Timcast IRL’s Adam Bauer and panelists dissect Epstein’s 2019 death, exposing a fake body ruse in a black vehicle while his real corpse vanished, alongside redacted FBI files hinting Trump may have been an informant. They critique political weaponization of the case, contrast Star Trek’s liberal themes with "woke" failures like Starfleet Academy, and warn of economic collapse due to Gen Alpha’s shrinking population (42M vs. 78M/80M for prior generations). The episode ties Epstein conspiracies to broader cultural decay—from gambling addiction to demographic decline—arguing systemic fixes won’t work without addressing values, parenting, and labor shortages. [Automatically generated summary]
Epstein jail guards used fake body to trick media waiting outside the prison while his real corpse was loaded into a van unnoticed.
Files claim jail guards overseeing Epstein's Epstein used a decoy body to mislead reporters gathered outside the prison after his death while his real body was secretly removed.
According to an internal memo, a jail supervisor told FBI agents that staff at Manhattan's Metro Center, Metropolitan Correctional Center, staged the ruse amid an intense media presence following Epstein's apparent suicide in 2019.
The files allege that boxes and sheets were arranged to resemble a human body and loaded into a white van marked as belonging to the office of the chief medical examiner, prompting reporters to follow as it drove away.
Unbeknownst to media, Epstein's actual body was instead placed into a black vehicle that left the facility unnoticed, allowing officers to transport the corpse privately.
The alleged deception was carried out after an official warned guards on a large number of journalists gathered outside the jail and said he would arrive at the loading dock with a separate black vehicle to remove the body.
The records also reveal investigators highlighted a handwritten note found inside Epstein's cell at the time of his death, which was not treated as a suicide note.
The note, which investigators said was difficult to read, appeared to list grievances about jail conditions, including complaints about food, showers, and bugs.
Here's a question for you: Why did they put a fake body to like, I understand the idea was like, we want to trick reporters.
The worst part about this whole Epstein saga is there's so many legitimate criticisms to make of the investigation and the way all of this was handled.
I also believe there's some like missing footage from the time where it was in the minute and a half or something.
He was able to potentially have killed himself in the jail, right?
Which obviously shouldn't have happened.
There's this that shouldn't have happened.
He probably shouldn't have ever been let out or been given a sweetheart deal when he was convicted in Florida to begin with.
Very strange.
So there's just so many of these strange little inklings that I think give a lot of credence to conspiracy theories about this.
Yeah, considering his connections, I don't think it's that odd that he was given a special deal just because he knew so many people, you know, so many people in powerful places.
I don't think it was good, obviously.
Like he shouldn't have gotten any kind of sweetheart deal, but it's not a surprise that someone with his, you know, his connections got someone to make a call.
It wouldn't be a surprise if someone made a call and said, hey, take it easy on Epstein.
So just to play devil's advocate, and I wouldn't say I would do this or I don't think it's right to do this, but I think one of the things that maybe the hospital was trying to avoid is the media circus that this can produce.
And then it would prevent doing business as usual.
So the hospital wouldn't like to be flooded with a bunch of people from the media.
And I mean, this is just a cope, I guess, but that could be the idea.
And I've covered a lot of different things in federal buildings and different buildings that prefer not to be filmed and photographed and having the media circus surrounding them.
Maybe this is just a bad cope for the whole situation.
The reason why I'm going to go ahead and say that is incorrect is because we have images of them bringing Epstein's body into the hospital, meaning the press was already there.
So they didn't prevent any of that.
The press was well aware.
I mean, look, this is what's weird about the whole thing: is that we have photos of them bringing the body in.
Everybody saw it immediately.
The press was well aware of what was going on.
There's, there's, I mean, look, okay, I can come up with a reason why they made a fake body.
They're stupid.
That's it.
They're dumb people who thought that these people are very dumb and they're like, we better do this.
And it had no impact whatsoever.
That being said, whatever the reason is, it means that we actually don't have proof a body was removed from the hospital.
I mean, I'm sorry, from the prison.
So, again, as much as I lean towards Epstein's probably dead, every day we're getting something weird.
Like, where's the okay?
Oh, here it is.
Here it is.
Unfortunate typo blamed for wrong date on draft statement about Epstein's death.
And they accidentally wrote Friday, August 9th in full.
Now, if they put 8, 9, 2019, oops, it's the 10th.
I'd be like, okay.
But how do you accidentally get the day wrong too?
Like, I work on Saturdays, but I thought it was Friday, and I got the number wrong along with it.
Well, this is the famous comparison that went viral after the photo.
So that photo is what we already saw of Epstein being brought into the hospital.
And people have pointed out Epstein's nose is not round like that.
It looks different.
The ear looks very different.
And a lot of people are like, that's just some guy who kind of looks like Epstein.
Now, I think it's fair to say when you die, your body does weird things.
That's true, too.
And I'm not going to act like this is definitive proof, but I will call it some evidence.
Evidence doesn't mean it's definitively true.
It just means this lends itself to the idea that Epstein wasn't the body that was brought in.
And then we've got the incorrect date on the press release, which, again, has answers, but is still weird.
And then we've got this, where they admit in the files they put a fake body in there for the press, which at bare minimum means we thought we had a photo of his body being removed and we don't.
So now, for the people who genuinely believe he's alive, because there's a lot of fake photos going around, you can't even tell them we saw them remove the body because they're going to be like, nope, that's admittedly a hoax.
Is a real failure of Barr to allow all this stuff to happen, especially with someone.
Again, I'll mention how connected he was with someone that is such a high profile, even though I think that the average person didn't have a real good idea of who Epstein was prior to this.
Now, there's people that were absolutely in the know that were online that knew about him and had all the details and were sure that he was a bad guy.
I'm not saying that there weren't those people.
I'm saying that the average person, like, he wasn't a meme until after he died, you know?
And so, considering how well connected he was, you'd think that the attorney general would be like, all right, we got to make sure that this is clean, considering his connections, considering how many people could be implied in nefarious stuff if this isn't done right.
And they just were like, man, whatever, man, just by your, by the seat of your pants, you know?
There's in Chicago, there's a bunch of buildings with swastikas all over them.
All Indian?
And no, no, no, it's American.
Because back in the day, people loved swastikas.
And about a mile, like in my neighborhood, let's put it like that, about a mile from where I grew up, or in my neighborhood, about a mile from where my house was.
There's a building.
I don't even think it's a mile, actually.
And it's like a two-flat.
And on top, there's a very obvious swastika.
And they hammered in wooden blocks to make it look like a square.
But it's very obvious they're wooden blocks.
And it's a brick swastika built into the structure.
I went to Austin.
We went there a couple of years ago.
I can't remember.
I can't remember what was.
I think, oh, you know, it was when we're down there, we went on the InfoWars and all that stuff.
We went antiquing, as one does.
And I was walking around in a room full of swastikas.
It was crazy.
And I was actually really surprised considering, you know, how woke is nuts and Austin is, you got a decent amount of woke people in it.
And so I went up to the counter and I asked about the swastika room.
And I was like, there's tons of stuff in there.
It's just all swastikas.
And the guy working there showed me his keychain, which had a swastika on it.
And then I was like, I think people might get the wrong idea if they see that.
And he said something like, I don't care.
This is a symbol that's, that's, you know, it transcends culture and history.
It's been used all over the place.
And he was like, in America, 100 years ago, people had this symbol all over their houses, everywhere.
It was on street corners.
It was on banners.
And then Hitler and the Nazis happened.
And all of a sudden, everyone's getting rid of it.
but it was real, it existed.
And I was like, well, you know, sure.
My point was largely that the left doesn't care what your argument is.
Have you guys ever seen the viral video where the woman is like, I'm traveling in South America and I found this beautiful little German village in Argentina?
And then somebody commented like, nobody tell her.
It is kind of weird, though, because we were talking about this the other day with Nick Fuentes' point about how Hitler's a historical figure.
And he makes an interesting point that people today treat Hitler like he's still alive, like he is still an active participant in history.
Again, whether or not you view him as the most sinister of figures or you take a similar approach to Nick, where he was like, he's in the same vein as Genghis Khan or Napoleon, like, yeah, they're bad guys for a variety of reasons, but nobody is going like, oh, God, Alexander the Great, oh, heavens.
There is going to be a point where, and I think you see it with Gen Z, especially with Nick's audience, they don't look at Hitler the way, look, my grandfather fought in World War II.
So this is a world leader active.
I'm a child, my grandfather's telling me about a person he experienced.
Gen Z are moving away from that.
Jen Alpha is going to be like, I don't know anybody who cared.
All the World War II vets are going to have passed on, and he's going to just be another figure in history.
Well, and that's why it's so terrible that the left just calls everything Nazis and fascists.
Like these young kids are going to grow up and they're seeing their friends getting called fascists for showing up to work on time and everything, you know, and believing in traditional gender concepts.
Like if that's it, then they are going to reject anti-Nazism, which we should not be doing.
Like we should be anti-Nazis, obviously.
But the left is ruining that because everything to them is Nazis.
Yeah, I mean, this is an argument that's been made for, I mean, Jordan Peterson was making this argument 12 years ago, you know, if you call everyone a Nazi, if Milo Yiannopoulos is a Nazi and Hitler is a Nazi, it's like, this is a ridiculous comparison.
And what ends up happening then is if you guys know about that trope where it's like, what I see as blue, you may see as red.
You know, how do we know colors or colors?
How do you define colors?
It's very difficult.
And so I look at something, I see blue.
Elad sees it as green, but because he's always known it to be blue, he calls it green.
It's not colorblind people don't realize it unless you do certain tests.
When these young guys are growing up and they're like, I like playing video games and meritocracy is great.
And they go, you're a Nazi.
And they go, is that what the Nazis believed?
So, when they're told that what they do and what they enjoy is what the Nazis are, they will falsely believe that things they do is what Nazis did or there's some relation.
And this will lead them into being actual Nazis or praising actual Nazism because they don't know what it actually is.
That's the problem of what the left is doing, calling everybody Nazis and Hitler, which they still do for some reason.
Yeah, it's because it's the worst thing they can think of, partially.
And also because like the left tends to be like the communists, and communists think anything that's not a socialist or communist is a fascist, and all fascists are just Nazis.
They don't even make a distinction between like Italian fascism and Nazism, which Nazism is fascism, but is a very specific and unique form of fascism.
The issue, you know, the thing is, I would describe Nazis and fascists as brutal and it's a brutal authoritarian ideology, but I wouldn't call them dumb.
I would just call them, you know, malicious, brutal, self-interested, a lot of things.
The function of communism itself, like the idea, is something that if you like literally just wrote down their idea, you'd be like, hey, that literally makes no sense.
If someone came up to you and said something like, you know, the famous quote or the phrase, from each according to their ability to each according to their need, sounds so brilliant if you're dumb as a box of rocks.
It would be like someone saying that I can power my car off of cheese.
You're like, that is a very obviously false statement.
Yeah, that's a statement intended to be understandable to a child.
You cannot put cheese in your gas tank.
The car will not go.
We can get a little bit more higher level and say, don't put diesel in your gasoline tank.
It won't work.
Some people don't know that.
And, you know, that's why they make them different sized holes.
They want to make sure you don't put diesel or vice versa.
Literally, the concept of from each according to their ability to each other according to their need presupposes a society in which people do not produce enough for the needs of each other, but get from the abilities of someone else.
Meaning, it's a society in deficit.
This is why communism never had food.
You cannot have, you have 10 people, five of them don't produce enough to eat.
Three of them produce just enough, and two of them produce in excess.
Congratulations.
You are now minus EV.
You are not producing enough calories to survive because the people who don't have the ability are still having their needs met.
Sorry, it's that's how the world works.
Have a nice day.
I can say that of communists, and that's why they massacred so many people and starved to death.
And they were brutal too.
Don't get me wrong.
But the thing about communists is that at the higher level, they're super brutal.
And at the lower level, it was a bunch of functional retards.
At the higher level, the regular people, I wouldn't call corrupt.
I would call them stupid, right?
When you go to, there was a video I did a commentary on where this guy's like, communism just means that the workers will share and it's like, you are very stupid.
The powerful elites who know it doesn't work are just manipulating them because they need foot soldiers to tear down a system they don't like so they can steal stuff.
I will tell you that the movie or the TV series that I watched that really scarred me and exposed the real horrors of communism was Chernobyl.
If you watch that, the bureaucracy and the covering your ass across the board, it literally could have destroyed most of Europe with nuclear radiation.
And they were going to let it happen just to cover their own ass.
To be fair, in Japan, for a different reason, they were going to allow this disaster to continue.
And that was their fear of shame.
So when Fukushima happened, they would not admit the severity of the disaster.
And they kept saying everything was fine for the sake of preserving their honor, which is the most dishonorable thing you can do.
The only thing I'll give the Japanese credit for is that the old people volunteered to go into the reactors to try and alleviate the crisis, knowing they would die.
And they interviewed some of these old people saying, I lived my life.
I've had my chance.
Young people need a chance.
They shouldn't do this job for us.
And I'm like, well, I can give the Japanese that one.
Americans don't have that.
Americans is a kind of culture, unfortunately, it wasn't always this way, where someone shoves their child out of the way to escape the burning building.
Not everybody.
I don't think conservatives largely are like that.
But I believe undeniably liberals are absolutely the kind of person who would chuck their kid through the flames to get themselves out, as evidenced by the fact they get so many abortions to better their own lives.
Deep Space Nine, incredible, and this is the stuff I grew up on.
Proposed what would happen to a liberal society, high and mighty, at peace when it was confronted with war.
And what do you get?
Benjamin Sisko, the commander of the Deep Space Nine space station, false flag kills a senator from a rival species, let's just call it country, to trick them into joining the war on the side of the Federation.
It is one of the greatest television shows ever made, and it doesn't get near as much credit as the next generation does.
But the gist of it is this: Captain Picard, The Next Generation, loved it was this, it was this image of we are a great and noble society, and we've created this beautiful liberal system.
And then they go to war.
The Dominion shows up, starts massacring, and they're losing the war.
So Sisko conspires with another guy to, he didn't know this was going to happen, but the general idea is they blow up a ship carrying a Romulan senator, tricking the Romulans into thinking they were attacked by an enemy, the Dominion, to force them to join the war on their side.
This is how politics works.
And he's the commander who's trying to uphold these liberal values, saying they're not real in a time of war.
We will die.
We are being crushed and we will do whatever it takes to survive.
And that was kind of the wake-up call to these people who grew up in this liberal society thinking this is how life can be.
It's so perfect.
But they're not realizing the only reason it's perfect is because we blow people up around the country, I'm sorry, around the world to enforce the petrodollar, the neocon vision of people like Elad and John Bolton saying it is because we invade these countries, blow them up, and put the gun to their heads, you can pretend you live safely.
Barack Obama, the Democrat, blew up children and young men.
And when they called him out for killing civilians, he said, well, they're military-aged males, so it doesn't count.
This is the reality of the machine.
And that's why Deep Space Nine is so incredible.
Now to the main point.
When you said they would put a white guy in the train tracks to save a black guy, Starfleet Academy is the new woke garbage show.
Everybody makes fun of all the new Star Trek shows.
They're trash.
However, despite the fact that in the new show, they say the Federation is evil.
They constantly, constantly, are just insulting men.
Like a component of this show is the women are always telling the men they're wrong and the men have to accept it.
There's a whole episode in the new show where they're going to the museum of Benjamin Sisko talking about how a great, what a great man he was and how he did such good things.
And it's laughably insane because you know the only reason they're, it was funny, I was watching Nerd Roddick.
Shout out to Nerd Roddick.
He's like, the one time they're not insulting and condescending to a man, you know, blah, blah, blah.
And I'm like, but he didn't point out in his breakdown that the reason why was because Benjamin Sisko was black and the writers are super woke.
So they were like, if we're not going to praise Janeway, even though she's a woman, she's white.
Picard's a dude.
Kirk's a dude.
I mean, Riker was a dude.
They're all white dudes.
But Benjamin Sisko, he's a black man.
He gets all the praise in the world.
The annoying thing about it to me for the most part is Benjamin Sisko, I actually think Picard's my favorite, but Benjamin Sisko is real close because I absolutely love that episode, that show, showing this guy confront the realities of their liberal dream that didn't pan out when war came to their doorsteps.
It's also why I like the reboot film Into Darkness, although I'm not a huge fan of the reboot movies.
The premise of it was they discover that there's a black ops militarization happening in Starfleet and they find a dude is making massive warships.
The Federation is a bunch of liberal, woke trash in the movie.
I'm not even playing.
And they're like, we don't need war machines.
We shouldn't build war machines.
And literally they have war on their doorstep.
And this one guy, he's the bad guy in the movie, which is really funny.
And he's like, we need this.
Like, we need to be prepared to protect ourselves.
And it was funny because they were the big guys.
I have no problem with having a strong military, having a very strong military.
In fact, I think we absolutely must.
I think if you want to maintain a liberal society of feminism in your borders where people can hold hands and sing songs under a multicultural rainbow, you need to have men prepared to go kill to sustain that system from the people who would come and take it from you.
Well, I mean, particularly to the part, to your point at the end, like if you don't have defenders that will protect the society from outside threats, the women are certainly not going to be able to protect them.
I mean, a lot of times it's like if you're in a situation where like you're at work or whatever, there's no benefit to trying to fight with a with a coworker that's a female.
Well, Helen Andrews, like part of this larger piece was she makes a really great point that hit me upside the head, which is that if you have a workforce that's too much like a fraternity, you can get a lawsuit against you for being sexist against women.
But there's no equal for if your workplace is too much like a Montessori daycare, right?
And he was at my Uncle Billy's pizza place and they were doing like the gay thing, like talking with the lisp and making fun of each other, calling each other gay.
And one of the waitresses was there and laughing along with it.
Well, fast forward 10, 15 years, and now she's a Democrat.
So she's like, oh, and Bobby and Billy Schilling would mock gay people at the restaurant by talking gay.
Part of the reason is because with men, if the conflict gets too heated, there's always the possibility of violence.
With women, they just don't.
It's not that, not that women don't get violent.
It's just that with men, we have like evolution has made us like understand that if you're around guys, you disrespect another guy or something like that.
So most people, and I know a lot of you know this because you watch the show and you've learned so much about chickens, but there's a myth that if you put two roosters together, they kill each other.
That is not correct.
Two roosters that are bred to fight, that's how you get cockfights.
But in any normal chicken coop, you'll have a bunch of roosters.
Now, too many roosters will fight.
That's true in a confined space.
But you can have, depending on how many hens you have, you could have several.
We had a ton.
We had like 12 or 13 roosters with like 40, you know, 40 hens or whatever, and they got along.
They hang out together.
It's just, it's not, it's not correct.
So there is something else.
It's called the pecking order.
And when you have baby chicks and they're growing up, they will charge at each other and then stop.
And this is how they're determining who's going to be in charge, what the hierarchy is.
So there is an alpha hen.
It's the pecking order is the order, like who gets food first, who's the toughest, and the rooster is the boss.
But roosters don't need to eat as much as hens because hens lay so many eggs.
When you throw food in the rooster, just kind of watches and the hens will go off.
But the top of the pecking order, she gets what she wants.
So they did an experiment.
They said, what would happen if we took all of the hens from the top of the pecking order and then created a new hierarchy of only the super hens?
So they set up a bunch of chicken coops, 12 hens, whoever came on top, they took it, put it in a new coop, came on top, and they did that and created a new bunch.
And we would just need business development for it.
But the idea was to go to like schools and do events where it's like we pitch to them, hey, we want to show Chicken City.
And it's a virtual feed the chickens and it's a way for them to learn about farm animals.
And like the general idea was not to make money off of schools, but to just promote it so you can say like families, hey, you know, watch this with your young kids if they want to see chickens.
And it's a way to bring the petting zoo or the farm to your home without any of the travel or stuff like that.
And we wanted to do mini goats.
We wanted to do goats and mini cows was one of the ideas.
It's just honestly all the ideas we have, we can't do all of them.
Trump allegedly told the chief, everyone has known he's been doing this.
He called Gheelain Maxwell evil and an operative.
The police chief's name, Michael Ryder, is redactive to the documents, but they lined up the information.
They figured it out.
Riders detectives were investigating Epstein for allegedly recruiting girls as young as 14 to provide massages that turned sexual.
The information about Trump's alleged call makes up just a small part of the four-page FBI report.
Now, Donald Trump has said in the past he kicked Epstein out.
Mike Johnson said Trump was an informant against Epstein and then walked those comments back.
I think Trump was an informant against Epstein.
I think that there are certainly a lot of nasty things about Trump in the Epstein files, perhaps.
And I think the ones that exist pre-2024, by all means, investigate.
The problem with the Epstein files, and this is, look, I'm glad they got released.
I support Thomas Massey and Rokano in working to get them released and get more names under redacted.
However, it must be stated that there are documents from 2024 and 25, well after Epstein's long dead, FBI crime tip documents that falsely malign innocent people, one of which was Tony Hawk.
And this is an insane fabrication where someone called the FBI tip line claiming Tony Hawk was on Epstein's island while she was being trafficked there, which is just the most ridiculous lie imaginable.
It's just absolutely false.
Tony Hawk got married in Fiji in 2006 to a ton of PR.
MTV covered it.
And this person claimed that he got married on Epstein Island instead.
So we know that's definitively false.
So that's the problem with a lot of the later whistleblower claims that came out in 24 and 25 after they already tried destroying Trump and his legacy and accused him of being involved in this stuff.
So that being said, when Trump says he read on Epstein, when Mike Johnson said he was an informant, oops, I mean, no, no, I take that back.
And then you find out that a police chief was like, Trump called us and begged us to go after him.
Sounds like Trump was actually anti-Epstein for a while.
And I think one of the reasons why Trump didn't want the Epstein files released is several reasons.
One of them might have been these documents may prove, as they actively may be right now, that Trump was informing against other powerful individuals.
Imagine like, I don't know, like Reid Hoffman or some of these people with Epstein all the time finding out that Trump was actively working with police to investigate the people involved in Epstein's inner circle.
I think Trump didn't want them released for two principal reasons.
One was the innocent people who will be caught up in false allegations of that himself included.
Although, I mean, maybe some of them are legit.
I don't defend Trump on everything.
But the later allegations are ridiculously insane.
I can't even repeat some of them, but they are top-tier retardation if you believe them.
Like, I'm not, I can't repeat them exactly, but claims in 2024 that Trump took a measuring tape and then went into a pageant of underage girls.
Like, no, guys, this is absolutely made-up fantasy nonsense like the Brett Kavanaugh stuff.
Okay.
But I think you see that email from Epstein to himself where he accuses Bill Gates of getting an STD from Russian hookers, accidentally giving it to his wife, and then trying to slip medication into her drink so that she gets cured without noticing it, and how he wants $30 million.
Trump goes to Gates and says, listen, you're on my side now, and we're going to make sure these files don't come out.
There's a lot of photos and videos of minors in the Epstein files.
So for Trump, I'm going to say this.
I think Trump wanted to wield the one ring.
He's thinking Bill Gates comes to him and says, please, please, please do not release these things.
And Trump says, What are you going to do for me?
Trump's probably thinking, I win.
I win now.
And so he's got Reid Hoffman panicking.
He's got Democrat donors panicking.
You got these Democrats coming out who flipped and are like, you know what?
I was wrong about Trump.
I shouldn't call them Democrats, but they were liberal personalities, wealthy individuals, realizing how wrong they were.
I also think Trump was concerned that legitimately there are innocent people.
Like I mentioned, Tony Hawk.
This is an insane false allegation that stems from the fact that there's an action sports photographer named Mark Epstein who took pictures at Tony Hawk's wedding in Fiji.
And someone must have seen that photo from Mark Epstein, believed it was Jeffrey Epstein's brother, assumed the island they were on was Epstein Island, and then called the FBI and made a fake claim because it's just ridiculous.
So Trump probably was concerned about that.
I think Trump was also concerned about how it makes him look.
That being said, I ain't cutting Trump any slack.
Now that we know that they've covered up the co-conspirator, conspirator documents, there's a document saying that they were investigating co-conspirators Epstein.
There's photos and videos of minors and children.
Dan Bongino was like, look, a lot of these things were hearsay and, you know, fake tips that were uncorroborated.
All of that is true, but there's still no excuse for them not exposing these deep, dark, corrupt pedos.
Like, I can understand.
I can understand Bill Gates didn't do anything criminal if it is true that he got an STD from Russian hookers and gave it to his wife on accident.
That's not illegal.
He got divorced.
I can understand why it's embarrassing.
And I can respect someone saying, please don't release that email.
It's not material to anybody.
It's just internal drama that's gross and embarrassing.
But there is other stuff in there that's already being brought up that I would say is shocking to the conscience that Trump called it a hoax.
He was saying that the Democrats, this was a hoax, that him being connected to any of the nefarious activity in there, that was the hoax.
So whether or not, I mean, obviously, people on the left, Democrats, they're going to say that that's not what Trump had, but the only reason they're going to say that is because their entire existence is to countersignal anything that Trump says.
I believe the reason that the president didn't want this to come out, there's a few reasons.
I think Tim hit on a few of them, but one of the other main reasons that he didn't want this to come out because he thought it would be a huge distraction.
When he calls it a hoax, I believe he's really just saying it's a distraction.
It's a hoax as in it's a distraction and preventing him from accomplishing more in his administration.
So instead of Congress doing things that he'd like to do, Thomas Massey is introducing legislation to expose these files that are going to lead people on a wild goose chase that won't satisfy anybody.
I think also many people in its administration over-promised and then under-delivered, and that makes everybody in the administration look bad.
So for example, A.G. Pambondi over-promised and under-delivered and made all these influencers look like complete morons when she hands them these files.
Dan Bongino and Kash Patel have been talking on podcasts for ages about what are the Epsteins' files hiding?
What are all of these people hiding?
For ages, they've been loosely accusing people of all this different crap.
And now, frankly, when they're deputy FBI and FBI director, we're not seeing any concrete evidence of anything coming.
That was the story they said before the files came out.
And then we found out about all these people who were there.
Well, just to be like real quick, if it's true that Maxwell was trafficking minors to Epstein, to Jeffrey, and then Epstein was having all these people over his island, those people all just, they were stricken blind, deaf, and dumb the moment the young trafficking victim appeared in front of them.
Dude, I don't think people are going to be satisfied until their political enemies are found in photos and potentially AI-generated photos with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghelaine Maxwell holding hands.
Sure, these people should be charged and convicted if their founder to have done any wrongdoing.
But again, it's this wild goose chase, and people will not be satisfied.
And it's a distraction from the president's agenda.
And I believe, full circle, that's why he believes it's a hoax.
And you know what's really rich here?
It's seeing Thomas Massey grandstand on this issue so aggressively.
You know, we have nothing to say, but, you know, he goes on CNN to go trash the president and I don't know, and say, ICE is doing too much out there and not supporting the one big beautiful bill, among other things.
That's what Thomas Massey wants to be focused on.
Not all the illegal immigrants in our country, but on a wild goose chase for, you know, whoever he doesn't like in these Epstein files.
So but the point being, like, other, other than the, the, the Epstein stuff, I think that that Thomas Massey is actually one of the more Donald Trump like 95% of the time or something like that.
I got to say, one of the bills in which he's voting against Trump's agenda would be releasing the Epstein files.
I believe Thomas Massey was 100% correct in his efforts to get these files published and released.
So if the argument is Donald Trump does a lot of good things and we should support him all the time, even when he's trying to block the release of the Epstein files, my answer is going to be absolutely not.
I'm going to be with Thomas Massey and Rokana on this one.
I think Rokana, he's a good dude.
We've had him on the show one time and I've interviewed him, I think, twice on the morning show.
He's a good dude, but I don't agree with him for a lot of things.
And I think there's a I mean, look, he's a children of immigrants, so he has a much different view on these things, but he's a nice guy and he's willing to have a conversation.
I respect it.
And where he's right, he's been right.
He's defended free speech.
He's worked with Massey on getting these documents.
When I called him out, because he proposed releasing the files with no, with no protections, meaning it would have released all the child abuse material, I tweeted it.
He immediately responded, came on the show, told me I was right, and he was going to make sure that any bill to get these files released would guarantee the protections.
And I said, amazing.
I'm glad.
Because I thought it was a poison pill where he was like, we're going to get the Epstein files released, forcing Republicans to vote no because they would have released victims' names and abuse materials.
And then he worked with Massey.
They got the job done.
It is entirely Trump's fault, the DOJ's fault, the FBI's fault on the mishandling of the Epstein story from the PR perspective and the release of the files.
They have mishandled it.
I am happy with the outcome so far.
I'm not going to be this black pillar that's like, I did everything wrong.
It's bad.
They're all evil.
I'm going to be like, hey, they're releasing these files and we're getting stuff.
And some of it's bad for Trump, and I respect that.
But I think they've done a bad job, but I will give them this.
Overall, so far is a net positive.
The files have been released, not all of them, but they are releasing the files.
I don't know if that's true, but perhaps what's the fact check that I wanted to break it down.
Let's jump to this next story from Kalshi.
This is actually crazy.
There's a few things I want to address because I'm watching this prediction market stuff.
Will Trump say bad bunny this month?
Caul She's got it a 23% chance.
Now, I don't actually care whether Trump does, but sitting across from me is White House correspondent Alad Eliyahu.
$297,639 wagered on whether or not Trump will say yes.
I'm sorry, Trump will say the phrase bad bunny, yes or no.
If you pick that he will and you wager $100, you will win $412.
So if you put, okay, let's do $1,000 that he's going to say it, you will win $4,116.
The reason why I find that absolutely crazy, in normal sports betting before the emergence of prediction markets, nothing I could do is going to change whether or not Sean Strickland wins a fight, UFC.
So I can go on my show and say I'm rooting for him.
I want him to win.
He's a good dude.
And I did bet on him and they robbed him and that was BS.
Everybody knows that he won against, was it Duplessis?
That fight, that was bunk.
He should have won that one.
I watched that.
I was so pissed.
Anyway, I digress.
This, Caul Shi has prediction markets that millions of people can affect the outcomes on.
So it's against the rules on Caul Shi to be to insider trade, meaning if you have the ability to influence the outcome of one of these trades and you trade on it, it's against their rules.
But there are people who are nailing these predictions on polymarket as well.
Like someone bet, was it 32 grand on when Maduro was going to be captured?
And then he did and they won something like $400,000.
We hold ourselves to a high journalistic standard here at Timcast, and it's all good, fun jokes and games that we're having now.
But, you know, we would never insider trade on something like this.
And we take our opportunities at the White House very seriously and thank the administration for the opportunities they give us.
I don't give enough shit about Bad Bunny to ask about it, unless it's in relation to ICE deporting illegal immigrants.
Oh, that's a good one.
Yeah, but like he was saying once that he didn't want to have shows in the United States because he knows Hispanics show up and he didn't want ICE to hang out outside of his concerts.
This is the interesting circumstance in the Caul Shi markets and how we as we are not.
Listen, this is my point.
I can't go on my show and be like, hey, Sean, make sure you throw a left hook.
Like, it's not going to change the outcome.
I can't do anything.
It's kind of crazy that I'm looking at this with 300 grand on the line.
I do believe there are several legitimate questions that need to be asked of Donald Trump about Bad Bunny.
I'm not playing Culture War BS.
I think it's legitimate to ask Trump what specifically was he upset about with the halftime show.
Just saying it was a bad halftime show leaves all hanging.
Do you have legitimate concerns or criticisms?
He has made comments about ICE.
Many conservatives are upset.
He seems to be in favor of Puerto Rican independence, and he refers to America as the continent, it's not the country.
There's a lot the president could address for the guy who performed at the Super Bowl.
I think that's fair.
And I think there's a lot of criticism.
It is insane to me that the chance of this has dropped 13 points since this morning when I brought this up.
People are still saying Trump won't say it, and they're buying heavily against it.
And I'm pretty sure everybody in this room can make a phone call and get pretty dang close to making that happen.
Like the point is, Trevor Noah at the Grammys, he says, I'm Trevor Noah, potato.
And if you had a bet on polymarket that I was going to say potato at the Grammys, you just won a lot of money, Noah underscore 22, implying it was him who did it, which I don't think he actually did.
But it is a weird reality with these prediction markets that a lot of them are easily influenced by, look, there are, if like Carolyn Levitt, one of the mentions here, I'm going to pull this up, is, let's see what we have here.
Things that could be mentioned.
What will Bernie say during his interview?
You know, I don't know.
What will McDonald say?
What will Trump say this week?
There's one from what will Carolyn Levitt say?
Mr. Beast, Adam Schiff, Pam Bondi.
Let me see.
What will Bernie say?
Airbnb, Coinbase.
Where's the Carolyn Levitt one?
Let me pull that one up because that's another one.
There we go.
What will Carolyn Levitt say in the next press briefing?
This is where it gets, oh, wait, what?
Oh, because she already had it.
Okay.
Earlier today.
So she has a lot of those, I guess.
But earlier today, it paid massive.
If she said stupid question, I think it was like $100, one like $5,000.
So I have a couple of different thoughts here, but I thought it was worth mentioning that the Coinbase CEO actually a few months ago on an earnings call, you know, took note of this and then just dropped all of the words.
There's $1.7 million wagered on the U.S. whether or not they'll confirm the existence of aliens.
It is 0%.
Now, there are others like, will Jesus return?
And those have like a 3% yes.
That's okay, but doesn't beat the market.
You want to get around 7%.
It is insane to me that this exists.
And here's what I'm going to show you.
So the maximum bet is $451,000.
So let's do that.
You will make $30,000.
You will make $36,000 in one year.
And all you have to do, and understand this is important.
When you buy shares in yes or no, you don't lose the money.
You hold the shares.
They can be sold at any time.
So that means instead of having half a million dollars in the bank where it's just being crushed by inflation with terrible interest rates, I can just put it in here and then at the end of the year, clear out $36,000, getting some of the best.
Now, to be fair, that's only an 8% margin because it goes up as you're like stocks.
No, no, it's the more money you put in, you change the payouts because you're buying something.
To be fair, your only risk factor then is the solvency of Cal Shi.
Fine.
I still think it, I'm not recommending anybody actually do it, but it is still pretty crazy that you will clear $30,000, $40,000 because there are people stupid enough to put up money thinking the government is going to come out and admit aliens exist.
Notice I said admit.
Check this out.
This is crazy.
The leaderboards.
Let's go to like the monthly leaderboard.
This dude bets and sweats made $500,000 in a month.
And if you go by the last year, here's a dude who did $600,000 in a year.
But yo, the monthly is cooking.
Here's the thing.
Okay, I know everybody here.
And again, I'm not advising anybody to do anything.
But if you listen to this show, you are on the cutting edge, the bleeding edge of news, breaking news.
Sometimes news breaks on this show when we pull up the tweets in real time saying this thing just happened.
For most people, they are not that tuned in.
And I've said this time and time again.
If I actually traded stocks based on the news gathering job that I did, like if we hired a day trader and I just said, watch my videos and then make trades based on what I say, I'd probably be a billionaire.
I'd imagine for anybody in this room, for you, knowing what you know about what's going on, you could probably make a million bucks.
Well, I think a lot of the, what I like about Cal Shi is you're not betting against the sports book, right?
The sports books have really, we, my buddies and I, we all had this NFL betting strategy that worked really well betting fourth quarter unders, but it's totally changed.
But I just, I think that this is much better because you're betting against other people.
They have to buy and sell it.
I also think that it's, if you understand politics, you can, you can make a ton of money off of these shutdown fights, right?
I made a little bit of money off of the first government shutdown last year because it was obvious Democrats were not going to open up the government until after that November election.
I think this is a great way to make money if you understand what you're doing.
So the general idea is if you find a contract that will end soon, like 2028 Democrat nominees got $47 million wagered or contracted, I think is the right word.
But you're not going to find that out for two years.
Or actually, no, for what, a year and a half for the next Democratic nominee.
Being able to bet on so many of these different things really starts messing up people's incentive structures, though, and can lead to really gay stuff.
I'm not trying to be a dick to polymarket nor be derisive in any way to call she.
Polymarket kind of has the what's the right way to describe it?
Let's just call it the wilder bets.
You know, that's kind of an offensive wager.
Are we going to find her mom?
Call she is a little bit more above board.
Like Polymarket comes off to me like a dude in like a hoodie, and he's like hanging out, leaning up against a brick wall, being like, hey, you want to make a bet?
And Kalshi is more like the casino guy in the vest being like, place your chips.
So I don't mean that in any way to be derisive to either company, but when you look for the weird bets, call she is pretty much very straightforward.
There is certainly a problem emerging where we have way too many casinos and mobile apps where there are a lot of people now that are gambling that didn't before.
But the bulk of people who gamble are not addicts who are losing their life savings.
That's actually exceedingly rare.
Most people, and you can, listen, bro, I spend way too much time playing poker.
I know about how these things work.
It's extremely easy to get status at a lot of casinos because people don't go to casinos that often.
So, for example, I think like the hard rock, which is, they're all over the place.
There's not that many relative to other, like PenPlay.
Pen Entertainment is the second biggest casino chain in the country.
It's wild.
But to get status, like the highest tier, you have to spend over a year, $15,000 at the casino.
And don't get me wrong, that's a lot of money.
But that's the highest, that's their highest member tier outside of their invited tier, which is where you get millionaires and billionaires and stuff.
If you want to get general status, the card's free.
So we don't count that.
But the second tier, it's like go there for three weekends and you're upgraded and getting free food and comps.
And that's really easy to do because people actually don't go that often.
Just to make a further point about that, as I understand that that is to be the case, but I also think we're dealing in a time of economic stagnation, and young men are already struggling with so many different things.
Young men are struggling with drugs, young men are struggling with women, young women are young men are struggling to find jobs.
For them to pay the artist, pay the staff, the booking, the space.
The casinos book these things at a loss because bringing in a thousand people to a venue means they're going to spend 50 bucks on drinks, maybe 100 bucks on slots, and then leave.
I have absolutely no problem with people having fun.
The idea that the problem we are facing is I do agree that the ubiquity and access to something does create the ease of access to it, makes it well, I guess the simple way to put it is the more casinos there are, the easier for it, easier for addicts and degenerates to get caught up in it.
Agreed.
But the problem we have in this country is cultural, and we have parents who are not raising their kids well.
We have economic systems which have incentivized mothers to get jobs instead of raising their kids.
The kids go to schools where they're indoctrinated by leftist teachers.
This is creating cultural issues that did not exist before.
It is resulting in the expansion of degeneracy.
The availability of marijuana is not the problem.
The availability of alcohol is not the problem.
The availability of gambling is not the problem.
And I'll put it like this.
First, I will say, don't anyone dare come to me and say that we should ban all these things.
I had all the access in the world as a teenager to drinking, to smoking, to, I mean, playing street craps, whatever you want to do with the gangbangers.
I also had good parents, so I never did any of those things.
As a teenager, I tried pot once.
I didn't really like it.
When I was late, like 19 to 20, I drank on the weekends quite a bit with my friends.
And then after about two years, I was like, this sucks.
I don't want to drink anymore.
I don't really enjoy it.
I don't need this.
Some people just get drunk and they don't stop.
But when you have good parents and they raise you right and they teach you right, you don't experience this to this extreme degree.
There can be a casino in every single street corner and a devout, faithful, moralistic country would run them out of business.
They could not exist.
Now, what we have is there are a lot of people that are okay with gambling now.
And so New York and Chicago are opening big casinos.
And I have no problem with a city having a casino.
I do think there is an issue that with, I talk about it all the time.
Within two hours of us, I think there's like 10 casinos.
Like that's wild.
But again, a guy who gets off of work on a Friday and he's worked, he worked 40 hours, his hands are calloused, and he says, I just want to watch a game with my friends.
I want to put 20 bucks down, get a little excitement from the game with a smile on my face and make jokes.
And if I win, I win.
If I lose, I lose.
That's the average person.
Sometimes people are addicted and that is a problem.
But we're not, I don't think it makes sense to ban something simply because some people abuse it.
So as far as access goes, do you have any issue with people having, you know, in any state being able to access any of these sports betting apps or a casino online casino on their phone?
I have no problem whatsoever with people being able to access the mobile apps, but I do understand an ease of access will increase per capita the amount of people who will be addicted or see those problems because a state that never, like Texas has no gambling, right?
No, but the supply of the ability to like these casinos and these different apps to gamble on, I think this helps push the demand for more of it.
I think it is like the amount of- But I agree with you that like culturally, and if you were raised right and if you're a good, religious, sane, sober, moral person, then yeah, you probably wouldn't gamble.
I can tell you one easy way I think that everyone could get behind that a lot of people aren't talking about to fix the gambling situation, especially sports betting.
So I discovered this with our group of friends.
I mentioned this earlier.
We had a whole strategy.
It wasn't even gambling.
It was investing.
We've all been throttled or kicked off of several books.
During the Super Bowl, right before the Super Bowl started, I went to the steakhouse at MGM, the Voltagio Brothers.
It's excellent.
And they have something called Chai Something New, where it's chai spice with a dried orange, orange juice, sparkling water, and there's some other stuff in it.
And it's delicious.
And it looks beautiful.
But I don't need alcohol.
You could put some rum in it, but why?
Just ruins it.
I don't need to get drunk and it tastes terrible.
Now, don't get me wrong.
Splash some rum on some bananas and fry them up in a pan with sugar and a little cream.
You would need no government because there is a structure of faith, honor, and integrity that exists in his worldview.
And I mean that sincerely.
That being said, we don't have people who are like this.
And it seems like typically we get policy proposals from these neocons, not just pick on neocons, but the policy proposal of you are a 30-year-old degenerate.
You want to be a degenerate.
You were raised to be degenerate.
We're going to make it a crime to be degenerate.
You know what they're going to do?
They're going to find a back alien.
What we need to do is find the root cause.
And our society should be.
Guess what?
Seamus, I've played blackjack with him.
And there's no priest.
It's no problem.
We joke around.
We go.
We went to the casino.
We played a couple hundred bucks.
He spiked the table.
Everybody lost.
If you guys know blackjack, we animated it.
It was a funny story.
Everybody had like 13, 14, you know, 13.
And the dealer was showing a six.
I think it was a six.
And we told Seamus, don't hit.
And because it was like the deal's got a bus card and he goes, I'm going to hit.
And then we're like, no, and he hits.
And then I think he hit a six.
And we were like, oh, thank God.
Or actually, no, we were like, oh, wow.
Like, good for you, Seamus.
We weren't like, thank God.
The dealer, I think, flipped over a three, and the next card was a jack.
So we hit 19.
Seamus pushed.
Everyone else lost.
If Seamus did not hit, he would have flipped over a three for nine, hit the six to 15, hit the jack for 25, and everyone would have won.
And so we animated that, and he's never lived it down in six years.
It's been, it's, it's actually, it's been five years.
And if you develop a culture where people are doing these things, then your culture needs to change.
But we're going to go to your Rumble Rants and Super Chats, my friends.
So smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone in your life.
Head over to castbrew.com.
Pick up your Dr. Alex Stein's big booty Latina love potion.
Alex Stein is not a doctor.
And we're going to grab your Rumble Rants in the chats right now.
Let's see, we got Joey Giggles says, is Trump actually vindicated?
If so, arrest everyone else so they can win the midterms, even though it's all fake and gay and retarded, and we are all going to be slaves to the machine.
Well, the good news is when you're a slave to the machine, at least your brain will be plugged into it.
Man, so I made a pitch where I said to conservatives, would you be willing to give up 80% of your income, 80% income tax and all money you make, and that money goes towards funding pods that liberals can live in, where we pump roach protein to their bellies to sustain them, and we plug their brains into the matrix where they can live in any universe they want and no longer be a part of society.
And everyone in the chat said, yes, I would accept that wager.
No, that's academically the difference between the two feuding factions.
So first of all, the Nazis and the fascists are different.
And liberals don't understand this.
The fascists were in Italy and the Nazis were in Germany.
The communists are all over the place.
But when you look at all the communist countries, there are two large components of their ideology.
Outside of the economic functions of it, because the Nazis were not capitalists, they were not really socialists either, but they were state-enforced socialists in a sense.
Well, how do you describe it?
They were a cultural-enforced socialist.
Sorry, not state.
Communism is a state enforcement.
Nazis were cultural enforcement.
So the way the Nazis operated was you weren't forced by mandate to produce for the war effort, but you'd be canceled if you didn't.
So, you know, a Nazi officer would be like, what do you mean your factory is not producing steel for the war effort?
You're supposed to, and oh, no, no, no, we're going to do it.
We're going to do it because you're scared of the authoritarians.
But the Nazis were famously burning books on gender identity and, you know, being gay.
They were very much like traditionalism.
The communists, on the other hand, were promoting all that stuff.
Nazis, fascists, and communists are all authoritarian, systems where there's an absolute control of the group.
Their economic systems vary only somewhat slightly.
The fascists were described as being a lucrative merger of corporation and state.
This is defectively communism.
The corporations worked towards the whims of the state, de facto.
The Nazis, it was culturally enforced, where the famous quote, this is from an academic paper that I read about the issue was that an officer would go to a factory and say, why aren't you producing steel for the war effort?
And the pressure was social, not government mandate.
Communists, on the other hand, just came by force and it was largely social as well, but it was basically a part of their ethos.
Like, we want to take your private property.
If you look at every communist country, one of the things they do is they purge all of their history and all their traditions.
And that's a key component of it.
So, yeah.
All right, let's see.
Mythos says Voyager was the worst pre-2015 Star Trek.
Voyager is a masterpiece compared to Modern Star Trek.
Well, you should start with Star Trek the Next Generation season one.
The original series is okay, but I. All right.
You know, we call it TOS.
TNG is a masterpiece, and Deep Space Nine really, really hits out of the park because it tests the limits of this liberal ideology.
I love it.
Voyager is silly, but it's okay.
So Voyager ended last.
I think Voyager ended like 03, and DS9 was like 2001.
Voyager is about a Federation ship that gets flung on the other side of the galaxy, and it's going to take them 70 years at maximum warp to make it home.
And so it's funny.
The ship is called the Voyager and they're on a voyage.
But the show's fine.
It's interesting because it gives you a Federation crew outside of the Federation exploring wild and new things that you're not going to see in the traditional canon.
But there's an episode where they're like, we're going to do an experimental thing to go as fast as possible.
And they go so fast that Captain Janeway and Tom Parris de-evolve into lizards, have sex.
She lays eggs.
And then they reverse the de-evolution and they re-evolve into humans and had babies.
That's one of the reasons people are like, that show really went in a weird direction.
But it was okay.
And the most disappointing thing is that DS9 concluded with very, very profound philosophical implications for the ideologies that Americans believed in of this liberal society and its natural conclusions.
That is, I think the episode's called In the Pale Moonlight, famous episode where they false flag, assassinate a senator to force them, to trick them into joining a war on the Federation side.
And what needed to happen is if they were going to bring back Star Trek, we needed to have the next arc.
So the original series happens.
The next generation says, here's what happens after that.
And things have changed.
And it was brilliant writing.
Then Deep Space Nine is within the same time period because The Next Generation is like, I think it's, it might be 100 years later.
Deep Space Nine is literally within the same time frame.
And Voyager is as well.
They could have done a small time jump again and said, here's where we ended up after the Dominion War.
Instead, they went, let's do a prequel.
I'm not watching it.
Enterprise was bad.
I'm sorry.
It's okay.
But they opened it with some pop culture stuff.
They didn't call it Star Trek.
Nobody knew it was Star Trek.
Nobody wanted to watch it.
And then there was this big gap where they did nothing.
They did the reboot movies where they created an alternate timeline, which was largely cringe.
It's fine.
They're fine movies.
And then they did Discovery, which was prequel again, Bored.
Then they, now they're doing Starfleet Academy, and there's Lower Dex, all garbage, all absolute trash.
The spiritual successor to Star Trek is The Orville by Seth McFarlane.
That is a fantastic show.
On the Orville, they did an episode where there's what I loved about Star Trek The Next Generation is that it was addressing the philosophical consequences of technological advancement or decision different trees that could have occurred on Earth.
Basically, they go to a planet where, what's a good Star Trek The Next Generation?
In TNG, they go to a planet where everybody is catered to by an AI.
There is a machine that was built by their ancestors that provides for them.
They have no idea how it works.
They just do whatever they're told.
So it's an interesting concept of what would a society be like.
And so that's things you get with like The Next Generation.
The Orville did an episode where there's an alien race.
They're called the Machlands, and they're all male.
And they lay eggs.
And so they're just, it's, I guess it's still technically sexual reproduction because two males will reproduce and one of them will lay the egg or something.
However, as it turns out, they actually do have females, but surgically transgender them as children to make them male.
They find out that one of the guys, his male partner, actually was born female, but got sex change surgery.
And they have an argument where Seth McFarland says, you can't sex change kids.
It's brilliant.
And it wasn't so conservative, overt, but the point was made that children can't consent.
And it was kind of like a rib because when the show came out, we were like, you kind of know what he's saying.
They had one episode where, and Christians won't like this one as much.
They land on a planet and they use technology to heal a girl's wound.
Kelly does.
She's the commander.
And when they leave, the planet blinks out of space-time and then reappears.
For this planet, every time it pulses out of existence, it exists for 500 years in another dimension before returning.
When they go back to the planet, they find that because she healed this, you know, cavewoman, they developed a whole religion around her divine healing touch and come to worship her.
And it's very Catholic-coded.
And they're making a point about cargo cults and what's—so, again, simple point.
Seth McFarland was a huge Trek fan and understood what made it good and tried to recreate it to the best of his abilities.
And they did three seasons.
I would welcome any day of the week them to bring back the Orville because that's unfortunately as close as we're going to get.
Anyway, I could talk about Star Trek for 27 years because it's the greatest show of all time.
The next generation is the greatest thing boomers ever did for this country.
All right, let's grab some more while we're still here.
And I love these liberals are like, did you know that Not liberals, but like commies.
They're like, Star Trek was a communist country.
They didn't have money anymore.
And I'm like, Latinum.
Stop it.
Latinum.
And Federation credits, you idiots.
You're making things up.
Nothing about Star Trek.
Spare me.
Ben Brady, it was a post-scarcity liberal society.
And Deep Space Nine challenged this liberal ethos of being non-militaristic.
And we're, oh my, dude.
So there's an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation, right?
Where all of a sudden, there's like a shift and the ship is different now.
And Gainan, who's played by Whoopi Goldberg, and she did a great job, is she's an alien race and she has a deeper connection and blah, blah, blah, whatever.
But she notices something changed.
What happened was the timeline shifted because a rip opened up during the attack on Kittimer.
You don't need to know anything about this.
I'll just give you a quick version.
There was an episode of TNG where Star Trek, the vessel is an exploration vessel to boldly go where no one's gone before.
They're on a science mission.
They have military capabilities, but it's a science mission.
In one of the episodes, the timeline shifts where the Federation never had an alliance with the Klingons and are losing the war.
And the ship changes to a battleship.
And Gainan's like, what's going on?
Where are the families and children?
And Picard's like, are you joking?
This is a warship.
There's no children and families on this vessel.
And very much so.
I loved how some smart people made that show and asked the questions of what our society could or would be like.
And then Deep Space Nine brought that to its conclusion.
Children should watch that show.
I'm going to make sure my daughter watches every episode five times with me.
I'm going to watch it again too.
And it got some stupid episodes, but it's a good show.
Anyway.
All right, let's see what we got.
Woke, what is it?
Woke evil?
Woke is, oh, woke is evil.
I was like, what are you trying to say?
Woke Helzival.
I highly recommend that you in the chat watch the YouTube doc about the movie Eyes Wide Shut.
It blew the lid on the globalist Satanist PDF file cult back in 99, and the director Stanley was killed for it.
It's actually making the housing crisis more difficult to solve because by 2037, I think it's one out of every four homes is going to be basically vacant because of all the seniors that are going to be dying.
And the houses will be worthless because there's going to be too many and no one will have the money to buy them in the first place.
So when the boomers die and the millennials and Gen Xers, but largely millennials inherit it because Gen X is partly silent generation, inherit these homes, they're not going to be able to sell them because nobody has the money or the equity to take out a loan.
So right now, boomers buy houses from boomers off of loans based on the value of the home from boomers.
When they die, millennials get the house that's worth a million bucks.
No, I mean, wishful thinking, I think, is more than anything.
I think, you know, people who are against the regime in Iran are putting themselves in like this sort of delusion and wishful thinking for what they want to be true versus reality.
I mean, I feel like that's been like what we were supposed to do for decades now to avenge the hostages that were taken during the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
I do appreciate that neither one of them really knows the Bible at all.
Like, if you look at the Old Testament, like, Tucker had a layup there.
The whole Old Testament is about God having to make these covenants with the Jews in Israel, and then they break it, and then they go back and they have to make another covenant.
Netanyahu has been visiting the United States way too many times.
I think this is like his seventh, eighth, or ninth visit since the president's become president, way more than any than the next following dignitary.
And it's just unsettling.
I think it's unsettling for Americans.
They think it's a little bit odd.
I know we're very close with Israel, obviously, and I think that's a good thing.
But I think Israelis also find it odd.
The Israelis also think, hey, maybe BB should spend a little bit more time in Israel and the president should be focused a little bit more on domestic issues than international issues.
I'm going to create a nonprofit and I'm going to call it something like finding peace and equity.
Nonprofit.
I'm going to put $100,000 in it.
Then I'm going to have it secretly over the course of a year make small donations to various activist organizations and then get exposed as being the person running it and then have a bunch of people start pointing to these liberals being like you're secretly funded by Tim Pool.
I mean, look, man, I think that it should be the people that are voting, it should be a very small portion of society, honestly.
So, and I'm not sure exactly, I'm not sure exactly what the right breakdown is, like what the right I'm reading that the threshold is 45 to 50,000 for being a net contributor tax-wise.
I mean, look, like I said, I want to see significantly fewer people voting.
I want to see people that are that are actually motivated to vote, that know how our government works, understand that there are three branches of government, understand that when you're voting for the president, you're not voting for the king, you know, that kind of stuff.
I want to see people not voting so that, you know, voting for themselves to get some kind of benefit for the government from the government, you know?
So whatever we can do to disenfranchise people, I think is a good thing.
So got anything you want to shout out?
unidentified
My X handle is at Lord of Illusion.
That's illusion with an A. Aside from that, thanks for having me on.