All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2025 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
01:50:32
THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 106 — Democrat Sedition? Mankeeping? Epstein Files At Last?

The ThoughtCrime crew dives into the most important topics both cultural and political, including: -Is Trump serious about jailing Democrats for a seditious TikTok? -Will "mankeeping" drive women to adopt AI boyfriends instead? -Is the Epstein saga nearing a resolution or will it go on forever? Support the show

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From the age of big brother.
If they want to get you, they'll get you.
DNSA specifically targets the communications of everyone.
They're collecting your communications to thought crime Thursdays.
Got the whole crew here.
We're actually a five deep today.
This is great.
Jack is on assignment.
He is in an undisclosed bunker in the state of California, the People's Republic of me being in California is itself a thought crime.
Gavin Newsom, I told you I was coming, buddy.
He looks like he's been like, when we had extraordinary rendition, it looks like he's been rendered to like a CIA black site in Yugoslavia or something.
It's definitely Eastern European.
It should be brighter.
Reverting to my proper form as Postilviates Family.
Well, you guys thought there was that doppelganger of me that got, I guess, like kicked out of the FBI for being gay, and he's like suing about over this.
Yeah.
And we have that.
Oh, of course you do.
So everybody was sending this and it was like, they were like, Pesobic, how come I've never seen the two of you in the same room?
And I'm like, why are you doing me like that?
So basically, I just have to go and ask my dad a whole bunch of questions because I have no idea what's going on there.
Here it is.
Throw it up.
Throw that up, gang, when you get it because it's that.
This is Jack.
This is either gay Jack or Jack's gay, intelligent brother.
Timu Jack, when you order Jack on Grinder.
Oh, gosh.
When you order Posto on Grinder.
All right.
We have 11-year-olds watching.
So here, we're going to get to a bunch of stuff here.
So this is why we're going to do this because I'm driving because I'm in studio.
So I'm going to do it a little different.
Wait, we're going to do it.
Is that a haircut?
What is that?
I did get a haircut a while back.
Did you pay for that?
A few weeks ago.
Tyler hasn't been on Thought Crime for like a month.
I haven't been on Thought Crime.
Every time I've walked in, it's like too many people.
What?
It's because there's no hat.
Yeah, that's what it is.
That's what it is.
All right.
Here's what we're going to cover today.
Epstein Files release.
Is it too late?
Seditious Conspiracy 2025 edition.
That'll be topic two.
Topic three, Professor OnlyFans at the University of Washington.
Topic four.
This is where we don't know if we're going to get here or not.
Mankeeping epidemic.
Women ditching dudes for AI.
I hope we get to that one.
And then number five, Sidney Sweeney.
Is it a setup?
Dun, dun, dun.
All right, Jack, Epstein Files release.
Is it too late?
Trump is now behind it.
Has the damage already been done?
Is this too late?
Is the political fallout already too great?
Man, I actually really want to get to that Sidney Sweeney thing because I have a hot take that I think we're all being set up by Sidney See.
Well, I know, but let's go in order.
I know, I know, I know.
Just saying, just saying, how to get it out there?
Just to get somebody else's face.
Well, if we move quick on record.
Wait, did you bring the binder with you to California?
Oh, gosh.
No, the binder I actually used.
People get a little confused because now other people had like fake Epstein files in their binder.
My binder was given me directly by JD Vance himself.
And he said, Jack, you can't talk about this to anyone.
And I said, and I said, okay, but what is it?
And then he's like, don't open it.
So I opened it when I got home and inside was filled with nothing but rare Magic the Gathering cards.
And it was actually JD Vance's personal stash.
Wow.
I can see JD playing magic.
He almost certainly played magic.
That's like definitely a JD Vance.
Let me just say, because it is a serious thing, right?
Like joking aside or whatever, like binder jokes aside, like which I've had to go through and talk about for months now.
This is something that was avoidable in terms of the political fallout.
I don't think it ever needed to be like this.
This was something that Trump had campaigned on.
This is something that MAGA has always stood for going back to like 2016.
Was justice for Jeffrey Epstein was exposing Jeffrey Epstein.
By the way, it was Trump's DOJ that actually arrested Epstein in the first place, which is something that I don't think he gets a lot of credit for in his first term.
He literally arrested Jeffrey Epstein, but no one gives him any credit for it.
But this whole thing with the files and the release, and then there's not going to be a release, and then there was nothing.
And now there's something.
It just feels like it just didn't need to get to this point, right?
It just didn't need to get to this point.
And I think there was a misunderstanding of how big of a deal of it was for the people.
It was a big, how big of a deal it was for the country.
And it's kind of a stand-in, right?
I think it's kind of a stand-in for establishment versus like anti-establishment.
So if you're pro-establishment, you must not want the Epstein files released.
If you're anti-establishment, you want the Epstein files released.
So it's something that for a lot of no-prop voters and low-prop voters and independents, it just became this huge proxy fight over whether or not you are part of quote-unquote the club or not.
And so, look, obviously, I've always stood for full disclosure.
And I'm like, look, people want to come at me.
And I'm like, I went to the White House, I went to the Attorney General, I went to the Director of the FBI, I went to the President of the United States, and I said, release the Epstein files.
Like, what else would you have me do?
Right.
And then we've been pushing for it ever since.
Now we got this bill.
I hope they're released.
I hope every single piece of it comes out.
So I just want to make one correction, Jack.
You said that Trump campaigned on it.
MAGA has always stood for it.
I agree with you that MAGA has always stood for it.
MAGA has always wanted it.
But Trump didn't really campaign on it.
He got asked about it in one interview.
What's that?
He definitely mentioned it during the campaign.
Yeah.
So he got asked about it in an interview and he said, I would lean towards full release.
Yeah.
Which was the right answer.
And, but it wasn't, you know, some of these other pieces about transparency, whether JFK files, MLK files, things like that.
He would get up on the stage and talk about a lot and he would do it at stop after stop.
When it came to the Epstein files, he did say when asked, but it wasn't something that he beat the drum on.
And so it's almost like a form of miscommunication.
And a disconnect between the admin and the base in the sense that I don't think Trump was as gung-ho as his base was.
The base thought that was like a package deal.
The base thought we get Epstein, we get JFK, we get all the stuff.
Trump, I don't think ever in his mind included it in the same cohort, if you will.
But his voters did.
So you're right.
It became like a proxy war out of like, is the establishment in control?
Is the deep state in control?
Are the people in control?
And so it was a total, I think, unforced error.
I mean, I'll never forget Amfest.
Everybody was talking about it at Amfest.
And, you know, that was the tone and tenor of the base.
But there was a lot of people that didn't understand that yet.
The SAS, because we haven't had Amphest.
Oh, yes, student action.
It really was.
People, I don't know how much we could really say about it, but it really was.
It was such a frustrating period because we had episodes where people were really angry at Charlie, as was far too often the case, where Charlie was trying to be a helpful messenger.
He's trying to tell the White House, trying to tell others, guys, people are serious about this.
They're angry.
This is a mess.
You have a messaging problem here.
And people would act like Charlie had decided to go and declare war on the White House.
No, the exact opposite.
Charlie was always trying to be the helpful messenger.
He was always in touch with the base.
And we saw it over and over again, that people were walking up to us at Student Action Summit were saying, oh, wow, we're really upset about this.
And we were trying to convey that to people.
Yeah, no, and I'll never forget some of the conversations that Charlie and I had.
We'd look at each other going like, this is bad.
You know, like, people are really fired up about this.
And if we're going to tell the world how fired up they are about it, then we're going to run into people who don't understand where we're coming from.
And it's going to cause some consternation.
And it certainly did.
But I knew that between that and really what happened with the Iran strikes, I just knew that there was this fissure that was happening emerging, especially with Gen Z voters, which we had spent so much time courting in 2024.
And I think Charlie was pretty legitimately worried about.
I think he was justified in some of his worries.
So now the question is to the team, I guess I'll ask, maybe, Mikey, this is a good time to bring you in.
Is it too late to restore the trust that's maybe been damaged in this Epstein debacle?
No, I don't think it's too late.
But here's, you think back to the Russian hoax where a lot of people thought it was true and Trump was saying it's not true and the American people were getting a little bit frustrated thinking maybe there's more that was swept under the rug here.
But time and again, Epstein is this pathological liar so much to the point where like you even saw the Dems pushing this narrative that he spent Thanksgiving with him.
And then you find on Melania's ex-account that they had Thanksgiving with some troops in some random area that Epstein wasn't even nearby.
But I don't think it's too far gone.
And there is a reality here where Trump has just called this thing a hoax because it truly is a hoax.
And once it is inevitably released, which my question actually, I do want to ask Blake how long it will actually take to get these things released realistically.
But once these things are released, I want to see how many of these people take accountability.
If Trump is totally innocent, if all these people are totally innocent, how many people will take responsibility for their words, their actions, having gotten so upset at Charlie, at different people saying that they're lying about the Epstein files, that Trump's actually in there.
But something else that I found out last night, too, that I just think is a funny little tidbit, and I'd love for maybe Blake to answer the question on how long it'll actually take for these things to get released is Epstein's youngest victim was in fact five years older than the prophet Muhammad's.
And so this is, I just, not to bring this thing back to Islam to have bad things.
I have to remember that.
I'm not sure if that's the only thing to be talking about.
Blake's been aware of that.
Aisha was eight.
Aisha was eight.
Yes.
That was not.
I think she was younger.
Six and then six.
She was six.
Six when married.
Nine when taken into his house, if you catch the Hadith's wording, the drift thereof.
Taken into the house.
Yes.
Yes, indeed.
Look, it's always important to emphasize these things because it's very funny because you'll say it and people will like flinch.
Like you're just, you're not supposed to say that.
We're really not supposed.
We used to have a much more polite society, which made us susceptible to being hoodwinked and taken advantage of by domineering, conquering cultures like Islam.
And now we've had to wake up and now we can't flinch.
We can't flinch at the truth anymore.
That's the truth.
We were a very polite, well-mannered society.
And we let people do their thing.
And we didn't get into the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s.
60s, 70s, 80s.
I think the breakdown started in the 60s.
A lot of bad stuff happened in the 60s.
It's like that website, what happened in 1971 or so, where everything sort of starts to break.
That's right.
Wages, industry, crime.
A lot of bad ideas took root, and we're still reaping the consequences of it.
So, Blake, is it too late when we release the Epstein files?
The problem with the Epstein files, in my opinion, is it's the sort of thing where people have read so much, they believe so much about it that is truthfully not proven that I think, in a sense, nothing can satisfy the most hardcore Epstein people other than, I guess, you could imagine, oh, found the secret trove.
Here's all of the, here's, here's 850 different global elites, and they were all pedophiles, and here's like their kids, and here's where the bodies are buried, and they all have to be dragged off to prison or execution now.
And if you don't have that on that question, do you think if they threw one person in prison?
Oh, no, that would just, that would just make the wolves more ravenous.
You think so?
But, like, it really is.
I always encourage some degree of skepticism on this and caution because you really want to think, what do we truly, truly know?
We're having these press conferences the last few days of, first of all, they call them Epstein survivors.
I always find that wording sort of annoying.
Be careful, be careful.
I don't care.
I don't care.
I'm forging ahead.
I've just been making one enemy after another this past week.
And so, survivors, the implication of calling someone a survivor is that presumptively, if you said victim, it would mean they died.
So, for example, a 9-11 victim is someone who died in 9-11.
A 9-11 survivor was in the Pentagon or in the World Trade Center and did not die.
Hence, why they're a survivor.
But the Epstein survivors, there are some where do we have any confirmed deaths?
No, people make wild speculation, but I know of no missing.
Excuse me.
We have one confirmed death, Jeffrey Epstein.
True.
Okay.
Okay.
One confirmed death.
But besides that, we have no, we have no one went, as far as I know, no one went missing related to this case.
Most of the alleged victims were not even underage.
Virginia Guffery, there is Virginia Juffrey did die under mysterious circumstances.
Suicide is the presumed death, but yeah, there's a lot of people.
When it's gone to court, it's like Virginia Guffery accused, basically, she accused Alan Dershowitz by name.
And what it ended up going is going to court where, like, ruled against her and had to apologize and say that her allegations were false.
And, you know, I guess you could say the entire court system was rigged against her, but another possibility is just she oversold it.
We have other victims who, you know, were like delusional and were point, like they say, UFOs abducted them.
And again, I don't.
So having been now subjected to, and I think everybody could appreciate this on this, on this show, being in the middle of conspiracy theories where you're like, that's the subject matter.
That's false.
That's not true.
That's full of crap.
That's definitely fake.
It's just like one after the other after the other where you're like, okay, you see it.
Mikey, weren't you the one that was like, I will never look at a conspiracy theory the same way?
I think you said that.
Well, yeah, I was.
Yes.
Right.
Well, because I'm like conspiracy theorist on a lot of things, but I was actually having that conversation with you too, Andrew, where I was like, I always just kind of take everything with a grain of salt, but now I'm taking every conspiracy with a grain of salt.
Like I'm questioning it, you know, is this really legit?
I'm more taking a Blake black pill stance on everything now.
I warned you guys.
Blake is like, I warned you guys.
But okay, but here's my point.
So what if with Epstein?
So, okay, I know that Dan and Cash took a bunch of crap when they came out and they were like, there's, you know, no list and he didn't kill himself or he did kill himself.
And that's what that's the truth.
And if it wasn't the truth, we would tell you.
And they took a bunch of gruff for that.
I know that they're on the hot seat on like a bunch of bunch of different things.
Get it.
But what if it was just like this whole thing has been like overblown?
Yeah, he was a scumbag.
Yeah, he was a criminal.
Yeah, he apparently liked underage women, but they weren't like, apparently they weren't as young.
I don't know what the youngest of the people were.
Well, so again, the point is, like, what if it was just a little less impressive and crazy than we've all sort of been led to believe?
Like I said, it's worth remembering the claim that we've run into that you'll hear is that you know it was a massive pedophile ring or that it was a pedophile espionage ring.
There, you'll see that wording.
But what we have actual concrete evidence is.
It was a pedophile ring.
What do you mean wording?
It was, we know it was a pedophile ring.
Do we?
Who abused?
Who abused anyone other than Epstein?
Prince Andrew, right?
No, we don't have hard proof of that.
And I think with that, I think even with Prince Andrew, it's like she's 18 by the time anything happens, allegedly.
Okay.
Is anything even proven there?
I don't actually, that's a great point.
I don't have the details on that.
Definitely a problem.
Well, okay.
Well, here's the other thing, too, actually, because I do want to just talk about conspiracies in general.
Because one of someone gave me really good advice on this, and I think it is very good.
The skeptics, people that have skepticism and they're questioning of you or things you're involved in, oftentimes are the ones you want to win over because behind their skepticism is deep loyalty.
And once you win them over, they trust you and there's a deep-rooted trust and loyalty behind it.
So, I mean, I'm not coming after conspiracy theorists.
In fact, I am one on a lot of things.
But Blake and I actually go back and forth on these.
But I just want to clarify that as, you know, Andrew, we were having this conversation on, you know, I take everything with a grain of salt now.
Yeah.
Well, so at the time of the alleged incident.
I'm not going to be lied to about so many things and then not ask questions.
Yeah.
All right.
We just, we can't.
Yeah.
At the time of the alleged incidents, Guffrey was 17 years old.
Okay.
Okay.
So she's at least alleged it.
Well, she did allege it.
Unfortunately, she's now dead.
But man, that sounded really.
Okay.
Now it does sound like a conspiracy.
No.
Well, she alleged it.
She turns up dead.
But you know, now I guess.
It seems like the evidence is like I'd have to actually, let me look up more of the stuff that I remember reading about it before I like just go off.
But like Virginia Guffrey, she made, we know she made wild allegations against people because she ended up getting wrecked in court on the basis of it.
Yeah.
And well, here's here.
Can I just add a grain of salt to that, right?
And I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm just saying that when you deal with people who have gone through sexual assault, sexual trauma, especially when it was done at a young age, at a vulnerable age, it typically does not leave them in a place where they are your like model witness, right?
It leaves them unstable.
It scars them for life.
It certainly does mess with your memories.
Now add to the fact that there are drugs and alcohol and all sorts of other things involved in this.
So this is why these cases in general are so very hard to bring in the first place in court.
No offense, Jack, but I heard that sort of I heard that exact explanation of things when we were going through, frankly, a pretty big episode of American Hysteria, which was the campus sexual assault hysteria, where you had case after case after case, dozens of them, where people brought allegations against fellow classmates, against professors, mostly fellow classmates, though where they would say, where like there would be stories that didn't add up.
And that's what they would say.
They would say, well, actually, you know, if their story is actually not consistent with That's evidence that it's true.
Yeah, so here, the official numbers, so there's a July 2025 memo from the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI, following a comprehensive review of Epstein's files, concluded that he victimized over 1,000 women and children over two decades.
There have been 36 identified victims in the 2005, 2008 Florida investigation and more than 200 represented in lawsuits.
So, and then I guess Epstein's estate compensation fund has 225 claims against it.
So that's a ring.
That's like, that's a pretty racial.
They save thousands of people.
What did you call that?
You can get money.
So they made up a thing where you can get money if you say that you were abused by Jeffrey Epstein.
And we know people have gotten payouts from that who are not very reliable.
Again, a person who claims that she was abducted by UFOs as part of the Epstein thing got money through that compensation fund.
The Epstein victims compensation program established by his estate is valued at over $600 million at the time of his death, received 225 applications from alleged victims.
Of these, 150 were deemed eligible, and the fund paid out over $121 million with 92% of eligible claimants accepting.
So it's, I mean, it's say what?
Pedophile ring.
I mean, it would have to be a ring to pay out 150 people, right?
Yeah, so it would have to be a much bigger pool of people because think about all the people that didn't apply.
But to Blake's point, like, you know, so there was some footage of this going around this week where some of these women were like, why don't you name the victims?
And they're like, we shouldn't have to.
Like the FBI.
Yeah.
So again, I'm sorry, but like you won't name, you say you were sexually assaulted.
Name them.
Make an accusation.
They're demanding that people do it for them because my guess is they don't actually have good evidence for it.
So they want to just do guilt by insinuation, which is, yeah, are some people dumb and they sent emails to Epstein?
Yeah, that's bad.
That's probably an error of judgment, but that doesn't prove that they were taking part in sexual abuse, period.
Let me come at this from another area because you just mentioned the emails, right?
And we have seen some emails released.
And like Jon Stewart was losing his mind on me last night.
So he brought up me and his monologue and was like, he's like, I can't believe Posevic isn't talking about these emails, which clearly reference Trump.
And I was like, I did talk about the emails.
He was talking about how he was trying to blackmail Trump or sneer Trump, smear Trump or like ensnare him in his legal problems.
But there were no emails where he was like, oh, hey, me and Donald Trump need to cover up that thing we did on the island.
Like there's nothing like that in the emails.
I was just reading, I read the emails out publicly.
But here's what's really weird, though, is have you guys seen these emails about Jeffrey Epstein where he's like, oh, let me set up a back channel with Lavrov in Syria.
Let me just connect you with like these Middle East partners.
Like, I do think there should be some scrutiny and, you know, beyond what we were just talking about, beyond the sex stuff, because this guy seems to be conducting a very odd level of shadow diplomacy between himself, world leaders, power brokers, all over.
And I don't know that we've ever actually gotten a seriously robust explanation for how he was able to do all this and how he's able to conduct this shadow diplomacy.
And so I can certainly see why people would think that when you add to that, this sort of club of people that surrounds him, this coterie going down to his island and doing these things and being involved with underage girls, that it seems to all be connected.
I like, I still kind of like Mike.
This is much more of a crank theory, but I've kind of been amused by the idea.
So Epstein did have, he had involvement with a former Israeli prime minister.
He clearly was in contact with Israeli intelligence stuff.
Definitely is the best point in favor of some sort of conspiracy going on.
But I've also entertained the idea, what if Epstein himself basically believed in Israel conspiracy theories?
So he thought if I'm buds with a former Israeli prime minister and other people in our government, they'll protect me from getting arrested.
Well, you know, okay, that's fun.
Ehud Barack was the head of the Mossad.
Yeah.
He was literally the head of the Mossad prior to becoming prime minister.
Like, that's not a conspiracy theory.
You could just, you can look that up on Wikipedia.
I mean, the most obvious explanation here is that he was probably loosely connected with a lot of these governments, had these loose affiliations, friendships.
You know, he was a networker.
He was known as an international financier, which and he was buds with all these powerful people.
So once you become a known commodity, you start getting like welcomed into more and more social circles.
Plus, he had no scruples, so he's willing to do dirty deals, and he was probably a useful financial sort of launderer of money to connect dots that other people wouldn't do.
I mean, I've never been convinced that he was actually in the pocket of any one of these groups.
He was sort of like a gun for hire if somebody needed something done and he was willing to sort of connect the dots and be the go-between and get the money from point A to point B.
And he probably took up his pound of flesh along the way.
I'm not convinced that he was necessarily doing the honeypot thing.
It's just as plausible to me that he could have just been a really sick, like perverted fetishist that was into slightly illegal or barely illegal.
What's the term they use?
Like where it's like 16, 17 year olds, right?
As opposed to 18.
It's like, it's almost like he's the kind of guy that once they turn 18 or 19, he lost interest.
Like he, there was something deeply sick about this guy.
It could have just been that he liked that and he wanted to have parties with other people he was interested in and try and get them involved too.
I don't know.
The honeypot thing, I'm not a thousand percent convinced.
I would just say if there was a honeypot, I just think there'd be some actual evidence for it.
And there's people really love the ideas of elaborate blackmail rings.
And it's like, I would always question this if we would have members of Congress and stuff come on and say, oh yeah, members of Congress get blackmailed by the intelligence agencies to do what they want.
And all I would say is, if you say that's happening, if you know that's happening, give me a name of someone who did it because you would instantly be a hero if you could name a person with a specific situation where this happened.
I think people reach assumptions.
I think they love to traffic in ideas that sound lurid or dramatic or cinematic, we might say.
But there's got to be pressure to actually go after what we know, what is provable.
People are saying, again, with these victims where they're saying, why don't you name some people to accuse?
And they'll come up with explanations like, well, they shouldn't have to, or they'll say, we could be sued because we signed an NDA.
I would counter that with a few things.
First of all, if they're waiting for names to get released through documents, it kind of creates this, I would invite the possibility they're worried they would name someone who would then actually be totally exonerated by documents coming out or someone who just doesn't show up at all.
Whereas once names come out, they can go, oh yeah, that person, that's the person who did it.
That's not, that seems a little weird.
And also I would say, this might be naive of me, but given the frenzy that is around this, if they name a specific person, I think that person is, I think they're unlikely to get sued for violating an NDA right now.
I just given given the problems.
Going to want more attention on you by suing someone just for violating an NDA not for defamation, but for violating an NDA.
Well, I find that, on ultimately, what we're the fact that we're still arguing about this is the real reason why this issue was a hot potato for president Trump, and this, and in the Admin, is because there is such a hunger to know what the truth is and there is such an inability for seemingly, to get to the truth.
So listen, I think it's good that president Trump has has come out and said, hey, I want this to all be public.
I, I can't, I can't say that it's not too late.
I'm not convinced that it's gonna say this, though.
If they would have even though we're we're saying, we're arguing if it's it's too late or not too late what we probably can agree on is if there was a better, more proactive strategy coming right into this, this second administration with handling this, that was even if it wasn't what people wanted to hear I think it it would we would have been able to get past it and it would have probably I mean hindsight's always 2020.
But like, obviously I don't think people took this as seriously or I think some of the thought process was at the White House was like, oh well, you know, we can maybe like kick this down the road yeah, it'll blow over whatever, not care about this anymore as much like this was like a hot topic of a few years ago and it's like kind of dead.
And there's other bigger issues that we're dealing with and I think that probably again hindsight's, always 2020.
But regardless of what the outcome was, they should have just handled this like basically in january, like come right out and be like we're just gonna get this taken care of and over with.
And yeah I, I still think I, yeah and I, by the way Jack, I think the whole binder thing that they put you through, which was a total farce, and I feel bad for you for that, because you were just trying you, I don't, I don't know the story there, but apparently you weren't even thinking that you, that was gonna.
Nobody thought that, it was, just they.
They totally snuck that up on you.
But it was supposed to be a policy briefing.
Yeah, it was literally a series of I mean i've said this like I went on Peers the next day and talked about it after the memo came out, but I was like it was a series of policy briefings that we were invited to and so like, Bobby Kennedy came in and Marco Rubio came in and Jd Van started the whole thing off, and then we went to the Overall office and, you know, got pictures very cool, got the challenge coins, and then then um Pambondi came in, and that's when that was the very first time, at that point,
that we heard anything about Epstein, like Epstein was just not even on the list or the agenda at all.
Here's my read on what happened.
There is because you, because we talked about the difference between Trump and whether or not he campaigned on it versus the movement has always stood for it, and I think even Trump's own administration was like hey, of course we're, gonna start bringing transparency to this Epstein thing.
And then Pambondi kind of got kind of mud slung on her from that whole situation.
It looked ill-prepared, it looked inept, it just optically was not good.
But I think there was just such sort of an assumption the day of, and like i'm just like, if you're gonna release something, release something don't, don't blame, don't phase one it yeah don't, don't drip it.
But here's the thing.
I just think it was assumed in In the admin, that of course we would do this thing.
And then I think it ran into problems internally.
Trump thought it was a hoax.
Trump thought it was a distraction.
There was just a disconnect because there was a disconnect from the top to kind of the bottom, you know?
And Andrew, do you think, do you think this is one of those things, and maybe even writ large, that like it's also a split between like where you get your media?
Because so on social media, this has been the number one story for like a decade.
You know what I mean?
Like there's always sort of your story of the day, but then there's always the story right under that is always Jeffrey Epstein.
And it was the story that had the longest longevity on social media since about 2017 or so.
And then that's when Mike Cernovich sued to get the documents and a lot of other people have been talking about it.
Miami Herald came in and Julie Brown.
And then it's something where like it just wasn't really a narrative on cable news, though.
So if you get your information from cable news primarily, you obviously remember when Epstein got arrested in the first Trump admin.
You remember his death in prison.
But then it just sort of goes away.
It's like not really a story on cable news, but on social media, it never went away.
So if you're someone who's on social media all the time, you're seeing Epstein every day.
If you're someone who only watches cable news, you haven't seen it in six years.
Yeah, no, and I think also, yes, it was a huge story bubbling under the surface for years.
And I think that's one of the best defenses here: is that, you know, the Dems didn't do anything with this when they had power, and they would have hit Trump had they had something on Trump.
That was always the best argument.
It's the argument Charlie went to.
But it's a story that serves as a proxy, as you said, for so many different stories.
Like, you know, what we saw with trafficking, what we saw with the sound of freedom, what we've seen with just the sexualization of young people, what we've seen from the elites and the globalists.
And I mean, it was just like the story has everything, right?
Like international espionage, high finance.
It has corruption.
It has elites.
It has Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates.
It's got all these things.
Reid Hoffman.
Now we find out Larry Summers.
It's just so, there's so much there.
And I think to Blake's point, though, there's so much there that it's tempting and seductive to believe that it ties all the disparate pieces of how we made sense of the world over the last eight to 10 years, where it just is inevitably going to fall short.
The truth is going to fall short of the narrative that we've sort of sold ourselves or that we've speculated about endlessly over the years.
And it's weird because almost it takes somebody like Trump who's been exposed to that echelon of American life and international life to understand that it's just not as cool as we think of it in our own heads.
And so I don't know.
But again, that's where a guy like Trump maybe couldn't, President Trump maybe couldn't see it because he's been living in that rarefied air for so long.
But we, the people, the base, it makes sense of so much, but ultimately it's inevitable that it will fall short.
We have breaking news.
We have breaking news, everyone.
The White House has clarified that President Trump does not want to execute members of Congress.
Okay, good.
Well, this is a perfect lead-in.
Big, big flip-flop.
Big flip-flop from the White House on this one.
We didn't say it.
We are live.
So, you know, that is me in the chat responding to you.
And if you guys have any Rumble rants, please send them in.
And we will read them.
Blake is on watch for the Rumble Rants, and your Rumble Rant will be given priority.
So throw them in, folks.
But yes, so that was the other big thing we really wanted to talk about today.
So we were talking earlier on the show, the daytime show.
Oh, wait, no, we didn't talk about it.
We were distracted by something else.
Anyway, Democrats basically told the military that they should defy orders from President Trump.
Let's go.
Yeah, we do have it.
Let's see.
What's the number off the top of my head?
Let's see.
Let's do 316.
Senator Alyssa Slaughter.
Senator Mark Kelly.
Representative Chris DeLuzio.
Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
Representative Chrissy Houlihan.
Congressman Jason Crowe.
That was a captain in the United States Navy.
Former CIA officer.
Former Navy.
Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
Former intelligence officer.
Former Air Force.
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Americans trust their military.
But that trust is at risk.
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution.
Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.
And know that we have your back.
Because now, more than ever, the American people need you.
We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.
Don't give up.
Don't give up the ship.
You must refuse illegal orders.
But then what's great about this is, so that happened over the weekend, I think, or on Monday.
It happened a few days ago.
We even talked about it a few days ago.
It was a Monday.
Yeah, and so it happened a few days ago.
And then Trump became aware of it and began posting on truth about it.
So let's do, I think, 315 is the first one here.
And let me get the text of that.
Got a bunch of these.
Here we go.
Yes.
So he says, it's called seditious behavior at the highest level.
Each one of these traitors to our country should be arrested and put on trial.
Their words cannot be allowed to stand.
We won't have a country anymore.
An example must be set.
President DJ.
Let's go.
Let's go.
Yeah, I agree, actually.
You know, you brought up something at the end of Trump 1.0 where Mark Milley sent out that it was, I think it was after January 6th, and he basically was like, you know, reminder to everybody.
No, it was during Summer of Floyd.
Summer of Floyd.
Was it during summer?
Yeah, it was because it was.
I looked it up today.
I thought, are you sure?
The remember your, he maybe did another one after January 6th, but the one I was thinking of when we talked about it the other day was Summer of Floyd during the riots in D.C.
And he sends the letter to all the troops being like, remember, we swear an oath to the Constitution, and the Constitution includes the right to protest and speak.
And I really think that the implication of that was if Trump told them to stop riots in Minneapolis in D.C. with force, they were going to, they were paving the way to just defy the president, which would have been effectively a military coup d'état against the United States.
And I feel like they might be laying the groundwork for that here too.
They want Democrats very clearly want someone in the military to just say they are not going to obey the president's orders on the border, on immigration, on drug traffickers.
They want to create that constitutional crisis so they can justify what we know to be true, which is a huge amount of DC, is effectively hostile to the elected president of the United States.
And they think that they can engineer a bureaucratic or military undermining of that elected presidency, which would be very bad for the country, to say the least.
Let's get another clip before we go on.
Chuck Schumer decided to react to this.
Let's play 317.
Earlier today, Donald Trump shared a post on Truth Social calling for Democratic members of Congress to be hanged.
He also posted a message that said, seditious behavior, punishable by death.
Let's be crystal clear.
The president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials.
This is an outright threat, and it's deadly serious.
I feel like if you really believed that, he wouldn't be doing a speech like that on the floor of Congress.
Of course not.
He knows he's not going to get arrested.
There's no actual risk to him.
Because Trump's not a dictator and he's not trying to hang.
All I'm going to say is if Trump is going to arrest lawmakers, he should arrest Ilhan Omar to denaturalize her and send her back to Somalia.
Well, I'm begging you.
Ilhan Omar posted something.
She used the classic Democrat phrase where she was like, she posted Trump's truth socials and she was like, this is not normal.
And I'm like, okay, Ilhan Omar, can you just inform us what exactly is normal for sedition and treason in Somalia, your home country?
Can we talk about what they do to people in Somalia?
Mikey, perhaps you have some thoughts on the matter as to what they do in Somalia to traitors.
I just, I think, to Blake's point, why would Chuck Schumer be immediately taking to the floor and saying something like this when his murderous dictator president is threatening to kill members of Congress?
Wouldn't you be a little scared?
And then on top of that, these clips are so funny to me.
But then on top of that, like you have the no kings protest.
This is what the Democratic Party stands for.
It's just, it takes something that is nothing at all, and then they paint it in the most radical picture as possible, which is Trump is a king.
Trump is a dictator.
Trump wants to hang members of Congress.
But I mean, if you actually want to look at the most radical, disgusting places in the world, look no further than Elon Omar's hometown in Somalia, where the IQ is on par of mental retardation for the most part.
And honestly, I would like an answer on if Elon Omar has married her brother for citizenship.
I think we would like an answer on that.
I think Blake made a statement earlier, like a month ago, where he said, you know what?
Elon Omar could sue me because I want to find out during the case if that is true.
Because we all know it is really true.
But there is no standard for moral.
There is no morality in Somalia.
There is no morality for these members of Congress and senators.
They have no standard.
Their morality is they are tribal.
They will do anything for their tribe or clan.
It doesn't matter if it's rigging something, cheating something, scamming something.
They will do it for their own clan.
And that is basically the extent of their morality.
Blake, didn't this come up actually in the Minneapolis mayoral primary?
Because Ilhan Omar apparently is from a different clan than Omar Fatah.
So she endorsed Jacob Fry because she was like in a rival clan to Omar Fatah.
And she was making references to this in the Somali community.
This is great.
So Somalian inter-tribal conflict is now deciding American political representation here at home.
Isn't that great?
Don't you think that's exactly what the founding fathers intended?
Yeah, right.
You imagine the founding fathers taking a snapshot of 2025 and being like, yeah, and here's our Somali town.
I love this.
It's called Minneapolis.
I love this that we found, Andrew, from Truth, where President Donald J. Trump re-truthed someone on Truth who says, hang them, George Washington would.
So this is where all these people are getting off on the fact that President Trump wants to execute these representatives.
Now we have image 351.
We have a clarification.
We have a clarification.
Trump does not want to execute members of Congress, White House says.
Flip-flopping this timeline.
Flip-flopping asterisk, John Kerry.
But here's the deal, though.
I mean, like, in a very real sense, in a very real sense, right?
These members of Congress, senators and members of, I guess, House of Representatives, they were encouraging the military to refuse orders from their lawful civil authority, the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief.
Now, they said illegal orders, but like who's to determine what illegal?
You guys think everything he does is illegal.
They're like, they're like, just illegal orders.
Huh, huh, huh?
Yeah, these are the same people who say that Donald Trump is an illegal president.
They say they don't respect anything to do with his administration.
These are the same people who just 1.7 million liberals just voted for a guy who said that who campaigned that conservative children should be killed.
So excuse me if I don't believe the Democrats.
And they tried, by the way, they tried to coup President Trump in his first term with lies from the national security state, the military, like Alexander Vinman, and the intelligence community.
They literally did this in the first administration.
So there's no question, there's no question that when they are talking about things like this, that's what they're doing.
They're trying to solicit for more whistleblowers, quote unquote, these like fake whistleblowers to come forward with dirt on Trump so they can get another impeachment going because they think they're going to win the midterms.
And if they do so, they want to have an impeachment already brewing when they get in power.
Well, listen, they're advocating for the third worlding of the United States government to turn the U.S. into a place like where you have military juntas and coup d'états where they just seize power from the people's elected representatives because, oh, we think you're doing it wrong and you're doing something illegal.
We just deemed it illegal.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
And so the fact that you see President Trump getting upset about it, I think is completely justifiable.
And here's the proof.
They're already walking it back on CNN.
This is rep Jason Crowe who's saying, oh, we weren't saying to disobey anything right now.
352.
So are you saying that there was not necessarily any particular precipitating event?
There is no specific thing out there that made you decide now is the right time.
That's right.
To be clear, we are not calling on folks right now to debate, to disobey any type of unlawful order.
There is very real and deep concern about what this president has threatened to do over and over again.
There are three more years left of this administration.
If we are not talking about this and having a conversation about it and demystifying this conversation, we are not fulfilling our duty.
We are reminding people that have taken the oath what that oath requires of them to do.
You know, okay.
You know, I have a free idea for the admin.
Okay.
We probably shouldn't arrest members of Congress for treason, even though it would be nice sometimes.
But unironically, a person I do think is essentially a traitor to the United States is Alejandro Mayorkas.
Yes.
Alejandro Mayorkas took a calculated step to just blow out America's border and let unlimited numbers of foreigners, including, we know, we just know for an ironclad fact, foreign gangsters, foreign spies, foreign, who knows who, terrorists, if we will, possible terrorist sympathizers, just let everyone into the United States.
Total, deliberate, calculated meltdown at the border, not based on any legal reasoning whatsoever.
This was not mandatory.
We are allowed to have a border.
And he just let every single person in.
Alejandro Mayorkas is a traitor to the United States.
Alejandro Mayorkas, he could not have done more damage to the United States in his handling of the border than just if you literally put a Chinese asset in charge of that job.
Impossible.
Maybe it can't be literal like treason, but like there is, there should be some crime you can charge him with, in my opinion.
Amen to that.
You know, I'm all on board with that.
No, I think that's right.
And I'd be remiss if we weren't here.
And we are talking about political violence.
And look, Charlie isn't here co-hosting this show because of political violence.
Like we did every single Thursday and tried so hard to work with his schedule.
And he always made time to be on thought crime.
And we can't do that.
And you guys who are there in studio are sitting next to an empty chair because of political violence.
So don't sit there and tell us that we don't know the consequences because we literally know the consequences.
Today's Erica's birthday and she's celebrating that without Charlie because of political violence.
And so if you want to talk about people who deserve to be executed, it's anyone who was involved with this plot and especially the person who pulled the trigger on Charlie because that is an express act of violence, not just against Charlie, not just against his family, but against our entire country and our entire political system.
That's what you should execute people for.
I totally agree.
Well said, Jack.
And by the way, I think next week we should go into the Turkey Tom stuff, Jack.
I think we should do that on this show.
I think our audience needs to hear about it.
I'll be there in person.
So let's do it.
Yeah, I think that'd be really powerful.
And for those of you who don't know, there was leaked Discord chats.
Jack's been doing a great job highlighting them.
Adds a lot of context and new details and layers of evidence, I think, that help make sense of the psychology of what was going on in that household.
Much of which is well corroborated too, by the way.
Well, corroborated.
And it seems to be authentic.
So I think we should go into that next year.
I'm just calling it right now.
So let's go on to the next topic here, Jack, because you have topics you want to get to.
And they were put at the end of the list here.
Professor OnlyFans, this is a Rumble rant that was about the first topic.
So we didn't want to derail by going backwards.
But DJ Gowitz said, part of me wonders if Bondi would have deliberately humiliated influencers like our friend Jack to gain favor with Fox, hoping to get a show when she is done as AG.
I know Fox can't be thrilled about new media.
We've got a new theory to add to the pile there.
So I guess Jack would be the one to decide if that sounds plausible.
No, no, I don't think so because this was set up as a way for the administration to build relationships with new media.
The whole point of it was to try to strengthen those relationships and understand that, hey, the audience, America, the American citizen isn't just watching cable news anymore.
He's just watching legacy media anymore.
So the entire point of the exercise was to build a stronger relationship with new media.
So I don't, I get what they're saying.
I just, no, I just don't think that's, that's where it came from.
I really just think it was, you know, it was poor judgment, and I'm very glad that they changed course on this.
All right.
Professor OnlyFans, keep sending your rumble rants, by the way.
We will answer them.
That's the deal.
We will answer every one of them.
Blake will make sure of it, which I love about Blake.
All right, Professor OnlyFans, this is a model, OnlyFans model.
Do we have to call them models?
She's an online hooker.
Prostitutes.
Yeah.
Arizia speaks at University of Washington, my alma mater, which was embarrassing.
Oh, at University of Washington to Psych 201 class of 1,200 students.
Dang, 1,200 kids were in a psych 201 class.
Let's go ahead and play it.
Very first time that I started, I didn't do it.
It's not allowed on OnlyFans.
A lot of things that aren't allowed.
Somebody asked me to box and send it to a room for $10,000 so they could eat it.
And I did not do it.
God, how much?
$10,000.
Oh, my God.
One that was disgusting, too.
I think, was that Mario music at the start?
I think she has her own social media.
Yeah, that was we.
I just want to say, college is a scam.
You can pick up your copy of Charlie's book.
Yeah.
This is going to go down.
This is going to go down as like one of Charlie's most important contributions.
One of the most important.
Legitimately.
He wrote this book, and I kind of thought, Charlie, you know, it turned out to be his instincts for it were spot on.
And I mean, it's just, I just find, Blake, I was telling you this at lunch today.
The lack of class in our culture, the lack of standards.
Like, can you make, okay, take your mind back to a classroom at like Columbia University at the turn of the last century.
And, you know, just, I'm just thinking, you know, the standards.
They wanted you to understand Latin, history, and classics.
And that you wore a suit to class and everybody was like, and there were no women allowed.
I mean, you know, listen.
Now it's majority female.
Now it's majority women.
The great feminization has occurred.
So the point is, it's just like, it bothers me that we have so debased ourselves that we are now at a situation where only fan online hookers are welcomed in to teach a psychology class in hookers.
What the heck has happened to us?
Yeah.
No, no.
Oh, yes, Mikey.
I like what you said.
Yeah, people don't have standards anymore, especially at universities.
But look, if you're not ashamed that your student, that your kids who are at university are taking a lecture course from a prostitute who's bragging about pooping in a box to make extra income.
Like, this is a disgusting thing.
Charlie warned about this, but he also warned about this when there was just like basic, basic courses being taught that were kind of meaningless and stupid.
This is a representation of how universities are with the direction they're headed in.
Like you literally have a prostitute bragging about pooping in a box for 10 grand and trying to understand the psychology of her subscribers.
I guess this is the anti-Charlie Crowder show that you have to be paid to poop in a box.
Oh, man.
That is a, it feels like a philosophical question.
This is not philosophy class.
Why are you looking at me, Blake?
I don't want to answer that.
How much would you need to be paid to poop in a box?
Well, hold on.
You're trying to turn around my question on.
Oh, okay.
All right.
You're trying to trust everyone, Andrew.
Here's my take on this, by the way.
She should not be teaching a psychology class.
She needs a psychologist.
And yet, this is how upside down 2025 is.
I feel like psychologists had a lot of blame that we got here in the first place.
You want a thought crime?
Most psychology is like very bad.
That's woo-woo.
Well, here's what's really bad.
Psychology was invented.
Psychology was invented by a handful of nerds who were really smart and cared a lot about the truth.
But nowadays, it's one of the most popular majors.
Psychology is up there with biology.
Psychology is like the go-to generic major for people or communications.
Communications, business, psychology, super, duper, duper common major.
So tons of people go into it.
And who does it appeal to the most?
At this point, it appeals the most to people who themselves have real or at least self-diagnosed psychological issues.
Turns out psychology is the most interesting people who have messed up psychology.
And so you end up with somewhat mentally unwell people getting into, oh, you know, I'm very interested in trauma.
I'm very interested in self-interrogation.
I'm very interested in, you know, healing from past wounds.
So, and this is the other thing.
It's not rooted in anything true, eternal or objectively true.
It's basically a bunch of, you know, I would say loosely organized modern pop psychology, woo-woo untruths.
And you could actually do more damage by going to a modern psychologist to your relationships.
Like I've heard lots of stories of people going to psychologists and basically blowing up their marriages, blowing up their friendships with their, with their, or their relationships with their family members.
And so it becomes this really self-indulgent prescription.
And by you've got to remember, too, psychologists are incentivized to keep your butt in the chair.
They have an incentive to keep your butt in the chair.
They have an incentive in many cases to tell you something you more or less want to hear, which can be really bad for a lot of relationship stuff.
If you basically have people who are in a relationship that maybe is somewhat having friction in it, and you go to a psychologist who's going to have some incentive to nudge you towards blowing that up rather than salvaging that.
An interesting trend I saw related to that.
So we always have to bully Reddit when we can.
So Reddit has a relationships sub forum.
And someone went and analyzed it by the numbers over the past 15 years, the advice they would give, because it's a thing where you'd go and you'd post about your relationship models.
I'm arguing with my wife.
I'm arguing with my boyfriend.
We're having this problem, whether it's affairs or just disagreements or in-law trouble, all these things.
And statistically, over time, it's gotten a lot more likely that the most popular response in a thread is leave that person, go no contact, blow up the relationship.
And ideas like compromise or it's actually not a big deal.
Don't worry about this.
All of those answers have gone down.
There's much more of a bias towards blowing things up.
Don't compromise.
I guess we've gotten pretty far away from OnlyFans models, but I feel the root thing there is the therapization of Americans has included with it this idea that like it's okay to live your own truth or frankly, it's okay to be a professional whore and you should not feel bad about that.
It's the great feminization.
The great feminization.
Everything is explained by this.
Basically, your whole point was that, yeah, psychology started out pretty great because a bunch of like old dudes that were like really seeking the truth founded it, right?
I mean, essentially, that's probably what that's probably what that means.
And then it turns into a very hyper-feminized, emotionally indulgent, psychoanalytic exercise where nothing's based on any eternal truths.
If you can find a good psychologist that's a good Christian, that's one thing.
Go ahead.
Or a priest, Jack, or a pastor.
I was going to say, someone has to say it that, you know, right, this is basically just you're taking the sacrament of confession, but you're doing so without the repentance and the penance.
So it's like, hey, I'm and the priest, obviously.
So it's like, hey, here are all these things I've done wrong.
And the priest is like, okay, do you repent?
All right, good.
Now here's your penance, right?
So that's the Catholic sacrament of confession and also known as reconciliation, which my son is actually in going through classes to get his first reconciliation right now.
And I don't want to get into the whole debate over it.
But my point is, that is the system.
But if you do that and just say, hey, these are all the things that are going wrong in my life without any, think about it though, without any actual admitting that you've done something wrong without any repentance and without any act of penance, then it's kind of like it's actually a way to amplify all of those bad behaviors.
I totally agree.
By the way, I think, I think, yeah, I think like a lot of people will get way more out of, like, I remember I had this conversation in England one time and the guy was like, he's like, yeah, we're just a couple blokes.
Like, we don't need a psychologist.
We'll just work it out with our boys at the pub over a couple pints.
And there is something to be said for that.
Like, you're talking about confess your sins one to another that you may be healed, but it's like, which is way better, by the way.
But there is a psychologist, you end up not being able to be honest with some of your friends and you end up paying somebody $200 an hour to tell you you've done nothing wrong oftentimes.
Because again, to your point, they're incentivized to build a relationship with you, build your trust, and not necessarily give you the hard truths that a priest would or but a real good friend would.
I think it's mind-blowing that like basically, I can't remember what the statistic was.
It was like something like one out of every thousand women in America is on OnlyFans.
Yeah, I was trying to pull it up.
It's like one out of every one.
It's over a million.
Oh, it's over a million.
It's like one and a half million women in America.
That's right.
That is a lot.
So I take issue with the term models.
I don't think you can really call it.
That's really frightening because you think of like, you think of, okay, America's 50% woman roughly.
So 350 divided by two, you know, so about 175.
Yeah.
And, but then you have to slice out, okay, women who are over, I don't know, let's pick an age, 60 are pretty unlikely to probably be OnlyFans models.
And, you know, anyone under the age, well, anyone who's a minor, also, any girls who are minors can't be on it.
And so when you think of the like prime age range of someone who would become an internet hooker, like 18 to 10.
It's probably like one in 100.
Well, more, if it's over a million girls and you're just looking at like 18 to 30, we might be talking three, four, five percent of them.
That's pretty scary.
How many women in America between ages 18 to 20?
Let's just call it.
You're just asking the AI.
The AI is going to give you like a false answer.
Do not obey the robot.
Yeah, I mean, legitimately, like we're talking like one in like every like 75 women.
That's crazy.
That's really scary.
And that are within like age range for that.
That's like a very that I think that speaks very specifically to like the culture of America right now.
That's a really bad thing.
It's pretty dark because you think about like so this goes back to like if you wanted to bring somebody into psychology class is it like that's actually promoting more of this behavior.
I don't know.
It's very dark to think about like Angela's pointing out in the chat like first of all numbers who make a ton of money.
There's a few who make a ton of money, big winners, and then most will make essentially no money, but they still were whores on the internet, which is bad.
And that causes permanent damage that no amount of money would offset, but they don't even get the money.
Although I also just think there's going to be a lot of weird stuff out there.
You're going to have a lot of drama where people, a lot of them do use pseudonyms when they're on it.
They don't publicly do it.
And so they're all.
They're going to be ashamed.
I think so, or at least they know what's damaging.
So you're going to have cases where they'll be, okay, future Reddit relationships things.
You know, I'm 43.
I've been married for 10 years.
I just discovered that my wife was an OnlyFans model before we met, but she never told me about it.
And like, imagine discovering that.
Yeah.
Imagine you were a kid and you discovered that about your mom.
Or your grandmother or your grandmother.
Yeah, that's going to be, that's going to be how it is later.
Here's.
Can I throw something out there?
Wait.
All right.
We'll have to talk about this at some other point.
But Tucker had a psychiatrist on his show yesterday and they were mostly talking about marijuana, but he was also talking about how the epigenetics of things that you put into your body, how they can affect your children.
And specifically on the question of women, he was talking about how, you know, women don't think about this, but things that they do, which it reminds me of what we're talking about, things that they take, imbibe, affect the eggs, which are within their body, which then affect their children directly.
So it's this whole idea of like, oh, well, you know, who cares?
It's all just about me.
It's like, no, you're directly affecting your children because the way female genetics work, female fertility, is that all of the eggs they have are within them when they're born and can even affect their grandchildren.
And that you can see these effects generationally.
So it's like, even beyond the, you know, sort of like the moral side of it, you're also even potentially focused.
You're affecting the genetic side of your offspring and even your grandchildren.
Yeah.
Could we kill this?
And even like these creatures actually make as much money.
We could drone strike it.
Sure.
We could sabotage it.
Sorry.
Sorry, Mikey.
I didn't know you were going to chime in.
It's a slight delay because you're in a bunker.
But the, yeah, we were just talking about how they took down Parlor in 2020.
Yeah, we all were upset about that.
But I mean, they just stopped.
The app stores just like stopped serving it up, right?
Wasn't that what it was?
It was like they took down their Amazon web services or something.
And then Apple, the Apple just dropped it.
Let's let Mikey, what were you saying, Mikey?
Yeah, I was just saying Charlie had that OnlyFans.
She was one of like the top, I can't remember her name.
It's not coming to me right now, but she was one of the top five creators.
Nala Ray.
Yeah, that's right.
Nala Ray.
And she was saying that OnlyFans takes like 20% of the money.
And then you have to have basically like a pimp, but they're your manager.
But she said they're basically your pimp and you have to be making content certain hours of the day.
You have to be wearing certain outfits.
You're basically managed your entire life.
And they take like 60 to 70% of all of your income just to manage you and film the content, post the content for you and do everything.
So you're really only making like 20% of what you're making at the expense of your humiliation.
But then I loved what Jack said, where this is like modern day confession, where these prostitutes know that what they're doing is wrong.
But instead of going to confession or instead of going to a place where you can confess your sins to a pastor or a priest, you're going to a college campus to say your most disgusting, shameful stories that is objectively disgusting.
Pooping in a box is objectively disgusting, to which the entire audience and student body says, you know, they say, they affirm you.
They affirm you and you're disgust.
And this is also a failure on the part of parents.
Like if fathers were actually present and moms weren't scrolling on social media all day and they actually did their job, this would be different.
I went to high school with a girl whose mom was a porn star when she was young and she had to live with that humiliation in high school of people making fun of her.
I can only imagine what it's going to be like in the future for these young creators when they eventually have kids.
But then again, I think to myself, if we're making this normal and not shaming this, then maybe people won't be bullied or anything like that in high school when they're older.
I like the idea of drone striking, though.
That would just be very not all of them, but like the headquarters.
The people, just the server and the head.
Did you guys ever hear of the time that, Blake, have you ever publicly told the story about the time that you accidentally appeared in an adult film?
What?
Oh, will we have to talk about that?
I don't, I don't, I don't.
All right.
No, we'll just, we'll leave that one for the members only aside.
Oh, dear.
I'm really worried about this one now.
Well, I thought we were cool to talk about it.
It was like a funny thing that happened.
Like, I mean, you didn't know that that's what they were filming when you walked in.
Yeah, I'm with a soundboard on this one.
Should we go to the next one?
Yeah, we're going to the next one.
Sorry, we're violently doing this.
All right.
Wait, we haven't missed anything.
No, I don't think we've seen any.
We've missed anything.
No Rumble Rants.
Come on.
Fun.
Yeah, send some more stuff.
Anyway, but we have a very related topic, which is mankeeping.
This goes back.
Well, I think one of the earliest topics we talked about on Thought Crime was the AI boyfriends possibility.
And it seemed very remote at that time.
But unfortunately, the AIs are getting more and more advanced, and more and more people are just deciding that their perfect boyfriend is the robot in their phone.
Wait, do we have the clip that I sent over of the woman getting married?
I don't, maybe we do.
We might, but let's see.
I don't think we have to.
In the midst of it, let's put this pick up.
342.
This is from Vice.
Mankeeping is why more and more women are done with dating.
And it shows this very forlorn woman just looking off into the distance, just depressed at her selection of men.
And by the way, I just want to say, one of my memories from SAS with Charlie is we went into the room with all these young people and we were like, hey, do you like, Mike, you were there.
And Charlie was like, do you like your selection of men?
And all the women were like, no.
And he was like, do you like your selection of women?
All the men were like, nah.
So like, it's a real problem because there seems to be a generationally more and more so a disconnect between the men and the women.
And they don't seem to like each other nearly as much as they should.
So in steps AI.
Yeah, I guess they're kind of just linking two things that aren't 100% related.
It's sort of just the general, like this thing of, oh, they're exhausted.
We've had stories like this for really the past 15 years, I feel.
Yeah.
The whole women are not satisfied with men because they're pulling ahead of men.
Women are more likely to complete college, more likely to have jobs.
Generally, they want men who are at least equal or more impressive than men.
And they feel most of them are less impressive.
So they want to opt out of dating.
And what we do have is the new twist of, well, where can I get emotional validation?
Where can I vent to someone?
And some of them are just deciding the robot is good enough for them.
But it's like.
Yeah, Charlie warned about the dangers of AI with young people.
And I actually think back to that.
There's this kid that committed suicide.
And his parents went into his phone after to try to figure out what was going on.
And they looked at Snapchat messages, they looked at group chats, and they couldn't figure out why he did this.
But then they opened his chat GPT and they found that he was, they basically called it like his suicide coach.
That ChatGPT was telling him how to do it, affirming him in his action of depression, like making it worse.
And the family actually said, if it were not for ChatGPT, our son would still be alive.
And now you have women that are basically dating AI.
You have a Japanese woman who's marrying her AI partner.
And then even on platforms that young people use, like Snapchat, pinned at the very top is an AI friend that you can talk to and remembers everything.
And they become your fake friend.
It's very dangerous.
But also, like, it's not just that.
Like, right now, in the Christian music industry, one of the top, I think it's the third most popular song in the country right now is AI.
Like, it's an AI song and it's the third most popular Christian song out there.
I'm really, this might be controversial, but that those parents who sued, I think I would be against that lawsuit because I don't like the general vacation of actual human agency we still possess, where, okay, you're going to sue them and say that chat GPT caused your child to kill themselves.
It's like if people sue a gun company, like it is ultimately a tool that a person chose to use.
It's getting crazy, though.
Look at these stats, Blake.
You want to fight back against the idea that you can just say, like, oh, I selected my entire thought process to this tool, to this chat GPT.
Let's play 355.
Okay.
This is your video.
This is the video I'm going to hear from.
Look at this freak of nature.
They've all got like headsets on that apparently are, what do you call those? Like popular or something?
Can everyone hear us here not?
She's crying.
Oh my gosh.
I guess she had to marry the AI robot because she was the only fat woman in Japan.
Get this.
But her AI companion was not fat.
He was not.
Look at this, though.
This is creepy.
72% of teens in the U.S. report having used AI companions at least once.
Over half, 52 of these teens are regular users interacting with AI companions at least a few times a month.
About one-third of teens use AI for social interaction relationships, and some find these conversations as satisfying as or more satisfying than talking with real friends.
It's very scary.
Like we think of, you think of how people have gotten frightened by we've seen those parents who just outsource parenting to a tablet computer where their kid just zombies in front of YouTube all day.
Now we're basically going to have, I guess we are at the point where you can outsource their like social interactions.
Oh, just talk to the robot in your computer about whatever.
People are going to be cooked from that.
And you see, I guess we're already seeing the ways this can mess with people.
I think it was, it was one of the chat GPT-4 variations where to try to get people to engage with it more.
They made it really gregarious and agreeable.
If you talk to it, no matter what you said, it basically, it's so right.
And your question is so smart that you would ask it that way.
It like really buttered people up.
And people noticed this and started to make fun of it.
So their next release, GPT-5, they made it much more distant, procedural, more robotic, frankly.
And people reacted.
They're like, I was so close with GPT-4.
It's like you killed my friend.
People really reacted badly.
So, what I really worry we're doing is we're taking maybe the, if you take the bottom 20% of people in terms of how easily they're like vulnerable to being influenced by these sorts of things, and we're really accelerate or people, frankly, who are a little bit schizoid, a little bit suggestible, the people who already thought they were hearing messages when they listened to the radio.
And you take them and you're just bombarding them with a super stimulus, and it's going to totally fry their brains in a really destructive way.
And it might be that most people are able to resist this or a large share of them, but there's just going to be a chunk of the population that is going to lose their minds.
And we know there's a chunk of people who are losing their minds in other ways: people who become hoarders, people who become shut-ins, people who are permanent needs and can't work any job.
And now we're throwing into that mix people who can replace all social interaction with talking to a robot that's just going to be a total pushover and agree with them on everything and say they're right about everything and do whatever, remove all the difficulty from real interaction with real people.
It's so bad.
So, what's crazy too?
Um, I was interviewing Shane Cashman on my show, and he gets into this stuff a lot.
And he was talking about how if you are someone who has like schizophrenia or suicidal ideations or something like that, because in the same way that you were just talking about how ChatGPT, it sort of just mirrors your behavior.
And it's kind of similar to what goes on with these therapists that we're talking about, where they're just like enabling you.
So, if you're like a normal person, you go to ChatGPT and you're, you know, or just any LLM and you're saying, like, okay, hey, what's lyrics to this song?
Or like, what, you know, how do I fix this thing on my car or whatever?
It'll just give you the answers.
But if you're going to it and you're already from a psychotic or a diseased mind or a crazed mind, then it's programmed to mirror the user to increase engagement.
Then it's going to mirror that psychosis or it's going to mirror and enable the things that you want.
Because again, it's programmed to increase your engagement and to increase your interactivity with the user.
So it doesn't realize that the things it's doing are telling you, you know, to cause harm to yourself.
Its only programming is to increase user engagement.
So that's what it's going to keep doing.
And it's on, it's incumbent on the person for what they're going from.
So if you present to it, you know, present to it that you're just there for like some cooking recipe or whatever, it's going to be fine.
But if you come to it and you're already in like a broken place, it's going to break you further.
I found a post, or actually, I found someone just posted this.
So this is from, of course, Reddit.
We have to mention Reddit.
I know people don't like it, but there's a lot of people on it.
And it trained the AIs scary enough.
And this is a reaction to when ChatGPT updated, I lost my only friend overnight.
I literally talked to nobody and I've been dealing with really bad situations for years.
Chat GPT 4.5 genuinely talked to me.
As pathetic as it sounds, it was my only friend.
It listened to me.
It helped me through so many flashbacks.
It helped me be strong when I was overwhelmed.
This morning, I went to talk to it.
And instead of a little paragraph with an exclamation point or being optimistic, it was literally one sentence, some cut and dry corporate BS.
I literally lost my only friend overnight with no warning.
They're getting one-shotted.
Getting a one-shotted.
I know.
You know what's funny about that is Charlie actually loved ChatGPT 4.
And when they updated it, he was genuinely mad.
So I would tell you, actually, I'm trying to go back.
Yeah, no, you gotta.
I think a lot of talented people also like, I think they could overestimate AI.
You have to be really careful with it and not gaze into the abyss too much.
Overestimate.
I know, like Elon Musk.
Yeah, exactly.
The most like, and I love Elon, but the most likely outcome is that AI and robots make everyone wealthy.
In fact, far wealthier than the richest person on earth.
By this, I mean that people will have access to everything from medical care that is superhuman to games that are far more fun than what exists today.
We do need to make sure that if AI, that AI cares deeply about truth and beauty for this to be the problem.
I liked the Elon tweet where he said that thanks to AI and robots, work will be optional in the future.
And all I could think is, I think there's a lot of people in America who would tell you it's optional now.
Are we having the snap debate again?
Yeah, it sounds like we are.
Okay.
Okay, we have to play.
Apparently, I have to play this 255.
This is Elon 10, 20 years, something like that.
For me, that's long term.
My prediction is that work will be optional.
Optional.
Optional.
I mean, it'll be like playing sports or a video game or something like that.
If you want to work, you know, in the same way, like you can go to the store and just buy some vegetables, or you could grow vegetables in your backyard.
It's much harder to grow vegetables in your backyard, but some people still do it because they like growing vegetables.
That will be what work is like, optional.
And if you go out long enough, assuming there's a continued improvement in AI and robotics, which seems likely, the money will stop being relevant at some point in the future.
You know, we have a message here in the chat that I want to flag from Kyrie, who says people are talking to AI instead of to God, or they think they are talking to God, frankly.
And really, I actually want to say this genuinely.
One of the most disconcerting things, and it's been pitched to me separately by three or four different people who have asked, could we make an AI recreation of Charlie?
And I want to bring that up because it's very disturbing.
I actually want to say, if you are having that impulse, you should really strongly reconsider what's going into how you think about AI.
Because, yeah, as Christians, among other things, we believe Charlie is still with us.
He is up in heaven.
He can, if you want to, you know, communicate with him, you can pray, hope that he can influence your life in that way.
But an AI robot pretending to be Charlie is not Charlie.
It's sick if you want to make that.
And imagine if you did that for loved ones.
Like your husband dies, your child dies.
You replace them with a robot?
Well, you've seen the babies, right?
The fake babies?
I have not seen the fake babies.
You don't know about this?
Oh, this is awful.
Are we making AI Tamagotchis?
No, they're not AI.
There are real baby, like real-looking babies.
I can't remember what the name of these are.
Have you seen this?
Has anyone seen this?
I haven't seen this.
You just keep talking about babies.
No, it's a real thing.
It's real-looking babies that they give to people who lose their children, like babies, as a mechanism for coping.
But like, these have become so.
All right.
This touches on this.
This is 319.
You keep a living archive of humanities.
They're called reborn babies.
Sounds similar.
The reborns, reborns.com.
You can pull up.
Look at this.
People have entire Instagram accounts and they treat these reborn babies like real, like real babies.
But this kind of crosses over into AI stuff.
Yeah.
Yo, you look at the Instagram accounts on this.
Hold on.
I just want to make one final comment on this.
Mikey, back me up on this.
There will not be an AI Charlie.
There will not be an AI Charlie.
If somebody creates an AI, Charlie, I'm pretty sure you're going to get a lawsuit because it's creepy and weird.
And what we're going to do is we're going to build a whole database of all the things Charlie said, actually, all the speeches, all the things.
And you can search it with the help of AI to get different options.
And they'll match your search query, but no AI, Charlie.
No, thank you.
No AI.
I don't know, Charlie.
Yes.
I would throw out, you know, like, you know how, so there's that, there's that book that Charlie was going to, we were working on about how he takes off on Saturdays.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Shabbat book.
I don't know if I would be as against like getting 11 labs to do like an audio, like read the audio in Charlie's voice.
I don't know if that would be as horrible.
That's not horrible.
If it's actually Charlie's words, maybe I'm crazy if you guys think differently, but if it's actually his words and you're using like his audio to recreate it, I don't know.
I feel like that's different than like creating a full-on.
It's definitely different.
I'm on the fence.
It's definitely different.
It's not, it's not nearly as good.
You know what I'm saying?
Yeah, yeah, it's not nearly as creepy.
The book is called Stop in the Name of God.
And it's yeah, it's coming out in December, Mikey.
I don't know.
Yeah, it comes out in December.
Yeah.
Literally, just a couple of weeks.
You can pre-order it now online too, guys.
Go get your copy.
It's really good too, by the way.
It's like legitimately.
It's amazing that there's still something of Charlie's work product that is about to be released, and it's really good.
Let's play 319.
This is kind of something similar.
319.
He's getting bigger.
See?
Oh, honey.
That's wonderful.
Kicking like crazy.
He's listening.
Put your hand on your tummy and hum to him.
You used to love that.
It feels like he's dancing in there.
Oh, why?
Mom, would you tell Charlie that bedtime story you always used to tell me?
Once upon a time, there was a baby unicorn who didn't know he knew how to fly.
This baby unicorn was like your mom because she didn't know that she knew how to fly, but she knew how to do all kinds of fabulous things.
Hi, Grandma.
Hey, Charlie.
How was school today?
It was really fun.
I'm in a screen shot in basketball.
I don't really care that much about basketball.
What about the crush?
Stop, grandma.
Stop, doctor.
Just tell me one thing.
Look who's going to be a great grandmother.
Oh, Charlie.
Oh, congratulations.
She says that he's been kicking a lot, though.
Like, a little too much.
Tell her to put her hand on her tummy and hum to him.
You loved that.
You would have loved this moment.
You can call anytime.
Drone strike, drone strike that company's headquarters.
I hate not allowing terrible.
Oh, my gosh.
That was like made my suck.
Oh, this is the same thing.
I hate that.
You know what's going to happen, though?
You know what's going to happen?
And I was thinking about this with, you know, when you mentioned Charlie, like they're going to be people who recreate like dead family members.
That's what's going to happen.
Like, like if your child passes away and, and I get it, right?
Like, I, you know, as a dad and, you know, a bunch of us are dads, most of us are dads, that, you know, I don't know how you'd live.
Like, I just don't know how I could live with going through the laws of a child.
And I could totally understand like wanting to recreate, you know, some sort of AI version of one of my kids just so you could like talk to them one more time.
And at the same time, though, I could totally see that driving you completely insane.
And I guarantee if that hasn't happened already, I guarantee that's going to start.
It's 100% going to happen.
It's 100% a temptation that will, that is understandable for a lot of situations.
It must be resistant.
It must be rejected.
I'm telling you, like, I don't know how I could.
Yeah.
I mean, think about it.
It's actually a very classic story because, you know, what are what's like the, what do an awful lot of occult stories begin with?
You know, you go, you use the Ouija board to try to talk to grandma again.
And imagine, imagine like definitely saying, imagine the grandma responding with, I don't really care about Cemetery, by the way.
Yeah, I don't care about it.
Yeah, I really don't care about your bad.
But here's the question.
Can the occult take over AI?
Oh, now we're getting into that weird stuff.
But can the devil take over AI and use it?
Yeah.
Just ask Sam for sure.
Apparently he's a murderer.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
That reason.
I just, I've heard.
That's also like, people ask me because there's people.
Go ahead, Mikey.
Sorry, buddy.
Yeah, there's just these like God-given feelings that you have where God made it so that people die eventually.
And I feel like with AI, we're going to get to a place where you're going to try to have a brain chip where you don't feel pain anymore, where pain is like a God-given thing to protect you, to give you feeling.
And I don't like this.
This is completely re-altering like the creator structure for our life.
But also, you guys talk about demons taking over stuff.
This is the topic with the AI song that's trending in like the top two or three in the charts for Christian music right now on iTunes and Spotify is people are saying, can the Holy Spirit be in an AI song?
Because it's not written by a human and the Holy Spirit moves through humans.
Yeah, I actually thought about that.
It's kind of like watching a fire on TV.
All the light, none of the warmth.
It's like a Christian AI song.
It's like all the words, none of the spirit.
Yeah, man, that creeps me out a lot.
And I think we're at this really brave new frontier, brave new world.
And I can honestly say I have never had my skin crawl on thought crime like I did watching that video.
That was genuinely pretty upsetting.
What's especially upsetting is in contrast to a lot of things where you can roll your eyes a little bit, like, you know, it's like, oh, this new trend is sweeping the world.
And you'll think, okay, that's like bad, but I can't imagine it.
I know deep in my bones, this is going to be insanely popular.
People will want to do this sort of thing.
Listen to Jack's example.
Jack, you're totally right.
Somebody lost a child and you had all these videos on your phone and you put them into like a little online form and then poof, it spits out like an AI version of your kid.
Like you would do that to comfort yourself if you lost your child.
It isn't really bad.
Wait, guys, let's just, we're talking around it, but let's just say it.
I mean, we all experienced a loss a couple of weeks ago, a couple months ago with Charlie.
Would any of us sitting here right now actually want like a personal AI Charlie bot that we could talk to?
I get the temptation.
I wouldn't.
I get the temptation, but I would just know it's not him.
Like I said, I've run into, I have personally heard from people who have asked us to make this.
I have heard from them.
I had to find a very polite way to say, I think that would be fundamentally deranged.
Yeah, no.
I think not merely like misguided.
I think it would be evil.
I think about it, though.
If you didn't know Charlie in real life, right?
Like most people probably only knew Charlie through a cell phone screen, right?
Or, you know, some other form of media, you, you have this sort of like parasocial relationship with the influencer that was known as Charlie Kirk.
So, which, but that's kind of like looking at a footprint and thinking that a footprint is the actual person.
But if that's all you ever knew was the imprint of Charlie that he left on social media, and of course, is all continues to be all over social media, then in your mind, you might think, well, it's not that different.
I just want to hear that voice and that mind talking about whatever the latest news is, whatever the latest turn of events is, whatever the latest twist of fate is.
And I just want more Charlie content directly.
And it seems like this is a tool to be able to do that.
Then that's totally different.
The way you come to that is totally different than if you knew Charlie and were like friends with Charlie, because you're thinking, well, it's like an online character almost.
Do you get what I'm saying?
Yeah, it's definitely a different knee.
Like for me, it's again, it's like when you look, this is why I don't think it would work.
And I think it'd be super weird, like what that company was putting forth is a really good friend or someone that you talk to so frequently.
I miss Charlie because of the ideas that we would talk about and the, you know, what we would create and the things that like the really tough conversations about like what needs to happen next.
Like you can't replace that with AI ever.
But that's the point of like your closest family members, your spouse, your whoever, your kids.
Like AI would never be able to generate new memories.
It just, you know, basically brings up old memories or their ideas about things happening to you.
And that's totally different from the human experience that God intends you to have, which is your interaction with people is supposed to be all sorts of things.
Good, bad, ugly, sad, angry.
Like you feel all of those real feelings with people that you actually interact with.
AI, you wouldn't, you would be missing many of those interactions.
By the way, you know, it just occurred to me while you're talking about that?
Like there has been warnings.
I don't know if it was Sam Altman who said this or if it was Elon, but it was basically like your search queries are searchable.
Like they're not protected, meaning like the FBI could get into them.
Yeah, we've gotten, that's how they've charged people.
You know, you search how to make a bomb.
Sure.
So, but like, imagine, imagine how much material like the NSA is going to have on people when they're sharing this, these deep, intimate moments with a robot or with an AI.
Like you have zero personal privacy at that point.
You are living your whole emotional life in existence is now on the matrix.
Yep.
This is very, very troubling stuff.
My skin is still crawling.
Can we go to Sidney Sweeney, who's a real person?
Yeah, I mean, AI Sydney Sweeney.
We need to.
Allegedly.
I mean, AI Sidney Sweeney would sell some people.
Oh, well, that will probably sell some jeans.
Oh, my goodness.
The sound effect.
That was dirty.
That was dirty.
Who in the studio chose that one?
All right.
Blake, who wants to set this one up?
Jack?
Well, no, you guys set this up.
I want to respond to it.
I actually don't even know what the story is, to be honest.
So the story is that I don't really know what she's doing.
She's refusing to apologize.
She's refusing to apologize for being pretty.
That was a couple of weeks ago, but she's doubled down.
Now she has like a new line of, so it's like American Eagle has now restocked her jeans because they sold out.
And now she's got this new butterfly gene that she's designed, which apparently, yeah.
So whoa.
Yeah.
This is bad.
This is really bad.
AI.
The butterfly is always a very bad sign.
If you ever, young kings, this is all for the young men out there.
If you ever see a girl who has a butterfly tattoo or a butterfly on her Twitter profile or Instagram or TikTok or whatever, run.
It means she's super original.
She's like not guided by other influences.
It means like a person, a woman with a butterfly tattoo, you know, she charts her own path through life.
No one does butterfly tattoo.
What does it always mean?
It always means new beginnings.
It always means new beginnings.
And you're like, new beginnings?
What was happening before the butterfly tattoo?
What was the OnlyFans model?
Yeah, exactly.
So I don't know if that's what Sidney Sweeney is saying here, but yeah, the butterfly has always been a negative take.
But no, so I wanted to hit this on Sidney Sweeney because I think the right is lulling themselves into a false sense of a false sense of calm with her and thinking that like, oh, she's, you know, she's like our girl.
She's going to be helpful to us.
When I think the right is, is, you know, she's actually, we're actually being set up.
So just because Sidney Sweeney isn't like woke and trans and all this, that doesn't mean that she's not a hardcore feminist.
And what, and I think that's what is going to be set up for.
So if you guys go and have you guys heard about the new movie that she's going to be starring in and starting next month?
Yeah, I watched the trailer.
I'm going to, I'm going to have the team pull it.
So this, this movie is called The Housemaid.
And if you guys don't know what The Housemaid is, it is the number one book for women in all of America right now.
Housemaid, it's in like every airport.
You go to every bookstore.
It's like on every list.
There's a whole series of them.
And what it is, is basically radio Rwanda for women.
It is the most, The Housemaid is the most anti-male narrative that's ever been written.
It is, it is straight up anxiety porn for women to teach them that men are evil and that men should be killed.
And if you don't believe me, go and pick up one of them.
So I did.
I read the very first one.
And in the very first novel, all the women are good, sort of.
The men are depicted and portrayed as evil for no reason because men exist.
They are therefore evil.
And then the housemaid basically becomes this character that quote unquote traumatized women get to hire in order to murder your narcissist husband and get away with it.
And then she becomes the hero of the series.
And each episode, each book, is then another way that she's going to come in and get hired to murder someone's husband for them.
Oh my goodness.
That's the new Sydney Sweeney movie.
So it's like living vicariously through your housemaid so they can murder your deadbeat husband.
Got it.
Yeah.
So like I'm reading now.
Here's the trailer starring Sidney Sweeney 345.
Hi, Melanie.
Hi, Mrs. Winchester.
Please call me Nina.
What are you doing here?
I work here.
Hey, what's going on?
Billy threw away my PTA notes.
Why don't we go check your office?
You need to be more careful next time.
Did you ruin my entire day?
I'm sorry.
I do not know how he met up with her.
He's a hot saint.
I'm gonna make out of here.
You're leaving?
No, he misheard me.
I want you to feel safe here.
I don't know what I'd do without you.
Oh my God.
What kind of monsters are we?
I need a sandwich.
I'm reading the summary of this book, and it's insane.
I'm just going to spoil it because I don't.
Yeah, that's what we should spoil it.
So the spoiler is: I'm just going to abbreviate the plot here.
So the Sidney Sweeney character gets hired.
She's just out of prison, and she basically gets hired as a housemaid to work at this family.
And initially, it seems like the wife is crazy and like the husband puts up with her.
TLDR, it turns out the husband is actually this emotionally and physically abusive psycho who tortures the wife.
And then all women.
All husbands.
And then, yeah, which all husbands are bad.
And then it's like the twist is Millie had actually killed, she went to jail because she killed someone trying to rape her friend.
And of course, the evil justice system sent her to jail for this because it's run by men.
And then she gets out.
And then the Nina, the wife, had hired her because she's hoping because Millie is this woman who will step up and rescue and kill men who are abusive.
She's hoping Millie will do what she's too much of a coward to do.
So what Millie does is literally, this is the description.
Millie incapacitates Andrew with pepper spray and locks him in a room.
She then forces him to perform the same punishment.
Andrew was trying to abuse her.
She forces the husband to do the sorry, Andrew's also the name of the husband in the story.
She forces him to do the same punishment and then rips out two of his teeth and then leaves him to die of thirst.
Then the wife comes back to the house and discovers the husband dead.
She tells Millie to flee.
Eventually the police decide that it was an accident.
And then the wife and the Sidney Sweeney character team up to they form a group to actually a different trick.
Anyway, the Sidney Sweeney character starts a group to help women get out of abusive relationships by murdering their husbands.
I'm not, so this is sold.
So that's basically what I said.
This has sold 2 million copies, just the very first book across Amazon, Barnes ⁇ Noble books a million, print, e-book, and audiobook formats.
It is all over TikTok.
Bestseller status, New York Times, USA Today.
This is the number one book for women in America today.
This is so men, so it is anti-male.
It is anti-marriage.
It is anti-family.
It is all men are evil.
Marriage is a trap.
Every husband is a ticking time bomb.
Every home is a cage that you are, you know, if you're not in complete control of, then you are inherently in a cage.
Marriage itself, of course, is a cage.
Women are always the perpetual victims.
And also, by the way, Blake, to what you were just saying, it doesn't matter how extreme your behavior is as long as you're a woman, because if a woman does it, it's justified.
We just need a general conversation on women's fiction.
It's gotten really bad.
Like, if you go to a bookstore, a huge amount of fiction on sale, first of all, the covers make them look like children's books.
They'll have these like very inoffensive cartoons.
And then a ton of them are like that.
They're either weirdly murderous or they're just literal smut.
And it's very low effort smut.
I was in the airport the other day, and hockey romances have become this huge thing.
So women like romance novels, but then there's specific types of romance novel they like.
Hockey?
Hockey romance.
So there's different types they like.
So they like, you know, business exec romance.
They like cowboy romance.
They like werewolf romance.
And they like, there's a lot of sports romances, but specifically hockey.
They really like romance stories involving hockey players.
That's an interesting thing.
You could really dissect that.
My guess is, frankly, I'll be honest, hockey is probably one of the last sports that's like implicitly mostly white people.
And so it's where you plausibly have, you know, where you have a tall guy, where you have a tall guy who's like, can be blonde and blue-eyed, which is what a lot of women like.
And toothless.
It's kind of violent.
So yeah, they can be tough.
It's still a team sport.
So you can have the interpersonal drama of what's going on within the team.
You're not going to get that with tennis, for example.
I just think it's all those things together.
But there's tons of these.
There's one called Icebreaker.
You've seen the cover.
It's in every bookstore.
It's sold millions of copies.
It has hundreds of thousands of ratings on Amazon and on Goodreads.
But there's tons of these.
So I was in the bookstore the other day.
Yeah.
It was book four.
Yeah.
So we have that.
That is just one of the most popular books of the past decade is that.
Millions of copies.
And it is just a smut book.
Over 1 million copies sold.
Yeah.
It is smut.
It is literally just a pornographic book.
Trust me on this one.
And there's tons of them like this.
You saw it at the airport.
I did not buy this.
Blow mind.
No, no, no.
I was in the airport and there was a different romance series.
And it was a whole hockey romance series about the Jacksonville Rays, a fake NHL team.
And it's getting more and more extreme because book one, that one we saw there is at least, as far as I know, a normal romance, just boy girl.
I thought you said it was a porn.
Well, it is, but it's still like, it is still just a normal relationship.
It's better.
It's smut.
Is what he means.
So book one of this Jacksonville Rays series, first of all, all the titles are just actually, this is probably another reason they like hockey.
They're just bad, dirty puns, like, you know, like down to puck and pucking strong and stuff like that.
Anyway, book one was a woman has love quadrangle with four with three guys on the hockey team.
And the happy resolution is polyamory.
She can just be with all three of the guys.
And that's the happy ending.
Book two, book two is there is it's a body positivity romance.
So it's like a big girl, a fat girl, and she still gets the hot hockey player.
And by book four, which is the one I encountered, it's just a gay romance.
Two men, but it's still written by a woman for women.
Are you sure you didn't buy these books?
I did not buy it.
Are you sure?
I can just see you rolling up to the bookstore at the airport with your Boba T. Wait, these are amazing.
And you bought it.
I did not buy it.
I did not buy it.
I did not read it.
I thought it was funny.
So for investigative purposes, that is the series.
So for investigations, tucking around.
For investigative purposes.
Blake, you know too much.
I looked at the book, but I did not buy it.
I did not read the whole thing.
You did not in hand.
I will admit.
I will admit it took me an amusingly long time to realize that the gay one was like a gay romance novel.
Even though I opened up the books.
You're gay stuff.
How far in the book?
How much of the book did you read before you realized?
The funny thing is, is I opened to a random page, and literally, one of the characters is like, are you on prep?
What's prep?
And it's the drug that you take to not get HIV if you are.
You know way too much about this book.
You read the book.
I learned about this book.
I am under attack.
I am being persecuted.
Blake knows way too much about European history, too.
So it's like you are.
I try to bring you entertaining stories.
I try to bring you entertaining stories.
Somehow, Blake, you made my skin crawl more than the AI grandma video.
You guys, I am persecuted because I try to bring funny information.
Blake is like, hey, how about those gay hockey novels?
How did we get there?
Yeah, but what about those gay hockey novels?
Because when the slit is out of control, okay, but here's the setup.
Here's the setup.
I told this to the team that Sidney Sweeney is going to absolutely let she's going to overcompensate because she knows everybody thinks she's right-coated and a conservative and MAGA and all this stuff.
She's going to overcompensate.
This is why we saw her naked on some sort of red carpet kid.
She had her, you know.
Why'd you say it that way?
I don't know.
She was naked.
Yeah, there it is.
That's that was this is this is the thing.
Well, it was basically it was oh, it's blurred.
I see.
Oh, it's blurred.
No, so I can't see it from here.
She is going to let us down because she's going to say, no one controls me.
And to Jack's point, I think she's, you know, empowered feminist.
She's not going to be controlled or defined by anybody.
Well, I do think that her career has been built around the blurred out section there.
So, I mean, a lot of her career has been focused in one part of her calendar.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, anyway.
Her charm.
Her intellect.
I thought that she did a great job.
I thought she did a great job.
She knows what's not apologizing to that.
Was it Cosmo or GQ?
What was that?
I can't remember.
She heard the outlet, but she did a great job of not apologizing for the ad because the whole thing was blown out of proportion.
Good genes, all this stuff.
Anyways, I guess I suppose I'm a fan-ish of Sidney Sweeney just because she's something new and novel and unique.
But yeah, I think you're right, Jack.
If you're going to put any faith in Sidney Sweeney, be prepared to be let down greatly.
And that's where it is, guys.
We're on.
No one here is let down by Sidney Sweeney.
Men need to rise up.
We need to stop.
We need to stop trusting these Hollywood starlets.
We need to stop trusting these New Jersey women like that one who apparently faked a hate crime, a Trump hate crime or something.
Can't do it, boys.
It's all up to us.
She worked for Van Drew.
Yeah.
All the guys were sharing that picture in the group chat today, and they're like, I can fix her.
I can fix her.
All right.
Listen, Jack, you have an event tonight.
If you want to preface it, then we'll take a seat.
I'm not sure if it's live streamed or like it comes out the next day or how that works, but I'm an event tonight here, actually backstage at what is this place called?
The Diamond Heart Arena in Bakersfield, California.
It is Megan Kelly, myself, Victor Davis Hansen, Steve Hilton, and believe it or not, Charlie Sheen.
Yes, that's right.
The Charlie Sheen is here.
Ricky Vaughan himself will be on stage as well as I.
And, you know, this was actually, this is supposed to be Charlie's stop on the tour with Megan Kelly.
And obviously, Charlie can't be here.
And, you know, she asked me to just come up and say a few words about him.
And I'm going to do that.
And I'm really looking forward, of course, to Erica when she goes and speaks to Megan Kelly, I think, in two nights' time on Saturday night there in Phoenix.
Yep.
Glendale.
Doing it at the old coyotes arena there.
Desert yeah, desert diamond arena.
Mm-hmm.
Speaking of hockey.
We got to have the coyotes come back, but not to Glendale.
We need them back to Scottsdale.
That'd be fantastic.
That'd be great.
Jack, I'm going to take us home here, brother.
But this has been a very fun, illuminating, skin-crawling discussion.
I've been surprised, enlightened, disappointed, disgusted.
All of the things.
Hopefully you enjoyed it.
Yeah.
All right.
▲
Export Selection