is, like, who is doing the fighting, who's taking the streets, and who's committing the acts of violence?
Now, as I want to make the point, I don't think young black men, or a majority, or even a significant number of them, besides 10, 15, or 20 percent, are actually voting for Trump.
I just think that they're not that energized enough to commit the acts of violence.
And I would say it's probably similar with young Hispanic men.
Civil wars.
Wars are a young men's game.
So you have to find some demographic of young men capable of committing violence and doing bad things out in the street.
And right now, I don't think the left has that element.
So if Trump wins, it would be, once again, a replay of the Women's March that happened in 2016, which...
The women in the pussy hats are just not going to be toppling much of anything.
And I don't even know if Trump voters are going to do the same thing if he's declared the loser because they're worried of what happened after January 6th and they don't want that to happen to them.
And so what did we see in 2018 that ignited the first conversations of a potential civil war?
It was 1,000 right-wing men and 1,000 left-wing men fighting in the streets of the Pacific Northwest and beating each other with clubs.
Or in Boston when Antifa showed up with crowbars and baseball bats and masks and the right showed up with shields and military-style looking clothing.
I say looking clothing because they're basically wearing body armor and camo, but it probably wasn't even real body armor.
People were clashing with each other.
It doesn't need to be 50-50.
I mean the estimates given during the American Revolution in that famous letter – I can't remember who wrote it.
It might have been John Adams or something.
It's not real numbers, but he said one-third are for it, one-third are against it, and one-third don't care.
That's not actually what the real numbers were.
But the estimates were that it was a plurality that did not care.
It was a large portion that wanted revolution and a smaller portion that were loyalists.
So the people who did not care were like, I don't know what's going on.
And a war broke out.
And this meant that people who didn't care had their homes occupied by British regulars or by either faction.
And just as an aside, there's a literal declaration of dependence.
I think it's always sunny in Philadelphia made a joke where they were going to write a declaration of dependence.
The loyalists in New York drafted a declaration of dependence saying we support the crown.
But anyway, I digress.
My point is, I think you brought this up, Roger, that like Bolsheviks were like 3% of Russia.
unidentified
Yeah.
As I was going to say, we're acting like the historic record doesn't exist, but it does.
And everything we're seeing now is completely normal in a society up to a civil war.
And you've asked me multiple times who would fight.
And if you look at these historic crises...
Most people are apathetic, especially so in wars outside America where most people are just peasants who farm, and then the Lord tells them what to do.
And in the English Civil War, which is one of the closest parallels, it was widely known in England that the English were too weak to fight.
These have been over a century since England had had a war.
What happened then is that in each case, it's small groups of radicals that push for this.
The Bolsheviks, the Jacobins, all these groups are like less than 3% of the population.
And then they push their interests.
And for the right, there's lots of young men who would happily fight for the right because the left has boxed them into a corner.
And for the left, they wouldboth sides would conscript people because when the government walks up to your door and says, "Your son's going to fight for us," you can't tell them no.
And the left would probably arm illegals because that's a demographic they could pull from.
They'd hire foreign mercenaries and arm illegals.
But this is why I've said in my videos, the right is an 80% chance of winning because the right provides much better incentives for the young men who would fight.
The left and the right are at extreme odds in this country.
Whether it goes to civil war, who knows?
China, Iran, Russia, and in fact, all of BRICS has an incentive for this conflict to happen, which would end the petrodollar, basically destroy the United States, and allow the BRICS reserve currency to take over.
In every conflict, let's go to the American Revolution, you had outside financiers.
So we say, haha, the French intervened and helped us win our independence.
Not really.
The French intervened because they were already at war with Britain and they were like, hey, these guys will help us fight.
So for them, it was like, yeah, let's go to war.
And then I love asking British folk how they view the American Revolution.
And I was talking to Carl Benjamin and he's like, mate...
That was like 20 years in our thousand-year history.
It's like, we mention it a little bit, but the bigger picture was the wars happening in Europe, not you guys.
He's like, I understand for you it's your entire identity, but for us it was one small component of an ongoing war that had been happening for some time.
And I'm like, that's a really good point.
My point here is, Let's say there is no—there's not a strong enough appetite for a real civil war.
Certainly you will see external forces trying to make that happen, as I believe they are now.
Why wouldn't they be?
And then if it got to the point where there was a pile of tinder, China's going to march right in and try and figure out how to light it up.
unidentified
Yeah.
I find that with— Who is the force pushing for American unity?
Because there's lots of forces pushing for disunity, but I see no single unifying thing in America.
It's clearly a joke, but we do have these services that everyone takes part of.
I mean, we all like roads.
Most people like the military.
We all like the safety and security that the American state provides.
But I would say the united factor would be the state itself, even though the state is up for grabs, is the state has a desire to not go towards disunity and chaos, as we saw in the aftermath of the election last time where they came down hard on Trump supporters over the overblown fear that somehow they're going to wage a coup or something, even though it was people going around the Capitol taking selfies.
They came down that hard because they thought that was a threat, and that could potentially spiral into disunity.
And as long as the federal state is extremely strong, which it is, it's much stronger than it was in the 1860s, and it's even much stronger than it was in the 1960s, it's going to keep this together.
Now, if that collapsed or was weakened, say, China takes Taiwan and we lost in that war or conflict over it, That could be a weakening of the state and that could delegitimize it.
And then people could be trying to break off and then something like a civil war happens.
unidentified
There's no legitimacy in the state.
When you poll average Americans, they hate the state.
The state is like a 20 percent approval rate.
My question to you is if a civil war were to happen, what would it look like?
What evidence would you need to see in the real world to know that there would be a civil war?
Yeah, I think it has to be – you'd have – even something like the Lebanese Civil War, Syrian Civil War, where there's like a dozen different factions, there are – Battles occurring over cities, where there are fights between either two or multiple sides over a city, and that's occurring.
In Seattle, when they took over the CHAZ for a couple of months and murdered people, took over a police station, the government largely agreed with them and let them do it.
So it's like saying there's got to be two factions.
You could say you could go this to, say, Atlanta or you can say any other city.
I'm just saying that, say, you have leftists in a city that launched an insurrection against the city government or the state.
And then the federal and they're saying we're now an independent city of Atlanta or Seattle.
But if Seattle, if the Chaz then tried to take over the city and then say we're independent of the United States government, there would be there would be lethal force to come down.
In the American Civil War in 18—and the American Civil War is not indicative of every other Civil War, but I'm just saying, like, in Georgia, they weren't walking out of the houses and going, oh, I hate the Georgian government.
I'm going to declare independence from my own state.
They were saying the other people over there are bad.
So if Seattle, as a group, says we want to—we're going to defy federal law and we are going to ignore federal authority, which they've been doing— I don't understand why your prerequisite is that they have to fight themselves.
Like, the people in Seattle who took over and shut the police down were largely politically aligned.
Wheeler himself came out and joined them in protests in Portland.
This is Portland, right?
He was with them as they were rioting and protesting and firebombing a federal building.
So when in a civil war did a city fight its own territory?
Like, when in a civil war did a—like, in the Spanish Civil War, you had the nationalists and the Republicans, and they controlled urban and rural areas.
When in that civil war did the nationalists in their own territory fight themselves?
Let's say that it's left rising up against the federal government, and so it could be anywhere in this country.
I'm just pointing out that this is the left and saying that the federal government, maybe the state of Washington decides to go along with the left, or maybe they decide to go with the federal government.
I'm just pointing out that example is that if it's one locality that rises up against the federal government for either the right or the left, This, the sides that I would say, there could be multiple other sides being formed afterwards, but they're rising up against the federal government.
It'd be like in the Syrian Civil War, where they're initially, they're rising up against the government, and then many other factions began to form.
So, like in the Pacific Northwest, when I think it was something like 110 days, where far leftists were throwing explosives at the federal building surrounding it...
And the building was shut down.
Federal authorities were trapped inside.
Trump called in numerous different federal law enforcement.
But the government of Portland, the local government, sided with the far-left extremists who were firebombing a building.
Yeah, and that would be a sign that the local government is then siding with the left, that that escalated past that, and that they're trying to take over the entirety of Portland.
And then Portland's city government is like, oh, we're siding with them.
They would have to choose whether they side with the left.
But I want to put this out that I don't think this is likely.
So do you believe that if an ideological faction in a city started trying to take over or destroy a federal building in defiance of federal authority and fought with federal authorities and the state sided with them, would that be a civil war?
No, but it could be a sign of a possible civil war that arises that's happening elsewhere and then that begins to escalate into they're trying to take over the city.
Chas in this incident, if there's like tons of Chas is taking over and then Chas tries to expand to take over the city, I would say that that's a warning sign of something that could happen with a civil war.
So if a large group of, say, leftists had an autonomous zone that they controlled, like the size of Chas, and people that had already been killed, but if Chas then started to expand, that makes you think maybe a civil war could happen.
Maybe if they're trying to take over the city and that they have many, many allies across the country and that there's a sizable part of the population that agrees with them.
People were misled into thinking these are just peaceful protesters.
But if they're just – if you ask American people and they're like, do you support the left-wing autonomous or whatever they want to call themselves taking over the entire state of Washington and declaring themselves independent of the United States government?
And then like 20, 30 percent of the population is like, yes – Then you have a chance of that there's some type of secession or civil war happening.
But I don't believe this is happening.
That's a disturbing element that we could see more of.
But it's almost like the no-go zones that you see in Europe with the Islamic neighborhoods just sprouting up and it's being ruled effectively by Sharia law.
What I'm saying is that there are territories, even in America, which are- Let me tell you that even in Chicago, the idea that there would be a sectioned-off area with security guards, barriers, and a police station that was completely taken over, and that men with rifles would unload for 10 minutes hundreds of rounds into SUVs, and there were other people who were murdered in Chicago, that's unheard of.
In Chicago, you have honor—I would call it respect and honor killings, where you disrespect me, they go get revenge.
A lot of people think it's gang-related.
It's really about disrespect.
Guy goes on social media and smack-talks a guy, says his girl's ugly.
He's going to go to your house, and there's going to be a drive-by.
It's jurisdictionless.
Certainly, gangs have territory where they sell things like this— But that's why I give a warning to a lot of people in Chicago.
You're not safe anywhere in Chicago.
There's no jurisdictional boundaries.
When the Chaz Chop happened, stay out of the Chaz Chop.
There's a barrier where guys are standing there with rifles from the John Brown Gun Club or whatever, and these people...
Killed a guy.
They killed a guy.
There was a young black man who was shot and killed.
We don't know why.
And then there was the white SUV incident.
There were a few others.
This is substantially different from gangland violence.
I mean, the fact that they do have border guards, but there is a way that there is a different law governing those areas than what's the normal law.
And it even would be this...
Even the same in Sharia law.
And there could be something of these sorts where I think if they actually had armed border guards and tried to do an exact replica of Chaz where it's like they are – there's in some ways an understanding that they're separate from the rest of the city and they're separate from the country.
There would – There would be more of a force put on them to end that.
But there could be these areas where essentially the left have their own autonomous commune and that they're running it the way they see fit and then police are just know not to go there.
When I first arrived, I met with this Green Party politician who's like a liberal, and I said, tell me what's going on in this country.
And he laid out his case.
They loved it.
Huffington Post said, you know, Tim Pool does a great report.
And then, because I was doing journalism, I said, now let's go to these areas they say are bad.
And boy, did they lose their mind when I went to Rinkaby.
They had no problem when I went to Rosengard, where I saw a bunch of beautiful apartments.
There were many Muslims.
People were waving and smiling.
I went to the grocery store.
I bought food.
I feared nothing.
I went to an apartment, met a young couple, and I said, this apartment is better than most apartments in Chicago.
And they were all laughing, saying, you see, all this is overblown.
Then I went to Rinkaby, and this is a no-go zone in nowhere near how bad Chaz was.
But this is the extreme moment.
What happened was Somali migrants, refugees, came into the country in the 90s.
They had kids.
Those kids were born in these enclaves.
When they all started moving to the country, they moved to this one area called Rinkeby, which is a shopping center and neighborhood.
And it became dominant by Somali refugees.
They had kids.
Those kids were born in Sweden.
They are Swedish.
but they are called immigrants by white Swedish people because they're not white Swedes.
And Swedish people are extremely racist.
Maybe race isn't the right word, but they're xenophobic.
I don't know if I like that word.
Let me just put it this way.
They're extremely- Action-centric.
No, they're extremely prejudiced against anybody who is not a native-born white Swede who speaks their language perfectly.
So if you are like, the encounter that I had with a lot of people who are dual citizens, whose parents were Swedish, and then they moved there later, what I found was a lot of people being like, you know, it's really hard for me here because I have an American accent when I speak Swedish, so they don't hire me.
They don't want me around.
They talk down to me.
So what happens then is Rinkaby, these young men who are Somali, grow up in a society that treats them like others, but they have no home in Somalia.
When you go there, nothing happens.
If you go there and you're filming, for instance, there's kind of panic because you're a white person.
This is what happened to us.
Coming with a camera, coming into their neighborhood, and they view themselves as not attached to the state because the police are white people who treat them like they're not Swedish.
So they've just formed an isolated enclave, which acts as its own internal state.
But you can go there with no problem.
I went bowling.
They had small pin bowling.
I don't know what it's called.
Went there.
Went to the grocery store.
Nobody had a problem.
There was no wear a veil.
There was no Muslim, nothing.
It was when you came in acting like you were part of the institutions outside that people would start yelling and saying, what are you doing here?
Jazz shop was completely different.
You couldn't even go inside.
The George Floyd autonomous zone.
You couldn't enter these places without passing through a barricade in armed groups.
If you went, for instance, in Atlanta, there were shootings.
So there's a big difference between there's a group of people that have a dramatically different worldview and view of the state and what the left did when they took these places over.
But the only comparison I was just saying that they have an isolated internal state where they see themselves as something separate from the rest of society, which we already sort of have those places in America, but you could have more that it's ideologically purposed for the left and they're taking over neighborhoods.
unidentified
You effectively said that you will not believe that there's a civil war until you see a civil war.
So I don't see the point of this discussion because if you're not going to accept any amount of evidence that there will be a civil war until there is a civil war, there's nothing I can say to you.
Well, what would you say is a better civil war to look at besides the American civil war?
unidentified
Yes.
So – There's ways to study these conflicts, and I've studied basically every single revolution, and there's a variety of metrics used to predict them in advance.
And so the four parallels I look to the most are the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the fall of the Roman Republic, and the American Civil War.
And for each of them… If the war starts, there's going to be way more than a thousand deaths.
A thousand I don't really like.
I stand by the bet because I made it with Andrew Heaton a year ago.
But if there's going to be a war, a thousand deaths is what happens in a single wing of a single battle.
those conflicts, English Civil War, American Civil War, French Revolution, follow the Roman Republic, the society was at peace.
The political switch gets flipped and then there's war.
There's not the gradual buildup.
It's everything and then nothing.
And so the thing you're looking at where there's a conflict and then it gradually gets worse, that's not how any of this happens.
I don't think they could get them to guard this territory.
I mean, nobody's going to—if you're listening to a lot of these Republican leaders, I mean, besides Trump, but imagine—I don't want to say Lindsey Graham because people would never say it, but let's even say Josh Hawley trying to get people to go out there and do that.
What I'm saying is that they have the troops there, and then the chain of command asks, do we have the order to kill?
And then the governor at this point in the leadership is not going to give that order.
They have to go through the chain of command with the assumption that they would have that order if they are challenged by either the federal government or some left-wing militia or something.
I don't see that at this point.
I think that when they have come up to the precipice of having a point where they challenge either the federal government or challenge the other side, say January 6th, or anywhere else, they back down.
And I don't...
You don't really have that capacity for violence.
And even when he's bringing up the English Civil War, that's true.
They would have – the scenario you're describing, okay, let's say we send out the National Guard to an event and maybe there's – What is the National Guard?
So first, the several things brought up here is...
When you said they would not do that, we have to consider what the law enforcement apparatus that exists in this country is.
It ranges from a wide range of components of force.
You have sheriffs and deputies.
You have marshals.
You have federal authorities.
So the question is, if Donald Trump—the Democrats and Republicans are currently at odds.
They're trying to put Trump in prison.
There is a there there is a constitutional crisis right now that Trump is actually convicted and has not yet faced sentencing.
And it's now looking like he's going to win in 11 days.
The polls and betting odds are such that Trump may actually do so well on Election Day that we don't need six days.
They may swamp the vote.
New York is not going to just announce they're getting rid of these criminal charges.
They will still sentence him.
I don't know what happens after that.
I agree you're likely right that New York's not going to send troops or anybody to go arrest Donald Trump.
But the issue is not that New York or that Democrats or Republicans are going to say, I hereby declare, send in the troops, kill people.
That's nonsense.
What happens more likely is that jurisdictions controlled by the federal government will say, we are going to follow the rules and the chain of command, and jurisdictions controlled by Democrats with their authority, National Guard, police or otherwise, will say, we're going to follow the orders of our leadership.
There's not likely to be a scenario where Or I should say, there is likely to be many scenarios in which the federal government may try to instruct local authorities who say, we don't answer to you.
We answered it to the governor, not to the federal government.
States are sovereign.
In which case, if New York says, Donald, there is absolutely a potential where New York says Trump has been convicted and must go to jail.
He cannot pardon himself at the state level.
And then California and Illinois and Washington and Oregon say, if Donald Trump sets foot in our states, we will enforce the law.
It's not personal.
It's not that we hate Donald Trump.
It's that the law applies to everyone and no one is above the law and he's been convicted before he was president.
Getting elected does not change the fact that he has to go to jail.
Let's say he goes to Washington and they say, Mr.
President, will you peacefully come?
You're under arrest to be extradited to New York for your sentencing in jail term.
Trump's going to have to say no to that.
The states probably, and that's why I don't agree with Rudyard on a thousand deaths, will be like, there's no way we're going to try to send police to arrest Donald Trump.
Because that, however, we are already asking, this is a question that is already being asked.
Donald Trump is under Secret Service protection.
And already there's a question of, what if Trump said he would not go to New York to stand trial?
We know that the trials are overtly political and none of them make sense.
I argue that Donald Trump, when he was in Florida and New York and Georgia issued these these criminal charges, what what Trump should have done is said they are welcome to come to Florida and serve the paperwork.
I don't listen to TV reports and I do not respect a phone call to a lawyer about what is going on.
They can enforce the law as the law prescribes, knock on my door, deliver the warrant, and I will peacefully and gladly join them in answering to these charges.
That would put Ron DeSantis in a very serious position where he's going to have to determine whether or not his state authorities are going to abide by New York authorities to come and arrest the guy who's the frontrunner.
Trump instead says, I will go by peacefully at your request, despite the fact your lack of ability to enforce this.
What happens after Trump wins?
And this is reality.
Right now, I'll say this.
Trump is convicted.
He is facing sentencing.
We don't know how this plays out, and we can entertain normalcy and optimism bias.
New York just says, we don't care anymore.
We're done.
I really doubt that.
There is the next case where blue states and Democrats who have literally said Trump is Hitler, who's a despot, who's going to go round up and be Hitler, round up illegal migrants, I'm sorry, refugees, they would call them.
And then what happens when you combine Donald Trump's efforts to deport 15 to 20 million illegal immigrants using the police and local military with the fact that the blue states already say he is a convicted felon who should be in prison?
Now they're going to say, as Jamie Raskin already stated this in February, Jamie Raskin said in a panel discussion live on YouTube, Donald Trump is ineligible to be president and we will block the certification on January 6, 2025.
There will be civil war conditions, he said.
Now, imagine this scenario where Trump wins.
We see he wins.
He's handily won.
Democrats refuse to certify.
Kamala Harris counts the vote.
Who knows what she does?
Let's just say, she goes, I understand that these Democrats are refusing to certify, but we still have a majority for certification.
Bang, Trump is the president.
These Democrats then go to their states and say, not only is Trump a convicted felon who should be in prison— He's not even eligible to be president because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and he is illegally occupying the White House through administrative means, and the Supreme Court is protecting him because they're his cronies that he installed.
You then end up with Blue State saying if Donald Trump steps foot in this state, he will be arrested and extradited to New York where we have an agreement to send him.
That's potentiality.
What we can say right now is we don't know what the blue states will do, but it is true that Democrats have said they won't certify, Trump is a felon, and should be in prison.
How will blue states handle this worldview that Trump is Hitler, about to round up migrants and refugees, is illegally occupying the White House while ineligible, has stacked the Supreme Court, and should be in prison?
How do they rectify that worldview while going?
We will do nothing.
Nothing will happen.
It seems to me an impossibility.
Now, it is possible that we don't see any formal governance like Newsom or Whitmer, whoever else, calling on their National Guard or sheriffs to go arrest Trump.
But I think it's entirely possible that you'll see volunteer fighters, people who are just like I'm here to uphold the rule of law in this country and keep my oath to the Constitution, which is Donald Trump is illegally occupying the White House.
And then the risk is if Trump goes to Michigan and militia forces that are aligned with Democrats say we're anti-fuss, a better way to the John Brown Gun Club, the Red Guard, etc., for Antifa's various factions—Rose City, Antifa, and these other wingnut factions—may present such a threat that I would throw it back to what Rudyard said last week— You're not seeing standing armies shooting each other.
I said I don't see a potentiality where governance tries to arrest Donald Trump.
Like it's a possibility – I shouldn't say there's a potentiality.
There's a possibility that Newsom says Trump is a criminal if he steps foot here.
I really doubt it.
They're going to say we're not going to do this.
But what happens when – You already have John Brown Gun Club.
This is a guy, one of these guys, who asserted himself as Antifa, and I believe he said John Brown Gun Club, went to an ICE facility throwing Molotovs and shooting at ICE agents.
I believe it is very likely, terrifyingly so, that if Trump wins, with the factors that are already true right now, Democrats have stated he's ineligible and will not certify.
Maybe they do certify, but they still say he's ineligible.
The vice president went on TV at a press conference and said he is calling for generals like Hitler.
He's a fascist.
They believe he's going to round people up and put them in detention centers and concentration camps.
These are all facts.
These are what have been espoused by the Democrats in the media.
And Trump is a convicted felon who is facing sentencing.
With those factors in mind and the two assassination attempts on Trump already, the likelihood that if Trump goes to a Democrat jurisdiction, he will face extreme violence from roving factions of insurgency, terroristic violence, I believe is 100 percent.
You don't need Newsom to order the National Guard when you have roving bands of leftist extremists who believe Trump is Hitler and will do anything to stop him.
There's been two assassination attempts and one assassination plot, and it is, I would say, it's fair to say confirmed that there are Iranian assassination teams going after Donald Trump.
I'm basing it on the assessment of American people right now.
American people, there's only about like 20% of young men who are even fit for military service.
Even with the amount of people who are most politically engaged, it's generally middle-aged people.
I mean, young men are probably the least politically engaged demographic in this country.
Now, some of them could be animated to fight, but you don't really see that conditions at the moment.
And even at the elite level, you don't see people calling for that type of war.
And I know you don't like the American Civil War references, but even in the lead up to the American Civil War, you had many of these Southern leaders of the caliber of John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis.
These were the titans of the South.
They were the leadership cast.
And they were saying, we are willing to fight and die for our rights, and we are willing to separate from them.
You don't have those voices right now.
And even with the Spanish Civil War, if you want to bring up to a more recent conflict, you already had social turbulence in that country where the left had overthrown the monarchical government just a few years before, and the military was still not loyal to the current government, and the military had the instincts and the wherewithal to actually and the military had the instincts and the wherewithal to actually revolt against the civil
Now, I'd have to say, in terms of who would be willing to do the fighting and organizing these people, I don't really see that at the elite level.
I mean, there are certainly voices online that may say this, but I don't see this.
I don't see the leadership cast going along with this.
I don't see that.
I don't see a significant mass amount of people who are willing to fight and die for this.
They may say that online, but when it actually came to the I am part of the demographic you're describing, and I know that demographic very closely.
unidentified
And there is a lot of young, white, right-wing men who would happily die in a war.
And the reason I say that is that we're at a point where that demographic is so screwed over by society that it's the best option.
Where if you— I've been involved in the incel revolution.
In that video, it's been memed to hell, and people take it to me as something I didn't actually mean.
Where when I talked about that video, I don't think there's actually going to be people who call themselves incels who launch a revolution in order to get laid.
I think we're going to have this civil war crisis, and both sides of the civil war will be fought by sexually frustrated young men.
No, that's a defining difference between the right and left is the right – the reason why we don't – yeah, as you said, people – we have stuff to lose.
People don't – and that's even what happened with the J6 people.
They lost their home.
They lost their family.
They lost their job.
They lost everything over that protest.
unidentified
There are two demographics of right-wingers and people forget that the latter exists and they think only at the first.
And – When I talk to older people, they'll say, oh yeah, the young people who will go hard and they'll sacrifice for the cause among the young are the leftists, and the leftists are the ones who will die in battle, and the rightists won't.
I'm thinking, what planet do you live on?
I am a Zoomer.
I know many Zoomers.
Leftist Zoomers...
They're completely anxious.
They're completely incapable of doing anything.
And you look at Chaz, you look at the Columbia protests.
In the Columbia protests, they put up this whiteboard saying you can't drink, you can't have sex, you can't swear, you can't misgender any people.
That's not an army that fights a war.
Among young right-wing white men, there is that demographic because they've been completely screwed over by DEI hiring.
They have no social mobility.
Two-thirds of men under 30 are single.
One-third of men under 30 are virgins.
So you have this huge demographic of basically young white men who are completely screwed over by society and there's no feedback mechanism for them because society doesn't even acknowledge their issues.
So for them, a revolution is a strategically accurate decision to end at because it's their group self-interest that cooperates and they're completely left out of any other form of power equation and that's always what starts wars.
Yeah, I totally agree that they have these problems and they are definitely angry and alienated, but they're so far not taking the streets and they're not being organized.
It's almost lone wolves out there with this.
And there is a certain demographic among them, but also you have to see how many of them are there.
There are certainly a lot of them.
How many of them are there of their generation?
There's also the same demographic that's vaguely right-leaning.
This term I've come up with is called FanDuel Americans.
And what these people, they're Probably going to vote for Trump if they wake up in time.
They might be hungover on Tuesday.
But they don't really care that much about politics.
They're vaguely right-leaning, but what they mainly care about is distractions and amusements.
And they have some fairly right-leaning instincts.
They like the troops.
They get mad if people don't stand for the anthem and this type of things.
But they're not that political.
And there's a huge demographic of those people.
But I don't see those people wanting to fight and die.
Now, I'm sure there are...
Young right-wingers, if you put them in a situation, they would.
But there's no one putting them in that situation.
There's nobody organizing them.
And they're not taking the streets as is.
They don't really have much of a physical presence in the world, which is different from Antifa.
Antifa was always out there and showing themselves out in the real world.
Meanwhile, the young right-wingers, which is generally smart because society and the system would come down on them much harder than Antifa, they don't turn out on the streets.
So I just don't...
Maybe if there becomes a critical mass of them and they eventually take to the streets, maybe there is a younger J6 after if Trump loses.
I mean maybe, but I don't see that happening.
unidentified
You've already said you're not going to change.
You're basically – you won't see it until you believe it or you won't believe it until you see it.
So we're having— When in American history was the frontrunner for the presidency appending sentencing for criminal charges— All this is unprecedented, but if you look at the conditions on the ground, we are not at the point of it elevating the Civil War.
He said, you will not say that there's a civil war until you see it, which is, yes.
But what I was saying, if you're looking at conditions, there would have to be mass, or there would have to be extreme economic poverty, or extreme economic conditions that are making people starve.
Second, is that you're seeing at least some type of low-level violence, the modern equivalent of bleeding Kansas already happening, or something, and that there's a weak state, and it's...
Second point is that you're having low levels of violence either between non-state actors in the state or between non-state actors that spills out of control that the state can't control, which would also require a weakened state.
You would have levels of violence where dozens are dying and it's...
People are shooting each other.
I would even say if the conditions of Weimar Germany in 1932, where the communists and the Nazis were getting into gun battles, and there was also the fear that they would have to deploy the military to stifle it, you definitely had the Civil War conditions.
The 70 deaths that they would say are these maniacs who go to a Dollar General and shoot people.
That's not my opinion.
A lot of the academic standards that they have, the rules, you would have to agree that a lot of the stupid shootings of these morons that they claim is white supremacist violence when it's just some maniac doing what is the equivalent to a school shooting is going to a Dollar General and saying it's political violence.
I don't trust their standard for what claims it's political violence.
I think when they say it's like white supremacy, clearly that's an absurdity because it describes nothing.
But when Rudyard mentions that there are young white men with no upward mobility who have become sexually frustrated and otherwise, I guess, dejected, they decide to act out violence.
But so the second point you made as a prerequisite was violence to a certain degree of people shooting each other, and you don't think that's— Let me go over—I know we have a little bit of time, but other prerequisites.
These are not all— Absolutely required, as I need to go back and say.
But it's also you have to have elite institutions that are hostile to each other and are fighting for political power in a way that is like English Civil War between Parliament and the monarch, or even the Spanish Civil War between the civil government and the old forces that favored the more right-wing form of governance they had before.
You would have to have hostile elite forces that are willing to fight and kill each other, which now with the United States, if you look at the institutions, pretty much most of them are committed to some form of unity, even with the GOP. Trump might not be on the same platform with the rest of the GOP, but the GOP, the Democrats, the military, the police, every important institution in America would agree on unity, even state governors.
I'm going to just wrap by saying, hey, look, man, I'm the one who talks about the potentiality of civil war quite a bit, but I do not agree with Redyard.
I cannot see a thousand deaths by April.
That would be a persistent four-month summer of love at the start of the County Electoral College.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I hope I'm not.
I hope it is fair to say that I'm hoping that we get a popular vote victory for Trump of a substantial portion,
a couple percentage points, an electoral college victory, which is an overt rebuke of leftist ideology in this country that results in many apathetic normal people becoming less tolerant out of a fear of being on the wrong side of history.
So what ends up happening then is Trump wins.
He wins handily.
Everybody cheers.
People start wearing MAGA hats.
The left is shunned.
The weird woke ideologies are pushed out of media, as we've already seen.
And then there is no need for conflict.
And we exit this period, same as any other period of tumult with no real violence.
And then four years from now, the debate between Democrats and Republicans would be much more moderate because Democrats will be forced closer to the center.
We will see.
Thank you all so much for hanging out, guys.
Thanks for joining us.
We're back tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCast, but I do have more clips over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
