All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 13, 2026 - The Culture War - Tim Pool
28:35
Left PANICS Over RFK's MAHA Reform, Testosterone To SKYROCKET ft. Raw Egg Nationalist

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: Raw Egg Nationalist @Babygravy9 (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

Participants
Main
c
charles cornish-dale
24:28
Appearances
t
tate brown
04:01
|

Speaker Time Text
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
All right.
Well, before we get started here, I just want to read this headline.
This is hilarious.
This is from the New York Times.
They put this guest essay out.
This would have been on the 10th.
The new food pyramid brought to you by big meat.
Now, I saw this.
I said, look, everyone's talking about it.
Big meat.
Everyone's, you know, thinking about big meat.
Big meat's been like just in my brain.
I'm having a tough time grasping big meat.
Obviously, it's on the tip of everyone's tongues.
So I wanted to bring an expert in.
What are your thoughts on big meat?
Do you think big meat is maybe it's like kind of an imposing force?
Do you think RFK is shoving big meat down everyone's throats?
What do you think is going on?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I, you know, Tate, I think about big meat a lot.
It occupies a lot of my thinking.
A lot of my writing is about big meat, about what big meat means, how you would define big meat, you know, what constitutes big meat, what's small meat, or average meat even, you know.
unidentified
Right.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
But yeah, but to be to be serious, though, you know, this, this notion of big meat actually is absurd.
I mean, what they want you to believe, I think, really is that basically there's big, like there's big ag and you've got big corn and you've got big soy and you've got big beef and big chicken and big pork.
And they're all kind of competing forces within the market, right?
And so, you know, what's good for big meat for big beef or big corn or big chicken or big pork isn't good for big soy or big corn.
Well, that simply isn't the case.
I mean, it might once upon a time have been the case that you had conglomerates that were just in chicken or beef or pork and conglomerates that were in that were in grains.
But agriculture is so deeply, deeply integrated in the US now.
So if you look at a mega corporation like Cargill, for example, Cargill is one of the largest grain companies in the world and has been for and has been for the better part of a century or more.
They're also the biggest or one of the biggest beef producers in the US.
So this notion that somehow all RFK Jr. has done is he's kind of like, you know, flipped a switch and now instead of favoring big grain, he's favoring big meat is just nonsense because you can't actually, you can't separate them.
There's no, I mean, so it is a nonsense.
It really is a nonsense to suggest that this is just about pleasing or pandering to a new set of corporate interests.
You know, the big meter, big meter slipping RFK Jr., you know, stakes, steaks in the background or something like that.
It just doesn't work, just doesn't work like that.
Agriculture is not like that anymore.
So actually, you know, you find that these big companies that were traditionally in meat, so Cargill, I think, you know, another Tyson, for example, Tyson's a better example, you know, Tyson was traditionally a meat and dairy company.
Well, they're hugely into grain now.
And they're also hugely actually into alternative proteins.
And this is something that I talk about in my previous book, The Eggs Benedict Option that I wrote in 2022.
You know, all of these companies that were traditionally just producing meat and dairy, they're now producing like their things like plant-based meats and pea protein and all sorts of alternative foods as well.
So like there's just this notion of big meat, of meat production being separate from other forms of food production, separate from processed food in particular, because processed food is the principal constituent of the vast majority of Americans' diets now.
It's just nonsense.
So, I mean, it's fabricated.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
funny as it might sound you know to be talking about rfk jr you know riding big meat it's yeah it's nonsense it's nonsense absolutely well i mean that's why i wanted to bring you on because obviously this story has been in the zeitgeist but there's not a lot of people that can speak with authority on it let alone speak with the depth of knowledge that you have on the topic um you know before we really get into the meat and potatoes so to speak of the story Could you give an overview on the work you've done thus far?
And then what aspects of that work you have seen implemented in RFK's sort of overhaul of HHS?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, well, you know, it's very interesting.
I actually met someone who is now very senior in HHS just before the election, like days before the election when I was in the US.
And this person said to me, I read your book, The Eggs Benedict Option.
It's amazing.
It's a blueprint for make America healthy again.
Like everything you talk about here, corporate control of the food supply in particular, the elimination of animal foods from, you know, from diets of ordinary Americans and the corresponding decline in health.
This is all the stuff that we want to get into.
This is all the kind of stuff that we want to focus on.
So, I mean, my book, The Eggs Benedict Option, is about the plan for a global plant-based diet and why that's a bad thing.
And so, you know, I mean, that was a big thing in like 2020, 2021, 2022 during the coronavirus crisis, you know, when people were talking about the great reset, whatever that was supposed to mean.
An integral part of that was this idea that actually we need to change our diets.
We need not only to have a great reset, you know, of the way that we, of the way that the world work and the way that we live and all this kind of stuff, but also the way that we eat in particular.
And so they were pushing plant-based diets.
And so I thought, well, you know, what would that actually mean for our health?
And so I wrote a book about it.
And then I wrote an alternative proposal.
So my great reset was a vision of actually returning to returning to the way our ancestors used to eat, to animal-based diets, basically.
And I drew very heavily on the work of a dentist, come anthropologist called Western A. Price, who wrote this amazing, amazing book in the 1930s called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, which is basically the best book on nutrition you've never heard of.
So he basically went around the world to small scale traditional societies.
He visited the Inuit.
He went to the highlands and islands of Scotland.
He went up into the Swiss Alps.
He went to Africa, to Polynesia, to Fiji and New Zealand and all these different places.
And he looked at what people in traditional societies ate.
And he looked in particular for traditional societies where people were basically in perfect health.
And he discovered that everybody, all of these societies, every single one of them, prioritize nutrient-dense animal foods in particular.
So, you know, like an Inuit isn't eating exactly the same food as a pastoralist in Kenya.
unidentified
Sure.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
Right.
But the type of food is the same.
So yes, an Inuit might be eating salmon and caribou.
And yes, a Maasai herdsman will be eating beef and milk and blood in particular.
But actually, they're both prioritizing the same kinds of animal foods, which are nutrient-dense animal foods.
So it's things like organ meat, fatty cuts of meat, dairy foods, eggs, seafood, shellfish, crustaceans, fatty fish, that kind of stuff.
And that's basically how our ancestors ate since the dawn of time.
But then there was this profound change in the 20th century in particular, continuing into into the 21st, where we, we started to eat these new types of food produced in factories, the first processed foods and then ultra-processed foods, which are kind of like the more a more recent development from the 70s 80s uh, into today.
But um, but yeah, I mean the, the HHS agenda.
I mean I i'm i'm amazed, i'm really amazed so far actually, you know that they've, they really have turned the food pyramid on its head and it and it's basically, I mean it's, it's everything i've asked for, it's everything i've said we should do.
You know, we need to return to um, to diets that are based on nutrient-dense animal foods.
We, we need to stop being afraid of animal proteins and especially animal fats.
You know animal fats and cholesterol in particular, which is a constituent of animal fat uh, they've been demonized in the 20th century.
Cholesterol in particular, I mean cholesterol is one of the is one of the real, is the real boogeyman, apart from say, something like tobacco uh, of 20th century medicine.
You know, in the late 1960s in the Us then um, there was actually a specific health warning attached to eggs, in particular in the Us.
So they are the only foodstuff in American history that has ever had a specific warning attached to its consumption because of the, because of the amount of cholesterol in eggs.
So um uh, we need to reverse all that.
You know, we were promised, Americans were promised, and the rest of the world were promised renewed health.
We were told look, if we stop eating cholesterol, we'll stop getting heart disease.
Uh, all of these other chronic diseases will go away.
You know, we'll have renewed health and that just hasn't happened.
And you know you, you look it's, it's obvious.
You look around, today people are unhealthier than they've ever been.
They're more dependent than they've ever been on pharmaceuticals.
In fact, you know, people are dependent on pharmaceuticals in a way that once upon a time, 100 years ago, would actually only have been conceivable in the pages of a science fiction novel.
Right, I mean in somewhere like Scotland, for example.
I mean, I know Scotland is a kind of it's a kind of grim place and so it's it's kind of a bad example.
But 25, 25 of all adults in Scotland are on antidepressants.
Yeah one, one million people out of four million, and then I think, a further uh, a further million are also on other forms of drugs like uh, Zed drugs, anti-anxiety meds benzodiazepines, all these kind of psychotropic drugs.
I mean we are medicated yeah, to an insane extent.
I mean virtually everybody is taking pills, everybody is, um is medicated.
So um, you know the the orthodoxies of of 20th century uh, medicine need to be thrown out.
They need certainly need to be re-examined but um, I mean fundamentally, I think they need to be thrown out and it's good to see that actually uh, HHS under RFK Junior is prepared to do that.
I mean, he knows, he knows, I mean I I I, I would doubt that our, my thinking and his thinking on diet, diet and health differ at all, really.
You know, he's just, he's in a more difficult position, obviously, because he has to oppose competing interests and, you know, he's, he's the one who has to push against the medical community and all these entrenched interests.
But I think fundamentally, we really do align in our thinking and our approaches.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Well, I guess that would be the question is obviously you outlined the history, obviously when in process who introduced the diet, you know, the pharmaceutical industry really taking off.
I guess the question, and I think a lot of people in the audience would sort of wonder the same thing or debate back and forth.
How much of that was brought into our lives out of for ideological reasons, like these people genuinely believing, A, this is better for us, or B, potentially they wanted to neuter us, versus how much of it is just business interests, like, hey, I just want to move more grain.
I don't care what you have to say to move the product, just say it.
I mean, those to me seem like the two sort of camps I would explain it.
How much is attributed to each, would you say?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
It's a complicated thing.
I mean, I don't think that you can just say there was some kind of conspiracy to make us all sick and dependent.
And I mean, that has been the practical effect of everything that's happened in the 20th century, without a doubt.
I mean, like I say, you know, we are unwell and dependent on pharmaceuticals and the medical industry to an extent that would have been impossible to imagine.
I mean, if you just look at the demonization of cholesterol, for example, then you can see the involvement, the deep involvement of corporate interests, even from the very beginning.
So the theory that cholesterol causes heart disease, which has been the principal justification for abandoning animal foods in our diets, is something called the lipid heart hypothesis.
And it was formulated by a man called Ansel Keys in the 1940s.
Now, Ansel Keys presented himself as an expert nutritionist, but he really wasn't.
He worked on the K ration.
He helped make the K ration, the famous army ration or military ration that was used by American service personnel during World War II.
He helped come up with that.
And then he kind of branded himself as a nutritionist.
Anyway, heart disease rates were exploding in the US in the 1940s.
You know, it was really the beginning of the kind of big upsurge in heart disease.
And it was becoming a national issue.
And so people were looking for explanations.
His explanation that he came up with was that it was saturated fat consumption and saturated fat and cholesterol consumption are linked.
And he produced this study called the Seven Country Study, where he presented results, correlations between saturated fat consumption and heart disease in seven different countries from around the world.
Showed a very close correlation.
Very close correlation.
But why was that?
Because he cherry-picked the countries.
So he just picked seven countries that had a very close correlation.
He ignored, for example, a country like France.
They talk about the French paradox, because the French consume so much butter, they consume four times the butter, I think, might even be more than four times the butter Americans consume, and yet they have significantly lower rates of heart disease.
Now, this was all pointed out at the time, actually, by his colleagues.
So he was kind of laughed out of the room by his contemporaries.
They were like, look, you've gerrymanded this data.
You're just presenting a totally selective picture of the relationship between saturated fat consumption and heart disease.
This is rubbish.
And it was rubbish and it is rubbish.
But Ansel Keys managed to get the backing of margarine makers.
And I think in particular, Procter and I think it was Procter and Gamble, I think.
There were these, you know, these companies that were trying to market new forms of fat that were made basically from industrial waste products.
And this is one of the things that you hear about seed and vegetable oils, margarine, right, is that once upon a time, these were industrial waste products.
And then corporations found a way to turn them into edible products.
And so they started making money.
I mean, that is actually true.
That is actually true.
So Crisco, which was the first margarine, is crystallized cottonseed oil.
That's where the name comes from, right?
And so cottonseed oil was a byproduct of the production of cotton industrially, right?
So they would just have loads and loads of cottonseed oil laying around the place.
And they're like, well, what can we do with it?
We can use it to lubricate machinery.
We can use it as paint thinners.
And then somebody comes up with this industrial process of hydrogenating cottonseed oil to turn it into a semi-solid fat like butter.
Well, what Ansel Keyes did was he provided the science to justify the consumption of these new alternative fats, right?
And so the margarine producers, and I think particularly Procter ⁇ Gamble, poured millions of dollars into promoting this stuff through organizations like the American Heart Association.
So I think Procter ⁇ Gamble gave the American Heart Association the million dollars in 1940, whatever, which was a lot of money there, right?
And so you can see from the beginning that actually, you know, it was industrial interests pushing this science and they won.
They won.
And the science was accepted over the objections of large parts of the scientific community.
I mean, this is something that you don't hear when you, you know, people talk about the transition from consumption of animal fats to these novel industrial fats.
It's that actually loads and loads of scientists at the time said that the science was rubbish.
It wasn't that everybody accepted it.
It was that actually, no, lots of scientists didn't accept it, but the money won out, as is often the case.
So it's a complicated thing.
But of course, then once you erect a system, once you entrench these interests, it becomes very, very difficult to dislodge them and to replace them.
And so, you know, this has been the orthodoxy for 70 years, 70 plus years, you know, that we need to stop eating animal foods and we need to adopt a different kind of diet that's built around healthy plant proteins and healthy plant fats in particular.
And actually, along the way, along the way, as is often the case then, when you have this kind of dominant paradigm, conflicting evidence is ignored.
So there's a very, very famous example of this called the Minnesota Coronary Study, where basically a large-scale double blind double blind gold standard intervention study was done where I think it was seven or maybe 10 institutions,
health institutions, hospitals in Minnesota substituted vegetable and seed oils, like sunflower oil, that kind of thing, for animal fats in the diet of the patients.
Now, according to the lipid heart hypothesis, what would happen is, well, everyone would live longer.
Their health would improve, right?
The complete opposite happened.
The complete opposite happened.
And actually, the scientists behind the study showed that for every, I think it was something like for every 30 point reduction in cholesterol in blood cholesterol, the mortality rate doubled or something.
I mean, it was something it was crazier.
I think absolutely flew in the face of the of the lipid heart hypothesis and the orthodoxy that had been accepted.
So what happened?
They did this expensive study over a period, I don't know, maybe of a year, might even have been longer than a year, cost a lot of money, took a lot of time.
They just binned it.
They binned it because the results didn't fit.
And then 30, 40 years later, they rediscovered this study and were like, actually, you know what?
Maybe they were right.
And maybe this shouldn't have been hidden from the public, but it was simply because it didn't fit with the established narrative.
And that's really what happens.
You know, you get these entrenched interests.
Huge amounts of money now are behind.
I mean, however much money there was in making margarine in the 1930s or 1940s, we're talking orders of magnitude more now, many orders of magnitude.
I mean, consumption of soybean oil, for example, has increased the thousandfold over the last century.
I mean, this is, we're talking about huge amounts of money.
So it's a complicated thing.
And I think you have to look at it historically and understand, you know, not only like what led to the initial the initial kind of take up of these products, but also then you have to understand the kind of dynamics that exist within the scientific community, within the corporate community, within government.
You know, I mean, these, they're all kind of hand in hand.
They're all hand in glove.
And so it becomes a very, very complicated thing actually to really to do anything and to make any change.
So it's a mixture of things.
It's a mixture of things, certainly.
But there's corporate interests.
There's, you know, I think a lot of people in the scientific community also genuinely believe in the science.
I think they do.
I don't think that people just push it because they think it's because it's convenient or because it serves some ulterior motive.
I do think there are a lot of true believers and they're very hard to convince.
And the reaction to RFK Jr. turning the food pyramid on its head has been, well, I mean, people are talking about big meat.
I mean, people are conjuring up these phantoms that don't even exist to try and explain how somebody could ever come to the conclusion that actually, you know, eating animal fat is healthier than eating a byproduct of cotton manufacture.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, they're shadow boxing against like these boogeymen that literally have been completely disarmed over the last 200 years.
It's like totally ridiculous.
I guess I have one more question for you.
Obviously, people have seen the headlines or perhaps even the data sort of indicating that, you know, when people participate in activities like weightlifting or clean eating, they become more right wing.
Obviously, it's almost a cliche at this point.
People say that over and over again.
But, you know, from my analysis, it's true because it does produce more testosterone.
And that's obviously going to make you more disagreeable in a good way.
So then you're going to be able to reject sort of the consensus at large.
My question is, do you really, do you think that RFK's sort of decision making here with HHS is actually sort of a viable political strategy in which as he sort of unchains the vitality of American men, we will see more and more men stepping up and saying, yeah, this consensus that we've been, you know, that's been hoisted upon us is absolutely ridiculous.
They're going to be more sort of poised to buck the system, so to speak.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
Oh, yeah.
I mean, look, this is one of the central, one of the central contentions of my new book, or certainly one of the things that I really talk about in the new book is about, which is called The Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.
It's out now, Amazon, hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook.
But one of my central theses in that book is that actually testosterone decline is a serious political problem.
And we're seeing a civilizational decline in testosterone levels.
There are many factors causing it.
It's partly diet.
It's partly its broader lifestyles, its exposure to toxic chemicals, et cetera.
But we have very good reason to believe that actually decline in testosterone is tied to changing political behavior.
And there's a lot of experimental data from disciplines like social and personality psychology that shows that if you give a man a dose of testosterone, so there are all these experiments, you know, where you'll have groups of people and one of them will be groups of men and one of them will be given testosterone gel and the other will be given a placebo.
And then they'll do some kind of activity that's supposed to show to demonstrate particular kinds of behavior.
And what you'll find is that actually if you give men a dose of testosterone, they do basically become more right wing.
Let's go.
You know, they display particular behaviors that are associated with being right wing.
Like, for example, being okay with hierarchy.
Now, that's something that social and personality psychologists look at a lot is hierarchy, attitudes to hierarchy and inequality.
And it turns out that if you give men a dose of testosterone, they're happier with hierarchy than they were before.
And hierarchy, obviously, you know, is a fundamental organizing principle for the right wing and for conservatives.
And it's, you know, a central, it's the central target of leftist politics is hierarchy.
The leveling of hierarchy is the leftist project wherever it's found.
And there are loads of other studies that I talk about actually, you know, at great length in the book.
I mean, yes, I do think that improving the health of the nation and particularly improving male health is a winning long-term strategy for the right and should be one that the right should focus on.
I mean, it's funny because, you know, once upon a time, health was more or less the province of the left, actually.
You know, you had hippies and all these kind of crunchy beatnik types, you know, all, you know, eating their organic foods and their smoothies and talking about raw milk and all that kind of stuff.
Well, those days are gone now.
I mean, the left is explicitly kind of anti-this stuff, actually.
And it was, and it was very interesting during the election campaign to see that there was no alternative to RFK Jr. and the Maha agenda from the Democrats.
They just simply didn't acknowledge it.
They weren't interested in, they didn't think it was a winning issue.
And maybe it maybe it isn't a win.
In fact, I don't think it is a winning issue for the left now, because what the left wants to do is to foster dependency, wants to foster dependency on the state in particular.
I mean, you want a big state, you want big daddy or big mummy to give you everything.
Then, yeah, it's great to have everybody, everybody fat and useless.
It's great to reduce people's capacity to rely on themselves, to be physically fit and courageous, and especially for men to have testosterone.
So I do think that this is a, yeah, that this is a winning.
I don't think that this is a distraction.
I mean, I think that this actually should be and is at the moment at least a fundamental part of the right-wing platform.
And it should remain so going forward, you know, indefinitely, I think, actually.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Absolutely.
I totally agree.
That's great.
I mean, that's, it's so true.
Love the denial of the testosterone studies from the left, too, the ways they can conjure up because they know how much of an indictment really is of their politics.
But with that, we are running out of time, but this is so fantastic.
I really appreciate you hopping on.
Where can people find you?
Where can people find your book?
They're going to want more.
So, where can people find you?
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, so I'm on Twitter.
Baby Gravy9 is my unfortunate handle.
I am the Raw Egg Nationalist, Baby Gravy 9.
I have a sub stack, raw eggstack.com.
And my new book, The Last Men, Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity, is out now from Skyhorse.
It's available on Amazon, as I said, in hardcover, Kindle, and audiobook format.
And I will be doing a little bit of a book tour over the next couple of weeks in the U.S. I'll be appearing on InfoWars, doing some live events in New York and Washington and maybe LA as well.
So pay attention to my Twitter if you want to find out details and maybe turn up at one of those events.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
I love it, dude.
Thank you so much.
Well, I'll catch you next time.
charles cornish-dale ▲ ● ▼
It's been a pleasure.
Thank you.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
All right.
Well, that was the Raw.
Just the perfect, perfect person to come on and talk about these sorts of things.
Yeah, it's so true.
Like Maha as a political vehicle is very real.
Like, we're not just doing this for fun.
Like, legitimately sorting out the people's health is going to be very politically expedient.
Testosterone, huge crisis.
People are getting fatter and gayer.
And I got to lock in.
The book's great.
I just picked up the copy, but I got to lock in and just really HealthMax, Chud Max.
Chud Maxing takes more than just a mental change.
It takes a physical change as well.
So with that, you can find me on X and Instagram at RealTate Brown.
We'll be back tonight for Timcast IRL at 8 p.m. Be There or Be Square.
And thank you very much for watching.
▲
Export Selection