Joe Biden recently said that MAGA is the most extreme political organization in American history.
Subjectively false, because like, I don't know, the weather underground existed, but sure, whatever, the Trump supporters waving little American flags, that's what I'm worried about.
I'm sure the left will come out and be like, but the insurrection!
Okay, dude, sure, whatever, I'm not, I'm not even bothering with that.
No, Ultra MAGA, he calls it, the Ultra MAGA agenda.
Well, Joe Biden, back in, I think it was 1982, you voted to not.
I believe it was voting against Roe v. Wade.
So I wonder what that means about you, because if anything's changed in this country, it's not really been the right, except the right's actually moved leftward.
Conservatives are now like, okay with gay marriage to a certain degree, whereas they weren't 14 years ago.
I mean, 10 years ago, they weren't.
So if anything's happened in this country, everything's moved a little bit to the left.
So Joe Biden is absolutely wrong, but we'll talk about this.
We've got a bunch of other stuff too.
Will Chamberlain.
front of the show, produced a thread on who he thinks may have leaked the SCOTUS ruling from
the Supreme Court. And Derek Swalwell, essentially is threatening, you know, oh,
you're going to get sued or whatever. They're really getting triggered about this because I
think Will may have actually discovered something. And well, I don't want to say too much because
they're very litigious people. But Will makes the case that it's possible this person could be
somebody who leaked some information. We'll read through what he said and we'll be careful about it.
We've got a bunch of other stories.
Elon Musk.
We were originally going to leave with this one.
There's 26 leftist organizations calling for an advertiser boycott of Twitter if Elon Musk wants to change things.
So we've got this article talking about the Legion of Doom.
Elon Musk slammed this letter saying, who is funding this people?
Surprise, surprise.
One of the people is George Soros.
Joining us to talk about all this, we've got a couple different people.
And his response was, well, you got to get the scientists, you got to review it, you know, and then we'll appeal to the courts.
And it's like, wait, what?
Joe, are you talking about Are you talking about COVID or something?
We're talking about immigration.
He confused the mask mandate repeal with immigration.
The man is not well.
He is not able to articulate his thoughts.
This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history.
All right, I'd just like to make one point.
Joe Biden, in response to news that the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, said that That MAGA is the most extreme political organization in American history.
In 1982, when Biden was a senator from Delaware, he voted to end Roe v. Wade under former President Ronald Reagan.
The administration was focused on ending abortion rights at the federal level.
An amendment was proposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow individual states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
He said, I'm probably a victim or a product, you know, however you want to phrase it, of my background.
Citing his Catholic upbringing.
If anything's more extreme today, it's Joe Biden.
Who's a hypocrite.
unidentified
No, look, the psychological thing, projection, right?
We talk about this all the time.
That's what's happening here.
Obviously, you know, you mentioned this, Tim, but MAGA, you know, in a lot of ways is left of where the Republican Party is 20 years ago.
I mean, 10 years ago.
You know, you look at like trade and things like that.
Those were issues where the Democrats were.
But Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, we're talking about abortion till the moment of birth.
We're talking about sex changes for kids.
We're talking about censoring free speech.
So I think when he says that Ultramaga, which is really cool, by the way, is the most dangerous political movement, I think the truth is that the Democrats are really threatening that.
The reason Biden is able to get away with this and the reason why a substantial number of people in the country will believe him is because of the media.
The media memory holes every single example of left-wing extremism and amplifies anything they can pin on Republicans.
So we'll always remember the trespassers at the Capitol.
But we won't remember the people who bombed the Capitol in the 1980s, the leftists linked to the weather on the ground, as you said, Tim.
Actually, there might have been another different left-wing extremist group.
They come out and they're like, but there's so many far-right extremists!
And I'm like, there are many far-right extremists, sure, but do they have any institutional power?
Are the people who stormed into the Capitol on January 6th working at CNN or the New York Times, are any of those people, are they being supported and defended by CNN and the New York Times?
Oh, well, when Black Lives Matter and Antifa Mm-hmm.
it across this country in 2020 causing billions of dollars in damage and I think it resulted
in between 26 and 32 dead.
They were actively defended by the sitting vice president and president and the media
actively defended them.
My favorite is fiery but mostly peaceful.
So if I take issue with that, you know, and then you're like, but what about the insurrectionists?
And I'm like, oh, the people who are violent should go to prison.
But those people don't have any support from the major cultural institutions.
They don't work there.
You actually have active Antifa people at the New York Times.
Actively.
Okay, you don't have that with the mock people, but they're like, but they're police officers!
I'm like, dude, and what, like, Bumblehaven in Bufu?
Podunk?
Yeah, okay, I'm really worried about the podunk cop who drove a couple hundred miles and rioted.
Arrest the guy, put him in jail, fine, I get it, but that is not an institution that is going to harm my life.
unidentified
And look at the difference here between the two parties, right?
The Republicans do everything they can to disavow the insurrectionists, disavow the far-right, you know, the alt-right people.
The Democrats create GoFundMes for bailout funds for the mostly peaceful protesters.
I pulled up this, the bombing you were talking about in the Capitol, 1980s, a far-left group called M19 bombed the Senate.
It was women, I think it was a group of women, but it was like a male, it wasn't all women, it was like, looks like four women and two guys, they call it like a Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard of M19 until tonight, so thanks for bringing that up.
Yeah, I think a lot of people haven't heard about it because whoever controls the history books, whoever controls the news, doesn't want us remembering it.
You know, we have an alternative news media now, which is great.
From 1982 to 1985, M-19's CEO committed a series of bombings, including bombings of the National War College, the Washington Navy Yard, Computing Center, the Israeli Aircraft Industries, New York City's South African Consulate, Wow.
But do you guys remember the Family Research Council shooting?
That happened like six years ago, seven years ago.
No one talks about this, but they were targeted for being an anti-gay hate group.
And someone went in there with Chick-fil-A sandwiches, was planning to put Chick-fil-A sandwiches on the dead corpses of all the people that worked there.
The next day, you say, he's almost as bad as Hitler.
You can't say it again.
So the next day, he is as bad.
The next day, he's worse than.
You have to keep escalating it because people want that fix of anger and hatred.
And they need a reason to hate and be angry.
So Joe Biden comes out, and he needs a way to rile people up for the midterms.
The Roe v. Wade thing leaks, and he says, they're the most extreme organization in American history.
And you know what he's doing?
He's targeting 18-year-olds.
18-year-olds who don't know about the weather underground, who don't know about M19CO, who don't know about these bombings, who don't even know about Joe Biden.
Because we've had these leftists on the show and they're like, I don't know anything about Biden or his administration or what he did with Obama.
And I'm like, well, he blipped kids, but they don't know that.
Right now, I think the one thing that's preventing just balls to the wall chaos and violence, boomers.
Boomers were 30 years old or so in the 90s, and they were the political faction that overlapped Democrat-Republican.
To this day, it is still mostly true.
We had a boomer on the show recently, we talked to her, and she didn't know anything about what was going on with our generation's politics.
When the boomers age out, retiring, exiting politics, and or passing on, that tether is gone, and you're going to have millennials who are very much at odds in the culture.
I mean, look at where we are compared to where the young Turks are, but it's all screaming at each other.
But we do have young people, and there are some older people involved, don't get me wrong, boomers are involved, but they're overtly fighting in the streets.
What happens when Gen Z and Gen Alpha are raised In a world dominated by millennial worldview, which is hyper-polarized, what happens when the next generation comes in, raised by millennials, millennials are going to have kids, Gen Z is going to have kids, and their kids are going to be raised in those ideologies, completely bifurcated politics in this country, that's when chaos happens.
The one thing that I think is missing from all of the discussions about escalation of violence and hyper-polarization in this country is how demographics shape what's going to happen in this country.
If in the 2000s, conservatives were having more kids than liberals, then by 2020, you would have a generation that was slightly more conservative.
Surprise, surprise.
We literally have that.
Only slightly, though.
The left doesn't have kids.
They have your kids.
So as long as they're in schools indoctrinating, now you've got millennial conservatives and, you know, zennial, I guess, necessarily Gen X, because they're a little older.
But people in their 40s and down to millennial are fighting in these schools and complaining about it.
You do have some boomers involved, some older generation stuff.
They're fighting about the indoctrination.
The indoctrination is likely going to stop because of the culture wars, or at least I believe it will.
The left is going to react revolt.
The one thing that may happen is if they can't indoctrinate conservative kids, then leftism just fizzles out because these people, I mean, let's be real.
They don't have kids.
If they get pregnant, they abort their babies.
And they are actually moving towards sterilizing, or at least permanently damaging the reproductive organs of their children.
Mathematically, it just stands to reason, 20 years from now, it's going to be 2 to 1 conservative in this country.
Yeah, but that's assuming that they don't have your kids.
That's the thing about horizontal gene translation.
There's vertical gene translation, which is parent to child.
Then there's horizontal, which is your environment changes your genetics.
And if you have enough kids getting brainwashed with TV where they're being told they're transgender, they're being told they're evil or wrong, they could very well become that.
And then you also have culture and people on social media telling you you have to be left just to be cool or else you get cancelled.
If you're an impressionable teenager you're going to respond to those things.
But not if you're a French teenager apparently.
One of the interesting things I've noticed from the recent French election was that The younger people in France tend to be more supportive of the right there, which is an interesting contrast with America.
I think that tracks exactly with what we're talking about.
In the 2000s, conservatives were having slightly more kids than liberals.
20 years, that means someone who was born in 2000, they're 22 years old.
They're voting.
And they're more likely to be conservative because conservatives had more kids.
That's it.
It doesn't matter if you win the culture war.
It doesn't matter if you've been effective in your persuasion.
To start, the most influential element is the parents.
That's why they're going for schools.
They need to cut the parents out because they know parents are more conservative than they are.
unidentified
Right.
And I think the white pill in all this is we do seem to see a movement pushing back against this indoctrination.
I think that's what the Virginia governor's race last year was all about.
And, you know, the thing here that I see is that I don't really see when we talk about civil war, which is always a fun topic.
To me, it seems like conservatives won't ever be the instigators, but progressives, leftists, woke people will.
And so it's really critical, I think, for us to, you know, to take back power, to be willing to use the government to shut down some of these institutions that are trying to do this indoctrination to really go after them.
And so that's that's like one of the biggest debates on the right right now is like, are we going to continue to be this like small government party that lets schools do whatever they want to your kids?
Or are we going to take a more active role and say, no, absolutely not.
And this is why, for me, it all comes back to internet censorship.
I think this is the most important issue for all of these culture war topics, because if you can't control the flow of information, then you can't indoctrinate people.
I remember being in college and hearing absolute nonsense from gender studies professors and thinking, that sounds a bit Weird.
I'm gonna go and look things up on the internet, see what the internet has to say about this particular debate about the social construction of gender, and then I'll find threads on 4chan and Reddit that broke it all down and explain to me that, yes, I was absolutely correct.
You are listening to nonsense right now.
Here's the fact.
Here's the data.
Yeah.
So it comes back to internet censorship.
This is why they're so fixated on it.
This is why they're so determined to stop Elon Musk bringing free speech back to Twitter.
If they can't control those choke points of information, the indoctrination machine completely collapses.
unidentified
And as these left-wing institutions, you know, really beclown themselves, I think people are, the media, for example, you look, CNN's ratings, MSNBC's ratings, always going down, you know, some of these things.
I think people realize, OK, these institutions are bad.
But as Allam said, like, if you take away our ability to access information, take away our ability to go to the Daily Wire,
go to some of these other institutions to kind of counter this programming,
then people are going to say, well, I heard that Trump's a racist.
I guess that's true, because that's the only source that they saw.
So the left, as you all know, have been freaking out non-stop for the past two or three weeks because of Elon Musk, who calls himself a free speech absolutist, and his plans to bring free speech absolutism back to Twitter, which is the correct way of explaining it.
He's like, if they don't like it, they can change the law.
You can.
unidentified
Well, you remember when there was a debate as to whether this acquisition would take place, Saudi Prince came out and said, you know, they had a huge stake in Twitter.
And they were like, absolutely not.
The reason is because they need to be able to censor their own citizens and their own citizens are using Twitter.
I think what gets me about this, and I'm trying to see that point of view, the other point
of view here, is that Trump can go on stage and be like, the sky is not blue, the sky
is red, I heard the sky is red, and then a bunch of people will go online and they'll
be like, the sky actually is red.
And people will be like, okay, there are such things as cult worshippers that believe anything, even if it's not real, when they hear it from their cultist.
So people are afraid of that, and they want to censor it.
Donald Trump reads a story about some potential medications that was published in TechCrunch.
Because I know, because I read the news.
Two days later, Donald Trump goes, did you hear the news about this thing?
It sounds very great.
There's a medication.
We're very excited for this.
And then the media all of a sudden flips and is like, no, it's all bad.
Donald Trump is dangerous.
And I'm like, But you reported on these studies!
Donald Trump had a tendency of watching cable TV, putting too much stock in these institutional news outlets, because he kept giving them interviews, believing them, but then the next day they'd be like, uh, actually, that thing we said yesterday is gone.
Let's just let's just Because I know there are many people who want to share this
show and share the show with people who are not Initiated in the past several years of politics. Here is an
article from Politico in January of 2017 from Ken Vogel and David Stern Ukrainian
efforts to sabotage Trump backfire Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.
And they helped Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors, a Politico investigation found.
To wrap up what I was saying, Trump will say something, whether it's true or not, people and then people may or may not believe it.
They're afraid that the cultists will believe him at face value, and that's dangerous.
So they try and suppress it.
But I think also that there's like, Trump wasn't part of the liberal economic order.
He didn't want American military supremacy all over the earth and they didn't like that.
So now they're going far beyond like, hey, this guy's dangerously corrupting people too.
This guy's impeding our agenda.
So let's make sure that we smash him in the press.
That's the vibe I'm getting from it.
And I'm tired of it.
So we're building decentralized free software, which will be AGPL, where you can run your own network and have your own server and interact with other people using the software, try and bypass this stuff.
I'm still concerned with Verizon having ISPs and things like that.
We've got to figure out a way to like use decentralized tech, like Noster, N-O-S-T-E-R, stuff like that, where we don't need an internet to interact with each other.
Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, when Russian disinformation met a Trump obsession, the Kremlin may have been laying the groundwork for blaming Ukraine for 2016 as early as 2015.
What are you crazy?
Three weeks after Election Day 2016, the Kremlin officially floated a theory that would ultimately lead to only the third presidential impeachment in US history.
Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump's election by planting information,
aimed at damaging his campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a spokesman for Russia's foreign ministry,
told reporters on November 30th, 2016, accusing the Ukrainian government of scheming
This is also concerning because there was the government, basically there's a revolution in the Ukraine in 2014, you know, that, uh, I don't know if the CIA was involved in it, but that's what I, I've heard that a bunch.
My thing about the whole Ukraine war right now is the U.S.
and the West was using soft power to win over Ukraine.
That's what they were doing.
It's better than kinetic warfare.
Russia is being terrible at what they do and not understanding how to compete in 4th and 5th generational warfare, decides to just go with bombs and tanks, killing people and destroying a country.
I don't like what the U.S.
was doing when they do these manipulation campaigns, but I think the reality of the world is that everything is influence-peddling.
China's going for the, you know, was it the Belt and Road Initiative or whatever?
They're going and they're offering money.
The U.S.
going to Ukraine and being like, we're going to give you a billion dollars, we're going to give you all this stuff, get us what we want.
I'm like, okay, welcome to global politics.
Joe Biden going in and being like, fire the prosecutor or you're not getting the billion dollars, Joe Biden should be in prison for that.
Estonia and Latvia are NATO countries on the border of Russia
I think the issue is that Russia needs the warm water port with with Crimea
And so that's a big issue for Russia.
The U.S.
is encroaching, and I think Russia is one of the next dominoes to fall.
So Russia probably tolerated Estonia and Latvia.
With Ukraine, they were like, Ukraine goes.
In 20 years, we go.
You take a look at what happened with those Instagrammers from Russia crying, no, don't ban me!
Russia already lost the culture war.
Or I should say they're losing it and now they're trying to reverse it.
But man, are they late.
Their children were being indoctrinated by Western social media.
And so they were freaking out when Russia declared this war.
I'm telling you, man, the difference between boomers and even millennials and down, this gap in internet usage, People like Putin and his advisors, his top military guys, they don't understand the cultural and mental worldview difference they have from their kids because their kids weren't raised by them.
I mean, you know, my entire job is exposing big tech, but if we're talking about the regime, big tech is not entirely a reluctant partner, but they were pressured into it to a large degree by external forces, especially the media.
And this is why we see these 26 organizations coming and saying we need an advertiser boycott of Twitter, because that's their leverage over the tech companies, ultimately.
He wants to charge for premium access, and I think it's a brilliant idea.
And I'll be totally honest.
Uh, I got a lot of followers on Twitter.
If they came to me and said, we've got a premium suite, I'd be like, done.
Show me like, show me data on, uh, there's like, there's the analytics sucks for Twitter.
Give me like a premium analytics suite.
I don't, I don't care about Twitter.
Because you can't use it the way you can use, say, YouTube.
YouTube tells me, here's how many people watched your video in the first hour.
Here's how many people, like, how long they watched your first video.
And I'm like, oh, okay.
So here's what they like and here's what they don't like.
Twitter is like, say something and cross your fingers!
If they actually came out and said, for X amount of dollars, we'll do this for you, I think they should be verifying everybody.
I think, you know, I guess Elon Musk said he wants, what, like, two bucks per month for Twitter Blue, and then they'll verify you, your identity and all that stuff.
Not everyone has to be identified.
Not everybody has to be verified.
People will still be able to use it for free.
And I'm like, I think he's got a good plan for this.
unidentified
And he's so smart.
I mean, I know he made comments about this isn't about economics, which is great.
Like, I'm glad that he's doing this for free speech, but he's too smart for that.
Like, he knows that he paid $44 billion.
He's got Web 3 ideas.
He's got decentralization ideas.
He's got all sorts of things.
I'm sure he will turn this into a trillion dollar company.
Newgrounds.com, for those that don't know, was YouTube before YouTube existed.
And they missed the train.
Big time.
Yeah, they had Flash video.
Because they were cartoon oriented.
And so what happened was... I could be totally wrong about this.
I was on Newgrounds every day looking at every new submission.
These were people uploading cartoons.
I used to do Flash animation stuff.
And then I remember when YouTube came around and then all of a sudden the animators started putting their stuff on YouTube because it was just easy and fast.
Newgrounds could have done video.
In fact, they had some video sometimes, but I guess they thought, no, no, no, we're an animator community, so we're gonna stick to that, and then everyone migrated their animations to YouTube, and that was... And they probably thought they were so big they didn't see the threat coming.
But the crazy thing is, they were so big, but nowhere near as big as YouTube came to be.
YouTube had those video responses, which really enlivened the community before Google bought them.
I wonder if Google was planning on buying them before that, or if they were like, whoa, there's a community here, and we want to build communities, so we're going to buy it.
But they bought it for a billion, and YouTube was dying, was like, they couldn't pay for their infrastructure, so they had to sell the company.
Let's talk about what's going on with Will Chamberlain, because as we talk about our cultural decay and our institutional collapse, Will Chamberlain has tweeted out a law clerk by the name of Elizabeth Deutsch.
He says, in his humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
He says, a disclaimer, I have no inside information.
This thread is speculation based almost entirely on publicly available information.
I could easily be wrong.
Now, Apparently he's being threatened that he's gonna get sued over this, which is just laughably stupid.
Elizabeth Deutsch is arguably not a public figure, but guess what?
People can become public figures!
Whoa.
Now, Will prefaces he doesn't know for sure.
It's a speculation, and you're allowed to speculate.
And Will is also a lawyer, so I think he knows what he's doing.
But I think this is a really interesting thread because of how the reaction has been.
Let me see if I have this one from Eric Swalwell.
Eric Swalwell, you know him, you love him, he farted on TV.
He said, Under Supreme Court law, as a public figure, I take a lot of defamatory attacks because Barr is too high to sue.
Ms.
Deutch is not a public figure and would likely have a strong defamation case against Will Chamberlain.
Republicans are bullies, but they always back down when challenged.
Ron Coleman says, You are not scaring anyone, but you are getting some of us pretty excited.
And then it's Elmer Fudd saying, I love civil litigation.
Okay, okay.
So here's the gist.
I'll just give you the simple version.
She is, according to this thread from Will, she's a reproductive rights activist.
Is that how they call it?
Her academic background isn't uncommon.
He says things get interesting.
Every law student has to write a note, a long legal research paper, making a novel argument about a law.
Hers is about reproductive rights and abortion.
She argued that Obamacare's non-discrimination provision should be interpreted to force Catholic hospitals to perform emergency abortions.
Aggressive argument, but hey, law students are aggressive.
He says while in law school, she wrote a New York Times op-ed about reproductive rights.
Her career page on LinkedIn doesn't reveal that much until we dig a little further.
Thanks to her New York Times wedding announcement, of course, we know that she clerked for Judge Nina Pillard.
Pillard was one of the D.C.
Circuit judges appointed by Obama and forced through by Harry Reid, blowing up the filibuster.
She's stridently pro-choice, perhaps not shocking.
After her clerkships, she got a Gruber Fellowship at the ACLU for a full year, working on abortion and reproductive rights.
None of this proves anything.
Deutsche's career seems pretty focused on abortion, but without some connection to Josh Gerstein, the journalist who received the leak, there would be no reason to suspect her.
Let's go back to that New York Times wedding announcement.
The bride and groom she met at Yale?
She is a lawyer, he is a journalist.
Isaac Arnsdorf just got hired by the Washington Post as a national political reporter.
Of course, he's on the Trump beat.
But where has he written in the past?
Politico, sharing a byline with Josh Gerstein.
So that's the connection.
Looks like Gerstein and they are still bros, chatting on Twitter, interacting as recently as last year.
To conclude, we have a currently sitting Supreme Court law clerk whose career has been almost solely focused on abortion.
She wrote her law school note on abortion, she wrote op-eds about reproductive rights, spent a year working on abortion at the ACLU, clerked for a pro-choice judge, and it just so happens that her husband is a journalist sharing bylines with Josh Gerstein at Politico, and it looks like they're still friends.
Sharing a byline means they work together.
Like, they've shared this story that's published, so they know each other for sure.
He says, I don't know that Elizabeth Deutch leaked the draft opinion, but I certainly think someone who has spent much of their academic and professional life fighting to expand the right to get an abortion could be desperate enough to do so.
I think it's an interesting thread and some good journalistic work.
He didn't publish any private details outside of, here's a person who publicly works for the court and we're looking for a leaker.
Robbie Suave says, what is the argument that it's okay to do this, but not to reveal the name of Libs of TikTok?
Ian Milestrong, she's not anonymous for one.
And secondly, Will didn't publish Deutsche's home address.
She's not anonymous.
She's literally a law clerk.
Someone leaked the information.
We're going to start looking who the publicly available information on law clerks is.
Libs of TikTok's name was not in the public.
But my argument on that one was always, I disagree with it, but There's an argument to be made about the journalistic issue around whether or not who someone is should be public knowledge.
Considering Libs of TikTok had 600,000 followers and was influencing politics, I think the reporting was warranted, but the name didn't serve a purpose.
Posting the home address was crossing the line.
As for this, this is not an anonymous person.
This is someone who has stamped Law Clerk at the Supreme Court under their name.
All of this is in the press.
Libs of TikTok's information may have been public, as they argue, but it was in, like, registries.
I wonder if Will is over-target on this one and he actually found who may have leaked the- Also, making popular memes on Twitter and- Well, not even making popular memes, sharing videos on Twitter.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy that this isn't a public person.
You know, you work for a member of Congress that's publicly known.
Adam Schiff says, I don't care how the draft leaked.
That's a sideshow.
What I care about is that a small number of conservative justices who lied about their plans to the Senate intend to deprive millions of women of reproductive care.
It's still illegal to do, but there's no scruples.
They're not worried about repercussions.
They're not worried about being ostracized or canceled or anything like that.
For the older generations, they're genuinely worried that if I step out of line, people will be mad at me.
Now, you've got these law clerks who are like, I literally don't care what anyone else thinks.
My tribe must win.
When you have two distinct political factions, and within those umbrellas, you have many different ideologies, like libertarian and conservative are kind of in the same space, but they really don't agree with each other, just like progressives and neolibs don't, but they're in the same space.
What happens is, we had one United States, And a Republican would be like, I can't do that because Democrats, you know, I'm going to get all the flack from my colleagues in Congress.
That one goes too far.
Nowadays, it's basically come to the point where left and right says, I do not care at all what the right thinks.
The left must get this thing.
So the attitude now with cancel culture.
Um, Ethan Klein.
Really great example.
H3H3.
He makes an offensive statement.
He apologizes to his fans.
We all laugh and be like, look what you have to do.
But to him, he's like, I don't care about what the right thinks because the right's not paying my bills.
So I'll apologize if I have to.
That's where we're at right now.
There's no... Ethan can come out and accuse anyone on the right of being anything, and there's zero damage he will face.
We had a detransitioner on the show yesterday, and I'm like, I'm sure a bunch of activists are going to come and scream in my face, but they have zero impact on my work or my show, so why should I care?
And that means when the boomers are gone, there's going to be two distinct Political realities in this country.
And the reason we have 50 states is because just in case a political faction attempts to seize power at the federal level, the states have total recourse to resist that.
The issue with this is, you know, Republicans, conservatives will always say federalism will solve everything, that we should push things back to the states.
But I do think, you know, it's important to know who our enemy is here.
And to Tim's point, I mean, these are people who think that the ends are always justified.
And so, you know, why would California listen to, you know, some...
I think the most important war is the information war, and the reason why these divides are happening is because the media has gone so far to the left that it's creating this alternative reality.
It was news organizations funded by venture capital who found the fastest path towards making money was rage bait.
And so you ended up with websites like Mike.com, which initially started as Ron Paul supporting, and then went woke because they were like, this stuff works.
You know what doesn't work for the right?
What worked for the right was anti-SJW.
We don't like the things they're doing, so we're gonna complain about it whenever they do it.
What worked for the left was literally lying about anything.
It's claiming that cops are going around hunting down black people.
Russiagate, Covington, Jussie Smollett, Ghost of Kiev, that's a new one.
Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Ahmaud Arbery.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Kyle Rittenhouse, lie.
They do it non-stop, all day, every day, and it works every time.
These people live in a chaotic dimension of flame, fire, and destruction, and they don't care they've been wrong about almost every major cultural story of the past decade.
They don't care.
You will not change their minds.
So when I pull up Politico, quite literally having two articles, one saying Ukraine did meddle, and one saying, actually, that was Russian disinformation, but they never retracted the other one, how can these people exist?
How can their brains function with such cognitive dissonance?
That is the problem.
The information war, yes.
But if these people are in a cult and you can't reach them, then there's going to be fighting.
The way to do it is to show them they're not as popular as they think.
And what's insulating them from that is social media censorship.
What I want to know is why are Republicans so keen on bailing this industry out, bailing the news media out, the same industry that is publishing these Politico articles, the same industry.
It says, to provide a safe harbor for publishers of online content to collectively negotiate with dominant online platforms regarding the terms on which content may be distributed.
unidentified
It's a temporary waiver on antitrust to basically allow these small publishers to collectively bargain against Facebook and Google.
But the issue is local news has been destroyed, but it's because people want national stories.
So, it used to be that to get your news, you'd turn on, you know, Channel 5 for the 5 o'clock news.
I remember we had Fox 32 in Chicago.
Simpsons were at like 5.30 or something, and then... Central Time.
Yeah, Central Time, and then at 6 p.m.
was the news, and I'd go, ugh.
And then afterwards, it was Seinfeld, and I was like, meh.
I liked The Simpsons when I was a kid.
And, uh, you'd watch your news, but your news would be like... Who's that guy in WGN?
Is that Larry Potash?
I don't remember.
He's still there, I think.
Uh, it was local stories.
You'd get some national stuff, but they'd also be like, a fire hydrant burst over on the corner of 63rd and, you know, California, and now there's water everywhere, the road has been blocked off, and you're like, oh.
Now, you turn on the news, and it's CNN, and they're like, Trump is a Nazi.
And you're like, okay, that's not anything relevant to me.
Then you go on Google.
You type in news, you get CNN.
CNN's gonna give you all national stories.
CBS, all national stories.
So you have to actively choose, as someone in an area, to find your local news, but I think most people don't do that.
The other thing is, you know, local news is how this is being pitched to congressmen.
I mean, anyone who's been in politics for a long time knows that the great soundbite is, we're on the side of the little guys against the big guys.
That's how politicians have been selling almost anything for a very, very long time.
There's nothing in the bill that limits this to local news, but there is a big part of the bill that allows any cartel that forms to exclude whoever they want, as long as they're not similarly situated to them.
This is very strange because, like, I just don't... So what would you suggest?
What would you suggest is a better play to prevent Facebook and Google from getting all this ad revenue, from basically incentivizing the nationalization of everything?
No, it goes back to what we were saying when we were talking about how evil is big tech.
Big tech was pressured into censoring by advertiser boycotts driven by the media.
So big tech is bad but they're bad because they are favoring the media and this is a bill that would force them to favor the media even more than they are currently doing.
What we want is for them to allow everyone to compete on an equal We're doing alright.
We don't need a handout, and I don't want my competition to get free money from the government or for protections.
even local newspapers which are just as left wing and biased as the national newspapers.
We don't need a handout and I don't want my competition to get free money from the government
or for protections.
If these news organizations can't figure out how to run their business for the modern era,
they shouldn't exist.
unidentified
Look, I think it's a complicated bill.
I think there's a lot of arguments on both sides on it.
But I will say this, which is if you're going to take on big tech, the biggest problem conservatives have is that these companies don't respect Republicans.
They don't respect them as having posing any sort of threat whatsoever to them.
And so if you're not going to embrace, which all of them I know we disagree on antitrust too, but if you're not going to embrace any sort of actual solution that'll do something to these companies, they're not going to change their, you know, they're going to continue to censor.
I'm not objecting to all of the bills, John. I'm objecting to this particular bill.
I'm a huge supporter of Bill Hagerty's proposed tech regulation.
I'm a huge supporter of Texas's proposed tech regulation. I like some of the antitrust.
We agree on section 2. I like the jurisdiction bill.
There are lots of bills I don't like.
This one is a bailout.
It's the worst bill of this congress.
Bailing out the media.
The reason we have parents Who think it's a good idea to chemically castrate their own children is because the media made that idea cool.
The reason why we have people supporting defunding the police is because the media made that into an issue.
The reason why we have libs of TikTok being doxxed is because of the media.
The reason the entire country believed Russia was in control of their government for a full two years is because of the media.
The reason why...
And for Republicans to support a bill that bails out the media, that's an obscene betrayal of their voters.
unidentified
I think that's a really good talking point, but I don't think if you had talked to Rand Paul, if you had talked to these guys, I don't think that that's an accurate explanation.
And there's, well, the new one says 1,500 employees, but that's a trick because you
can always corporate restructure your organization to make it into lots of little small 1,500
employee chunks.
The thing you read out there, Tim, dedicated professional editorial stuff, that leaves out every one-man independent journalist, every one-man operation.
It says the bill creates a four-year safe harbor from antitrust laws for print, broadcast, or digital news companies to collectively negotiate with online content distributors.
requiring the terms on which the news company's content may be distributed by online content distributors.
I completely oppose that in every way.
You're telling me that you think the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC should be able to come
together violating antitrust provisions to negotiate collectively
amongst all of the biggest and most powerful media in the world.
I would rather, I would rather Google and Facebook destroy the media machine through technological advancement and then people like us figure out how to pick up the pieces and build outside of that ecosystem and create something new through merit.
So one of the things we did was over a year ago we launched TimCast.com.
We are funded primarily now through memberships.
We are removing our reliance on big tech platforms, and we have been reducing our reliance on big tech platforms.
The next thing we're going to be doing is doing mobile apps and smart TV apps.
We are finding a way to navigate this.
We've got infrastructure being built right now to make us more sensor resilient, and I do not want to see CNN team up with the Washington Post and the New York Times to give themselves more power by leveraging the weight of their massive conglomeration And you know, I was covering this from the beginning, this favoring of the media.
But that's, I mean, I suppose my issue with that, and what most people would probably argue is, you're just talking about seizing the means of production.
If you look at what was happening in 2016, the independent media was eclipsing the mainstream media because at that point Google and Facebook and Twitter were not favoring the mainstream media.
It was a relatively even playing field.
That's what we want.
We don't want the news media to be protected in any way, which is in the literal title of this bill, Journalism Competition and Protection Act.
Well, I mean, yeah, for sure there's intellectual property rights, but when something functions in the commons, then you've got to start questioning if they still have the right to own it.
You think that people aren't going to see that and see that they're committing some sort of... Well, in fact, they did sort of already do that with Alphabet.
That's what they were trying to do, corporate restructuring.
Well, Elon Musk, this year, he did pay a lot of taxes.
Why didn't he pay taxes in 2018?
Well, probably because he didn't take any money, because he didn't need to.
He did not need to pay himself.
He eats food at the office, his business pays for things, so he takes no personal income, because the business pays taxes.
They say, Amazon didn't pay any taxes.
Actually, Amazon paid an insane amount of taxes, because they're not just paying corporate income tax, they're paying employment taxes, property taxes, healthcare, all of this stuff, they're taxed very, very heavily.
When it comes to the arguments about how do we then make the rich pay their fair share, it's like you've not defined what fair share is.
Okay, well, what if what if we said they have to pay 20%?
It's like the rich already have a higher tax bracket than that.
Well, then why aren't we getting their money?
There are laws in place that make sense.
Once you get to a certain amount of power, those laws don't mean anything anymore.
Elon Musk has no reason to pay himself any money if his business is always stocked with food, he walks in and there's a luncheon for all the employees and he can just eat what's there.
He doesn't need to buy himself a car if the business has a car that he drives for business reasons.
So they're saying, why isn't he paying taxes?
Because of the existing structure, which makes sense, that he is using, but the taxes are happening somewhere.
What you're saying, and arguing about the Free the Code all the time, fundamentally misunderstands how businesses work.
You know what they would do?
They would put their headquarters in Dublin, and then it would negate anything you proposed.
See, the issue is, I'm going to come out and say that when Twitter takes control of the public space in terms of communications, we could do a hybridization of a privately owned public space.
Which means the public has a right to it, but it's owned privately and they can dictate how they run the business to make money.
That's how Zuccotti Parked worked in New York.
What you're saying is you would take their ownership of the code itself and give it to everyone else, which I don't think would do anything at all, to be completely honest.
It's removing the monopoly without destroying the company.
unidentified
So in terms of ownership, I don't think I would agree with you.
But in terms of, you know, like if we reformed Section 230 for the largest companies to be like a First Amendment standard or something like that, and you were trying to prove in court, say you had a private right of action in the law, you were trying to prove in court that Google was suppressing your content, there would be a discovery, right?
A discovery phase where you could look at the algorithm, something like that.
I'm more interested in what you're talking about if it's disclosure of like what it is The actual ownership, I think I'd really struggle.
The idea would be if you spend 10 years building software code to run a service like Twitter, if they get to a certain size, the code itself is then given to the public who can then take all of that.
Reverse engineer.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, So Truth Social could be Twitter?
But I think the issue there is what we see every time we try and take away someone's
property.
No one's going to invest in building Twitter if they lose that investment.
You're going to go to a person of means and say, we need $100,000 to build a program that does X. And they're going to say, and in 10 years, where's my money?
Oh, completely gone because everyone gets it for free.
I think maybe if we're talking about mission-driven culture, where people are like, I want to make a company that does like, like, like, I know the guy who led the investment, the investment in mines quite well, he definitely does care about free speech and open, open software.
So that's some investors do actually care about that stuff.
I could be wrong about this, but someone told me once that they're allowed to...
A corporation doesn't have to make money.
They're like a hybrid of a non-profit, for-profit.
So, whereas most corporations have to make money for their shareholders, they have a fiduciary duty, I think B Corps are the ones that are like a do-good corporation or something like that.
The goal of Timcast is...
It's to make money, but mostly about the mission.
We want to do cool things.
We want to have an impact.
That's why we did the Times Square billboard thing.
I know, I know.
People are like, we've heard about it.
Yeah, yeah.
The point is, I sit back and I look at Elon Musk.
He's buying Twitter.
That's what I'm talking about.
I sit back and I look at Joe Rogan.
Well, he does his show, but I wonder, does Joe do anything like
challenging the establishment or the system outside of just his show?
And if not, because I've not seen it, I wonder why that is.
There's no way am I saying he's obligated to do so.
I'm just like, where are the people of wealth and means who are sick of all of this standing up and being like, F
Part of the problem, unfortunately, is that a lot of the people with means have desires that go against, I think, where we would be at, where a lot of the American people would be at.
And so, you know, I'll tell you as, you know, we're a very conservative organization.
When we've been raising money for politics to get involved in these campaigns, it's really hard for conservatives especially to talk about, you know, raising money to do ads on abortion or on the trans stuff or any of that because the donors just aren't out there.
The donors are much more interested in giving, you know, for, you know, mass immigration or things like that.
I think one of the issues is that... Except for Elon.
You know, my view of capitalism is if you do good and you're effective, you will make money.
If you are providing a service, however, I don't believe in absolute unfettered free markets.
I think you'll end up with people doing really weird things like metaverse porn where people become carrots and that's probably going to happen anyway.
And I'm like, I'm pretty libertarian on that, but I do think it's bad for society as a whole, that we'll chase after self-gratification instead of going to space.
So I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk.
Go to Mars, Starship, Twitter stuff, Starlink, all really awesome stuff.
I look at it like traditional idealistic capitalism is, you invent a lightbulb, you illuminate the world, congratulations, you'll be made rich because of it, you are being rewarded by people for saying, we appreciate your service, and now you get to live comfortably because you did something great.
I think TimCast.com does really good things, and I think we're going to continue to grow and do more good things, and for it, we get rewarded for doing great things.
Nikola Tesla is an example of someone that didn't know how to capitalize.
What a brilliant, generous, good man from what I know about him, and man, he did not know how to write a patent, or whatever it was, whereas Einstein knew how to patent his stuff and became very, very wealthy.
And Nikola died a pauper, like he was alone.
He lived in a hotel room telling people he had a death laser to get to stop, not have to pay for his room every night.
Just a tragic story of not understanding capitalism.
And I agree that it is important to at least stay afloat.
But my light is in heaven, my friend.
I'm not if I make the light bulbs on earth.
I don't I don't want the money for it at this point, man.
Even the people who work for these big petroleum companies are convinced they're the good guys.
And these activists show up, and they say, you're destroying the planet, and they get violent, and the people who work for these oil companies are like, I'm doing everything in my power to make the world a better place.
That would be like a gamification mod for Mines that I built.
We could still install it one day where you get avatars and you can spend Mines tokens to get characters that you can send out on missions every day to go get.
And then if you click the notification at the right moment, then they get the item when they come back and then you have like a hall of fame with your item.
Like, you just dump money.
It's just a money sink.
But like, how gamified and addictive... Mine is just a beautiful piece of free software that I want to be... But it's like, yeah.
Like, how sensational do we need to be?
My biggest flaw in life, personally, is charity.
I'm too charitable.
I've always been too charitable.
I give my wealth away before I get it.
And I haven't used my money to make money because I feel like it just felt dirty.
Well, I'll give you a... I'll break it down for you in a way that you can understand, Ian.
You are playing a game of magic, and you have all of the planes before you with the good, righteous knights and the angels, and they're all good and charitable and trying to protect the people.
And so you say, I'm gonna give this power away.
And then along comes a necromancer, who's loaded with swamps, and he goes, Yes, Ian.
Give me the power!
I'll help everyone and you're like sounds good to me and you give him the power and then he laughs at you as he
Or you could, but you could get the same experience on, well, you'd have a different experience, but you'd have the same information from different, it just depends on how you want to go at it.
I think the issue is your perspective on this is rooted in... you're looking at code, because that's where you come from, not realizing that people care about people, not code.
You're looking at these social media companies from this Mines perspective, and what makes Twitter work is that Twitter has people.
That's it.
Twitter could reduce the amount of characters back to 140.
It's still gonna be the dominant platform.
unidentified
Which, which by the way is why, and I think Alam and I have both talked, written about this, but this is why the, you know, build your own doesn't work.
Unfortunately.
I really want Truth Social to work.
I really want Keter to work, but people want to go where the people are, right?
Like you can, you can, it's like, imagine if someone said, if, if the lake gets to a certain amount of users, they have to build a lake or give someone all of the means to build their own lake.
It's like, okay.
I go to the beach because there's fish.
Or I go to the lake to fish because there's fish.
If someone else builds a lake and there's no fish in it, I can't fish there.
But what you can do is build a channel from one lake to the other.
If there's, like, your lake has all the fish in the middle, and then there's, like, a thousand other lakes, but they have no fish, you just build a thousand canals.
The ideal would be if it was easy for everyone to just make a post that it gets broadcast to Twitter, to Gab, to Minds, to all the platforms instantaneously.
But that doesn't happen without interoperability to some extent.
Yeah, and the great thing about platforms like Mines and Gab that are based on values is that you know when you go on them, they're not going to sell you out in free speech.
It's not going to be like Twitter where they promised it to you in the first few years and then took it away from you years later after you built your following.
Will Gabb ban you for saying, I believe a law should be passed legalizing porn, blah, blah, blah.
My understanding is that Torba said, I could be wrong, so, you know, Torba, if I'm wrong about this, but there was a tweet where they said, you will not be allowed to advocate for this, you'll be banned, degenerate, or something like that.
Matthew Reckham says, To everyone who keeps saying we're in dark times now, let me remind you that the movie Demolition Man, based on Brave New World and predicted self-driving electric cars, Zoom meetings, culturally enforced germophobia, and more is set in 2032.
That regular people are looking for the truth, and when the Democrats lie, they go... If you just come out and start lying the way they do, people are going to be like, eh, screw it.
What's the point?
unidentified
And you have to have the institutional power to lie and get away with it.
When you talk to the DMT people, proponents of it, about this stuff, it's weird how the psychedelic and the political kind of merge.
Because a lot of people were saying NPC, non-player character, as kind of an insult, referencing someone just not paying attention and not caring.
But then you talk to the people about DMT and you're like, oh man.
Because, you know, we were talking to Michael Malice, and I may be getting this wrong, but he was saying, like, we're, like, meat puppets of some kind of entities or something.
And then I'm like, what if some people don't have an entity controlling them the way, you know, you do when you do DMT?
It's interesting because when we talk about, um, Strauss-Howe generational theory, we're looking at, I think, the end of the winter, the fourth turning, in 2028, which means 2026 should be extreme turmoil.
I wonder if four more years is enough to see many boomers and older generation leave, younger generation come in that will create a massive upset.
Ready to Rumble says, I can't believe you just med Seinfeld.
Seinfeld was the funniest TV show ever created.
You need more Seinfeld in your life, Tim.
You know, maybe it was at the time, because I remember watching it, but I wonder if it's like a certain kind of humor for what, like Boomers and Gen X?
It's a show about four friends who have emotional problems and, and like, That was that was the idea.
They tried claiming Seinfeld to show about nothing.
No, it's for friends and They have interpersonal drama like any other sitcom It's about a comedian living in New York with a wacky neighbor and a short friend who has life troubles And there were a lot of really the show was really funny in a lot of ways But I feel like that kind of humor.
Maybe it was a lot funnier back in the day I don't find it as funny today.
One of the best episodes of Seinfeld is when George decides to do everything the opposite of what he would normally do, because he's like, his life sucks.
He can't get a date.
His job is, you know, so he's like, whatever I'm going to do, I'm gonna do the opposite of it.
And so he like orders the opposite sandwich than you normally would.
Or the Rand Pauls, but like we said up to now, I love Rand Paul, I love Rand Paul, and then you see he votes for something or he's unsupportive for something like what we were talking about earlier.
Going to Twitter and saying, you need to now make your company able to interact with other networks in it, they can be like, you're asking us to build a thing we don't know how to build.
But so I'm talking about they have to build a bridge.
So I suppose it's one thing to be like, I think the EU wanted to standardize phone chargers so that every phone would use the same charger and they'd stop having this problem with all these different chargers.
The issue with Twitter is that you're asking them to build a protocol for which their things on Twitter can be transported in real time actively forever between different networks.
It's a question of, you know, can they continue to be profitable and be a successful business if you ask them to do this?
Where I don't think it's ever fair or smart for government to say, let's, you know, force this company to build this and then they would rather go out of business.
It's it's it's I don't think it's possible to force their API open to require Twitter to send their data out to third parties because it would But if you're on Gab and I'm reading your Twitter feed, Twitter's still getting my activity, even though I'm on Gab.
and then they're losing what makes the network work in the first place.
Twitter needs to be able to make money unless you want to nationalize it and
pay for it through taxpayers.
Then it's forced subsidization.
But if Twitter has to give its code away and then people do decide with
interoperability, I can go to Gab instead.
Then Twitter loses membership in advertising revenue and collapses.
You might be able to work out memberships where like if someone subscribes to the mega network or that Twitter gets 24%, Gab gets 20%, Mines gets 20%, or if you subscribe and you're connected with like what networks are you in that you want to pay for, they all get a piece of it with a smart contract?
This is another reason I want to come back to, you know, look at what the tech regulations are on an individual level and also who they apply to.
You know, you asked me two months ago, should we regulate Twitter?
I'd say yes.
You asked me today, I'd say no, maybe not.
Because it's not about, you know, do we support regulation or do we not support regulation, but who's in charge, who's in charge of enforcing the regulation, wackos at the FTC, and who's going to be affected by them.
Luckily, not Twitter under most of the antitrust laws, but I'm sure the Democrats will try.
Um, well, there's security code that you don't have to open up, but as long as the network itself is available to be interoperated with from a user-based perspective, I think that kind of solves the problem.
So, uh, to clarify, to expand upon this for those that don't understand the, if a random, if, if the whole world knew Facebook's code, they would find every exploit imaginable to break in, spy, steal, and destroy everything from the company.
In the United States, they say it's freedom, then security.
But without the security, we wouldn't have no freedom.
If we didn't guard and protect our borders and our streets with police and military, we wouldn't be free to walk around without getting our back stabbed.
All right, everybody, if you have not already, please smash that like button to help support our work.
Subscribe to this channel, share the show, take the URL, post it wherever, because the grassroots marketing is how we've grown this show and got to the point where we are, so eternally grateful for all the support.
Head over to TimCast.com, be a member.
We're going to have that members-only show coming up at 11 p.m.
You can follow the show at TimCast IRL.
You can follow me personally at TimCast, basically everywhere.
I guess me saying that has resulted in people following me on Twitter, because I was just thinking, like, why do I have so many Twitter followers?