All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2025 - The Culture War - Tim Pool
31:53
Tim Pool Goes NUCLEAR On Candace For Ripping Apart MAGA Coalition ft. Auron MacIntyre

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tate Brown @realTateBrown(everywhere) Guest: Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacIntyre (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

Participants
Main voices
a
auron macintyre
18:51
t
tate brown
13:01
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
A number of guys I was talking with were trying to understand this behavior and why there was such a market for it.
And the answer I told them is like, guys, you're not people to Candace Owens' audience.
You're characters in a TV show, right?
Like your death on a TV screen is just a plot twist.
You don't have a family.
I mean, look at the way that people are treating Erica Kirk as she's trying to raise these poor children after being widowed in this incredibly violent act.
But, you know, you would never say something like what's being said about Erica Kirk to anyone's face.
And you shouldn't.
If you do, you wouldn't walk out of a room with me in it.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
I opened up obviously addressing Tim's.
I'm calling it a patriot crash out.
I was emphasizing that I use crash out as a term of endearment.
I correctly identified that when someone I don't like is having a moment, it's a spurg out.
And then when it's a patriot, it's a crash out.
So I use that as a term of endearment.
I wanted to bring you in and get your thoughts on last night and sort of overall your thoughts on Candace and her role in this movement.
So I'll give you the floor here.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I mean, I can certainly understand Tim's frustration, especially given all the security concerns and everything else happening there.
I think ultimately he recognizes that pushing different narratives about nefarious actors inside the Republican Party, conservative movements, these kind of things, artificially attributing fault to different people.
This can drive people to ridiculous and radical action.
I mean, obviously, we don't know if that's what happened in this case.
We don't have enough information, but we've seen the way in which leftist propaganda and other suggestions about the fact that different actors are behind violence or corrupting different things is going to drive people towards these conspiracy theories and make them more likely to take some kind of violent action.
I will say that it's been interesting to watch this development.
I don't know how many people remember this, but for those of us who have been around since Gamergate, the deep lore from Candace Owens originally was that she ran this site, Social Autopsy, which was basically like a doxing service to try to ruin the life of people online.
Now, eventually she kind of changed her tune and the left didn't like her very much.
She got some kind of blowback.
And so this kind of moved her to the right.
This was her, the left, left, me, Dave Rubin type movement.
But, you know, it's always been difficult to tell, is that a real Candace or is that Candace moving with the currents?
She's obviously always been somebody who is very talented, somebody who is able to be captivating, has a lot of charisma, can put her pulse on what people want to hear.
But is she saying what she really believes, right?
She went from being a pro-doxing, anti-Gamergate liberal to being kind of this new right MAGA coalition person.
She fed kind of the boomer con-based blacks, get the African Americans off the Democrat reservation, Blexit type narrative.
And so she's just kind of always found this audience where she can say exactly to them what they want to hear.
Now, maybe that is really her genuine political evolution, but that fact that she's once again found herself with a new audience that she can tell exactly what they want to hear, when they want to hear it, create the drama, fit that exact, it just feels pretty convenient that once again we find ourselves in that place with Candace's trajectory.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
Well, I mean, I was reading earlier, Keith Woods, he kind of put together these turns that she's had throughout her career and tied it to these moments in the sort of the political zeitgeist and how she seemingly adopts the position where the most energy is at any given time or there is significant energy at any given time.
I mean, he pointed out how she was actually a Zionist.
She was an avowed Zionist for the longest time as she was a part of the broader MAGA coalition.
October 7th happens.
Obviously, there's a lot of this energy sort of critiquing Israel, you know, sort of analyzing our relationship with Israel.
And then suddenly she turns into this like bold, brash, anti-Zionist like overnight.
And that becomes her new brand.
And to me, I'm just looking at that.
I'm looking at all these touch points throughout her career.
And to me, the priority for her seems to be audience.
There doesn't seem to be a North Star.
There doesn't seem to be a mission.
There doesn't seem to be sort of a vision for how she would like the country to be.
It's just like perpetual contrarianism.
And to be fair, this strain exists on the right.
And it's been a big problem of perpetual contrarianism, where as soon as we accumulate any power, like for example, in the second term here, where things by all accounts are directionally correct, they instantly become skeptical.
They instantly become uneasy.
They instantly try to analyze like, okay, there has to be something off here.
There has to be something wrong.
We're never in power.
But Candace has taken this to a whole new level where she is just consistently looking for what could turn her into the victim.
And this goes all the way back to 2007, obviously, when she joined forces of the NAACP to extract $35,000.
And I just, that's all I see here.
I just, I just see her constantly trying to line up on the side that would make her the underdog and give her, make her be the renegade.
That seems to be what she's prioritizing at all times.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Well, and, you know, she also gets the advantage, and I'll say this in to some level, her defense, the fact that people get so incensed about her, the fact that people so overshoot what she's doing, they will make factual errors and then she gets to capitalize on them, right?
Like, so I think she is saying some rather ridiculous stuff.
I'm not here to agree with most of it, but the point is that when, you know, when someone comes out and says, well, Charlie Kirk never sent this kind of text message, he never expressed these views.
He would never do that.
And then she can turn around and reveal this in some kind of big evidence, you know, on her podcast.
This lends her credibility.
This gives her momentum.
And this allows her audience to then buy into some of the more extreme or ridiculous things she's saying.
Because if Candace had the receipts on this, then maybe she has it on the other stuff.
Right.
And so there's always, and that's the nice thing for her.
She can advance, you know, 10 crazy theories.
And even if nine of them get swatted down, if one of them happens to be right, now she's vindicated and she just pushes that theory and uses that as the stepping stone.
So you can lose nine times, win once, and you're, and you're ultimately the winner, right?
And this is kind of the Alex Jones thing.
And again, not to tie these to one-to-one, but a lot of people would forever say, how does Alex Jones get all these things right?
Right.
He seems so crazy.
He's out there, but he seems right more often than he's wrong.
And the answer is like, well, Alex Jones just said that everybody in the establishment was evil and doing the most evil thing all the time.
And even though a lot of times he was wrong about the specifics, he's directionally correct that these are the most evil people in the world.
So he's going to hit more often than he misses just because of that.
It's not as extreme for Candace, but I feel like she's also benefiting from that dynamic as well.
unidentified
Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
And the way that she's sort of unveiling and revealing these new twists and her and sort of the story that she's concocting.
I mean, I've talked about before how we're seeing within conservative media sort of the Mr. Beastification of polemics, where, you know, people are just trying to go as loud and bold and brash and colorful as possible.
She's kind of, she's sort of putting together the Netflixification of polemics where she's like, stay tuned for episode two, where I reveal that Charlie Kirk was in love with me or that Bedritte Macron has transitioned back to being a woman.
Like you never know what's going to, what's going to happen.
And that's unfortunately the way that Americans operate.
We eat that up, hook line, and sinker.
And it's just really alarming to see that politics is a very serious thing.
Like this is what people forget.
It's like, look, I know it can be fun and there's memes and there's jokes and there's a degree of entertainment.
The blood sport side, obviously, is always been around to some degree, but is really amplified in the social media era.
But we saw Charlie Kirk die in 4K footage on all of our phones.
We all remember where we were.
And after that moment, it should be really real to people that, you know, whatever aside, this is life and death.
And we're talking about the country that we're going to leave to our children and grandchildren.
And then you see people like her engaging in the Netflix, Netflixification.
That's a tough word.
The Netflixification of politics.
It's really just really horrible to see.
It's like these people just don't know what time it is.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
You know, I tried to explain to people because a number of guys I was talking with were trying to understand this behavior and why there was such a market for it.
And the answer I told them is like, guys, you're not people to Candace Owens' audience.
You're characters in a TV show, right?
Like your death on a TV screen is just a plot twist.
You don't have a family.
I mean, look at the way that people are treating Erica Kirk as she's trying to raise these poor children after being widowed in this incredibly violent act.
But, you know, you would never say something like what's being said about Erica Kirk to anyone's face.
And you shouldn't.
If you do, you wouldn't walk out of a room with me in it.
But ultimately, that people will just do this because she's just the wicked stepmom on some TV show they're watching.
It's not a real person.
And of course, we can draw this back to the daily show.
I'm old enough.
I'm an old man.
I remember when the daily show started.
Let Unk take you back to the before times when the magic was written.
But I remember when the Daily Show came out, and this was a big deal because before that, news was news and entertainment was entertainment.
You had a few programs like Donahue or like Crossfire, where people would try to like debate.
But for the most part, even those programs at least provided a veneer of serious addressing of issues, as where Jon Stewart was obviously just mugging for the camera and bringing politicians on to embarrass them and, you know, in the clown nose on, clown nose off thing where he would preach, you know, and then all of a sudden pretend he's a clown so that he doesn't have the consequences of being a political commentator.
And this became the mode by which politics got communicated to people, right?
All of a sudden, people didn't get their news from Walter Cronkite or some serious news desk.
They got it while Stephen Colbert was cracking jokes about Trump.
And the fact that those things have been hybridized means that's very difficult for us to take politics seriously anymore.
Politics isn't just something that's happening.
It's not the way our country is governed.
It's an entertainment product.
We now consume it in the way that we would consume anything else.
And of course, you and I work in this industry.
So it's not like we're completely without guilt to some degree on this.
But the fact that that has become the mode means that someone like Candace can operate without really needing to provide any serious news content while still driving the political conversation.
And this is what happens when the right has to do all of especially its politics online in the entertainment sphere.
We don't have academia.
We don't have other places where we can cultivate ideas, argue ideas in a serious way.
The only way we do it is podcasts and news shows and entertainment.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, well, I mean, because that's why there's kind of been this rush since the MAGA movement sort of originated to intellectualize a lot of these ideas.
And people kind of rolled their eyes at it.
But you kind of need that stability for people because, again, when something like Charlie, the Charlie Kirk assassination happens and it's so dramatic and it's so scary, quite frankly, that breeds a lot of anxiety in people.
That breeds a lot of discomfort and instability and these sorts of things.
And Candace is exploiting that by instead of sort of backfilling and providing people with a vision forward, here's what we need to do.
Here's how we can prevent this from ever happening again.
She peddles these conspiracy theories.
It's almost a cliche peddling conspiracy theories, but that's what's going on here.
And it's because the audience, quite frankly, is looking for an answer here.
They don't want to believe the reality that alone gunman or whatever collaboration, but that effectively a random guy can take down a Titan like Charlie Kirk.
People don't want to believe that.
People don't want to believe that the world is that chaotic, the world is that evil.
They would rather believe that there has to be some bigger motivation here.
This can't be how this ends.
This can't be how the story ends.
We saw the same thing with the Trump assassination.
We don't want to believe that this sort of evil and chaos could be enacted by such a relatively insignificant party.
But that's just the reality of the world we live in.
I mean, the reality of this world is it is chaotic.
It is scary.
And that's not a good feeling.
And that's why strong policy, strong executive power is sort of the anecdote right now.
And it would be really useful if people like Candace were sort of steering people in the correct direction.
But no, she's exploiting this tendency for people.
They need security right now.
And they would rather hear that, oh, no, there's this huge network that took them out rather than the reality is, you know, Tyler Robinson and maybe a few of his friends and local agitators were behind this ultimately.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
You know, I'm trying to remember, I think it was Genghis Khan had the famous quote, you know, if you had not created, if you had not committed these monstrous sins, God would not have sent me to punish you.
And in a way, that's kind of Candace Owens right now, right?
So what we have is an epistemological crisis, right?
We've had a shattering of the way we gather and understand information.
After the COVID, after all the betrayals involved, every institution from the medical to the political to the religious, the news, every, everything broke down.
Everything lied to us.
Everything we were told was a conspiracy theory turned out to be true.
It was, you know, the joke is like the difference between a mainstream media headline and a right-wing conspiracy theory is three months.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Right.
Like, like that's where we're at.
And so they're, you know, many of us warned this, right?
Like, you guys can't keep doing this.
If you keep doing this, you will break the machine.
You will break society.
And they did.
They didn't listen.
They kept doing it.
And now the cost is coming due.
And I don't like what Candace is doing, but it's kind of inevitable, right?
If all trust in the institutions and news is shattered, then how do we come to a shared understanding of the world?
The answer is we don't.
And people like Candace Owens can capitalize on that.
So is she doing something bad?
Yeah, I think so.
But is she more of a symptom of a larger problem than the problem itself?
Yeah, I really think that she ultimately is.
We can't shatter truth.
We can't shatter our collective sense-making apparatus in the United States and the wider West and then turn around and be like, why are people believing Candace Owens?
Why are people believing these conspiracy theories?
Well, because the last 10 conspiracy theories they believe turned out to be right.
So why would 11 be any different?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, that's a great point is that, I mean, especially following Charlie Kirk's assassination, there was a huge vacuum for information on the right.
And like you said, I mean, Candace Owens is a symptom.
If it wasn't her, we would just be insert name here.
Oh, insert name here is really tearing this coalition apart.
I mean, the reality, people like you have said this for years or something along these lines is like the need for a counter elite to be ready to go, ready to rock.
And the instance that, you know, Trump is successful and he seems to be trending in this direction at sort of picking apart this elite that has lied to us at every turn.
Like you've said, they've corrupted virtually every institution that exists, barring like, I don't know, like police unions.
So every institution is off the table for the right.
That does, you know, sort of amplify the need that we have for a counter elite to be right to rock, ready to go when their number is called.
So like you said, I mean, this vacuum occurs.
And yeah, people are going to turn to Candace Owens.
She's providing an explanation.
She's providing, you know, she's stitching together a narrative that you can buy into because in many ways, there's not. many other narratives for people to buy into.
It's a total, total mess.
And yeah, that was an excellent point, right?
I mean, that, yeah, Candace Owens is sort of the one of the many one of the many pieces of this storm, not necessarily the cause of the storm.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
And this is something I've really been trying to get the right to understand.
And they don't like this because it strikes at kind of a very thin veil that they've had pulled over kind of their actual political situation.
But the truth is that especially in mass politics, when we're scaling up politics and including hundreds of millions of people and trying to persuade them one way or another, people need narratives.
You know, I think this is the one contribution Jordan Peterson actually provided to the right.
It's not just about truth in the Sam Harris biological science way.
It's about truth in the collective understanding way.
And narratives are not less or more true than science.
They are the way in which we understand all things, including science or others.
And when we don't fill a space with a narrative, when there isn't a cohesive way for us to collectively understand an event, something will fill that void, right?
Something will come in and fill that space.
And frankly, the fact that the Trump administration, while they have made great gains in other areas, have simply done basically nothing about the death of Charlie Kirk.
The narrative has been empty, right?
We hear little to nothing about the shooting.
We see little to no action about this.
Yes, we've designated Antifa and terrorist group, both domestically and internationally.
Great.
Where are my arrests?
Where are my raids?
Why is it there?
You know, J6 guys had FBI agents swinging through windows, pulling them out of beds, ripping them out of their truck cabs, pulling them out of their workplaces a few weeks after the event.
Why can't we do that for radical leftists who are encouraging violence like we saw against Charlie Kirk and likely like we've seen against other conservative commentators?
Why can't they do that?
The answer is they're either scared or they're stupid.
There is no other answer to this question.
And in that void comes the conspiracies.
Well, why aren't we taking real action?
Maybe we don't know.
Maybe people are involved that the Trump administration doesn't want out it, right?
Like all those things start to come out because we see nothing happening.
Our shared reality doesn't make sense.
And so someone can come in and fill that.
And that's what Candace is doing.
Maybe for the worse, but if you're not going to fill that appetite, somebody is.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
What does this say about the state of debate?
Because, I mean, people correctly identified following Kirk that debate, the left had given up on it.
They were just going kinetic.
They're saying, you know, we're tired of these roundtable discussions.
We just want power now.
But now within our coalition where Candace is unresponsive to any evidence provided, debunking it, like, you know, Bridget Macron, it's like, okay, no, she's not a man.
She's just chopped.
Like, that's just like what's going on here.
There's no deeper, there's no deeper conspiracy.
There's just people are unresponsive to information.
Scott Greer, I don't know if he coined the term, but he certainly popularized the clown world where the right-wing polemics has just turned into a spectacle.
How do you debate spectacle?
Because you have people that are intellectuals to some degree or just truth seekers, and they're up against people that thrive in spectacle.
They're up against people that seek to further cultivate it and create these bombastic narratives.
It's like, how do you argue with that?
I mean, because Americans especially are very receptive to the most entertaining of narratives.
That's why we produce the best movies.
Like, how can you debate that?
How is there any roundtable discussion when that's like, there's total, there's no parity right now?
There's no common ground.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
I mean, you can't really.
And this is one of the fatal flaws of democracy.
Democracy always devolves into this.
This is why every ancient thinker. you know, said this was the worst possible system because ultimately, especially as you widen the franchise, right?
You can have a limited democracy.
You can have a limited republic, as we would actually want to call it, where there's a certain set of well, you know, well-heeled, well-educated, thoughtful, resourceful people who come together and vote and make the decisions because they have involved themselves as responsible citizens and virtuous citizens inside and the body politic.
But the wider you get the voting group, the less that aspect goes away, right?
And the more mass democracy you get, the more people who are just barely paying attention, they don't have any time.
They don't have the leisure time.
Again, this is not to downgrade or denigrate people for this.
Like ultimately, you shouldn't spend your whole life obsessed with politics.
We should have a good enough regime where the average person doesn't need to vote four out of their hours of their day listening to a bunch of different podcasts, desperately hoping to sift through the truth.
Like that's not the way that life should be.
But when you open up the entire voting base to this, well, you're going to eventually run down to the lowest common denominator.
And anyone who's been in a group project or a public school or anything knows exactly how this works, right?
Like if you got two or three studious people working on the project, you're fine.
But if you get five, 10 people, you're going to get some people who don't care what's going on.
And just the quality level is going to slowly degrade.
And this is just what's going to keep happening in our scenario.
The more people who want to feed into this content, the harder it is to refute.
So I think there's still some utility to having discussions and debates, but you can't expect that to win over the masses at this point.
You have to get better at the game or you have to change the game.
Those are your two options.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
I mean, because we're seeing on the GOP, I mean, it's really math.
I mean, as the population gets bigger, information diversifies.
Everyone's in their own lane.
I mean, people will introduce me and I'm in politics and they'll introduce me to a commentator who has hundreds of thousands of followers and they're not even on my radar.
Like people are all within like these different silos of information.
And there's some value to that to a degree because, you know, there's new ideas being introduced to the zeitgeist.
And oftentimes some of these ideas are quite valuable and you can evaluate them and these sorts of things.
But, you know, going into 2024, Trump had to stitch together a coalition to get across the finish line because like I said, you know, everyone's in their own lane.
Everyone's diversified.
It's not like the 80s where pretty much everyone is on the same page, like for better or for worse.
And then now, as soon as one of these coalitions that was brought into the fray feels wronged, feels like their issue is not being addressed, they immediately splinter off.
And beyond that, with the coalition, we needed our rock stars to push things across the finish line.
A lot of these comedians, these brocasters, as they've been dubbed, immediately soured on things as soon as it became, as soon as they started receiving pushback from presumably people in their circle.
Media Matters clipped me discussing the Tim Dill and Joe Rogan kind of sphere where as soon as the mass deportations went underway, they immediately soured and they said, oh, well, this is too far.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Like I didn't vote for I didn't think you were sending back my nanny and my lawnscaper.
I don't understand.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And it's like, that's like you're pointing out with democracy, with the way this works.
It's just about getting to 50% and you can introduce all these different parties into your coalition.
If anybody's played the Victoria games, you know how hard it is to maintain coalitions because everybody in your coalition wants something different.
So I guess all this to say, how do we keep this coalition going together or stick together going into the midterms?
Because everything's splintering.
I think Tim's moment last night and in many ways actually brought a bit of unity.
You saw people from Ben Shapiro to Nick Fuentes all saying like, thank you.
Someone finally said it.
But obviously these moments are short.
You can't stitch a coalition around being like anti-Candace, Candace Owens.
How do we move forward as a right wing broadly with so many different competing factions in the party?
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Well, like I said, a real problem is you don't have hygiene for your epistemology because you don't have control of institutions.
There's no way to punish institutionally Candace Owens for what's going on here.
What are you going to cut her off from, right?
Like ultimately, she's got her own fan base.
She's got her own audience coming in.
She's got her own network distribution.
She doesn't need the Daily Wire or Fox News or anything to build her brand.
And so she's very insulated from any kind of real blowback.
Now, I guess one upside would be as she gets more ridiculous, that's as large as she can get, right?
Like at some point, there is a market cap for what she's doing and she's alienated herself from everyone else so much that they're not going to have her on.
She's going to have a hard time growing outside of her audience.
So there is like a natural barrier to the explosive nature of her growth, but it's still pretty large, right?
Now, remember, you know, one of the ways that Trump ultimately kind of solved the coalition problem is he actually ended debate, right?
He walked in and said, like, oh, you're a racist, you're a sexist.
He's like, no, you're dumb.
You're ugly.
We're moving off, right?
Like he wasn't sitting there working out the nuances of policy.
He's like, no, it's America first.
We do this.
They go home.
We deport them.
The end, right?
Like he's not getting into the nuance.
They're very bad people.
They have to go home.
I'm not hearing any arguments about, you know, like that.
That's, that was the style that ultimately kind of allowed things to come back together.
I think Trump victories, I think Trump strength would recenter the coalition.
I think one of the reasons we've kind of seen it drifting so badly is it's very clear that, especially after October 7th and all the focus on that, the Trump presidency sadly has been one that is more of a foreign policy presidency.
He's been trying to figure out peace in Ukraine and peace in Israel and working out all these deals.
And what people really wanted was domestic victories.
They wanted deportations.
They wanted to see left-wingers who had violated their rights and attacked the Trump administration go to jail for their crimes.
If Trump was winning those victories, I think the opportunity to splinter the coalition would be less.
I think more people would be loyal to those victories.
They would be energized by those victories, the momentum.
I mean, just think back to the beginning of the Trump presidency with signing all the executive orders, knocking all these victories out of the park.
There was none of this, right?
There was none of this push against what was going on.
It's only once things slowed down, it became clear that congressional Republicans were going to muck everything up, that we were going to see judges overturning all this stuff.
And then just the kind of slowdown of the control.
That's what gave room, I think, for people to then doubt what was going on and try to cut their own peace out of the coalition and go their own way.
Now we see the neocons trying to get rid of JD Vance because they want to return and own the party.
Everyone knows that if Trump doesn't do something drastic, he's a lame duck, right?
If the Republicans move, lose the midterms and then you go into another year where like things aren't going well for Republicans and they have even less control over things, you're going to spiral into this like everyone's just going to feeding frenzy because they don't know what to do in a post-Trump Republican party.
I think the only thing that really brings the coalition back together is victory on the part of the Trump administration.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just smother any dissent and victory.
I mean, that's a very simple, simple solution.
I guess one more question I have for you.
I don't know if this puts you on the spot a little bit, but with the ramp up in violence we're seeing, obviously, against specifically the commentary class and our elected officials over the last few years and specifically in the last year, how do people in that sphere continue to operate?
I mean, obviously here at Timcast, we're having conversations on how we're going to move forward after this.
I mean, this was seriously a wake-up call and a very scary situation.
People around the sphere have sort of discussed and talked about the different threats they face and the drastic measures they have to go to counter that.
Obviously, our opponents on the left don't really have to deal with that.
They can hang out in Beverly Hills and it's not really a problem.
But what do you think the future is for the commentariat and the political class?
Do you think it's going to shake out a lot of good people who just are afraid of what could happen?
I mean, how do you see all of this playing out?
Is there an off-ramp?
I mean, what's going on here?
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
It certainly could.
It could easily push people out.
It could cow people, make them, you know, parrot less radical or less bold positions in hopes of staving off the worst of it, though I think that's a mistake because you can see it's really not the most radical people there being target.
Tim is many things, but certainly not radical.
And so the fact that this is the way that things are going, I don't think stepping back your rhetoric is going to really help you here.
I mean, obviously the real solution is the Trump administration needs to get very serious and very kinetic about its, as my friend John Doyle says, it's very cool.
It's very cool and very legal annihilation of the left.
That's the actual answer.
But since we can't seem to compel them to do that, though I will continue to push, the only answer has been people have to look to themselves.
Look, I'm not going anywhere.
You know, me and God are good.
When he calls my number, I'm going to a great place.
We're fine.
However, I've got family.
I've got friends.
I got people I love.
Those are the people that you worry about.
And I'm sure that's true for a lot of people, right?
And we shouldn't have to live this way.
This is not the way that ultimately, you know, any, you know, public figures are always taking some level of risk, right?
We've already, you know, some guy shot Ronald Reagan on behalf of Jody Foster, right?
It's not like the first time we've ever seen a political crazy, but obviously we're getting to a like widespread targeted terrorist left that is coming to dominate.
And really, you know, the answer is the Trump administration needs to take action.
And until then, the commentary is going to have to make its own personal decisions on the level of danger that they're comfortable with.
I think a lot of people honestly are brave enough to stay in the game, but some people are going to get pushed up.
This is going to be one of those sifting moments.
And when we get on the other side, that probably means that ultimately we will be stronger.
But we might have lost some people who just say, you know what?
At the end of the day, I love my family and stuff more than I care about being in the limelight or trying to fight this battle.
And so I'm going to step away.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Absolutely.
No, it's so true.
And it's, it's, yeah, it's, it's getting hot.
It's getting, it's getting scary.
So with that, Oron, thank you very much for hopping on.
Where can people find you to get some more?
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Sure, I'll be on Blaze TV.
And of course, my show is also on YouTube and Rumble and Odyssey.
And I'm posting on places like Gab and Twitter under Oren McIntyre.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
I love it.
Thank you so much, Oran.
We'll catch you next time.
auron macintyre ▲ ● ▼
Thanks again, man.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
All righty, guys.
Well, that was the great Oron McIntyre.
A lot of people don't realize this.
I came, you know, still new to the game, and Auron was one of those guys that I listened to like every day.
So it's always so surreal to be able to chat with these guys and pick their brains on these issues because I don't know.
I feel like I'm an audience member here with Oron.
Like I'm getting to ask him some questions.
I'm like a super chatter IRL.
So super fun to be able to chat with them.
The circumstances of the conversation, not so fun.
It's getting very scary out there.
But with that, we will be back tonight with Timcast IRL at 8 p.m.
You know it.
Go check it out.
We'll have a great time tonight.
It's going to be a good show.
You can follow me on X and Instagram at RealTape Brown.
I'll be back tomorrow with a morning show, and we will see you all there.
▲
Export Selection