THEY KILLED THEM | Timcast IRL #1457 w/Jay Dyer & Jake Botch
Jake Botch and Jay Dyer dissect the FL7726SH speedboat shooting near Cuba, questioning motives amid Venezuela’s oil asset seizure straining Havana’s economy, while linking it to U.S. geopolitical strategy—like past Venezuela raids—and Monroe Doctrine revival. They debate company towns vs. communism, framing private property rights through Christian ethics but dismissing modern ideological consistency, then critique Democrats for allegedly eroding American traditions via immigration-driven shifts (e.g., Bears’ relocation, statue removals). Seth Rogen’s bizarre Kim Jong-un claim sparks comparisons of North Korea’s isolation to progressive admiration for its authoritarian "nature," while the segment contrasts China’s Xinjiang crackdowns with U.S. interventions, arguing both stem from ideological hypocrisy. Ultimately, they suggest modern politics—left and right—have abandoned Founding Fathers’ principles, prioritizing power over coherence. [Automatically generated summary]
A U.S.-flagged speedboat near was entering Cuban waters when the National Guard killed them all.
Now, the Cuban guard's saying that these Americans opened fire on them.
I don't believe it.
The latest reporting is since Venezuela's oil's been cut off and U.S. has taken back control of their oil assets, Cuba's been cut off.
No tourists, no fuel.
Their country is grinding to a halt.
They've become desperate.
So there's a lot of questions we have over this breaking story right now about a U.S. speedboat getting shot up by Cuba and what that could mean for the United States.
People need to understand.
Well, Cuba is decently far away from Florida.
It's actually not that far away from Florida.
And there are a lot of people, a lot of Americans who are in Florida, and they do like going and partying in Cuba.
It's not that uncommon.
Perhaps this could be Cuba is at its wit's end and is overreacting or angry or retaliating.
We'll talk about that.
Plus, more information on the cartel violence.
Mexico's considering suing Elon Musk because he said that the president works for the cartels.
He said she has cartel bosses and thought, how dare you say something that most people think is true.
And then, of course, my friends, the results from Trump's State of the Union.
The polls are smashing good for the president.
It's two to one.
And the funny thing is, CNN can't just say viewers liked speech.
I kid you not, despite the fact the CNN poll says 70% of people liked what Trump said, they headline the article.
Trump's speech leaves some viewers questioning blah, blah, blah.
Some.
Yes, because the minority exists.
Absolutely incredible.
So we're going to talk about the aftermath of that.
And then, guys, we got to talk about the Bears.
The Bears, we got to talk about them.
They're leaving Chicago.
And this may be the most catastrophic thing I've ever heard.
I have talked to you about statues being torn down.
I have talked to you about the changing of the name of the Redskins.
And that meant nothing to me.
A little bit.
I was kind of pissed off about it.
But the Chicago Bears, I am from Chicago.
And so this, this is like a nuclear bomb dropped on my childhood.
And I'm declaring war.
I will not stand for the failures of the Democratic Party if Chicago is to lose the Bears.
And apparently they're going to, no matter what.
Pritzker said that we're basically resigned to the Chicago Bears being the Indiana Bears or the Hammond Bears.
Is it a joke?
Do you spit in our faces?
I'm pissed.
We're going to talk about that and more before we do.
We've got a great sponsor for you, my friends.
It is Field of Greens.
You see, I get all riled up hearing about the Bears leaving and I'm ready to just destroy everything.
So, you know what?
I got to calm down and drink this delicious strawberry lemonade, Field of Greens.
It actually is really, really good.
It's like they grind up all these great veggies and they make it taste really good.
You put it in your drink.
My friends, most people don't look forward to their annual physical because they're nervous what the doctor might find.
Me, however, I got great blood pressure.
That's why what you do before the appointment matters.
So before your next checkup, make the one health change your doctor should notice or your money back.
Make it Field of Greens.
Doctors today look beyond your calendar age.
They look at biological age, how healthy our cells and vital organs are.
Field of Greens was designed with that in mind.
Each fruit and vegetable is doctor selected to support your cells, heart, lungs, kidneys, and healthy weight.
In fact, a university study found that participants who only added Field of Greens saw measurable improvements in key health markers.
Just one change changed everything.
That's why Field of Greens promises your doctor will notice your improved health or your money back.
Go into your next physical confident.
One scoop, once a day, done.
Make Field of Greens your one smart change this year.
Check out the university study and get 20% off Field of Greens promo code Tim.
That's Field of Greens promo code Tim.
You know, I just want to say too, I see a lot of people, they got those weird little spritzer bottles of flavor stuff.
They squirt in their water.
That's nasty.
That's like weird artificial sweetener garbage.
This is, it's a bunch of grinded up veggies with delicious flavor.
If you want to flavor your water, make it healthy.
Check it out.
Field of Greens promo code Tim.
Don't forget, my friends, we also got Cast Brew Coffee.
Look at this.
You don't want to miss this one.
Oh, we put the bottle back.
These glass bottles of the Cast Brew Vault Black are incredible.
I am so impressed with the team organizing this.
This is a cold brew concentrate, lightly sweetened, just a little bit, about seven grams per serving.
You put a little bit into a cup, you add some water to it.
Bang, you got a nice, delicious cup of cold brew coffee from Casper.
Check it out at CastBrew.com.
My friends, smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
Literally, if everybody took the URL, posted it everywhere on the internet right now, we'd have the biggest show in the world, and that would be great.
So if you really do like what we do, please share the show.
Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we got Jake Botch.
Four shot dead on U.S. registered speedboat by border guards.
Cuba says.
They say in a statement, Cuba's interior ministry said the speedboat's passengers opened fire on a Coast Guard vessel that approached them, which I don't believe.
That makes no sense.
Six additional passengers were wounded in the incident, which took place near an island on Cuba's northern coast.
Marco Rubio said the nationalities of those on board is unclear.
The U.S. will make, okay, so correction.
We don't know if they're Americans.
U.S. will make determinations based on the facts.
Right now, we're still gathering facts.
He said the boat was not carrying U.S. government personnel.
Cuba's government said it did not know the identities of those on board the vessel, nor what it was doing in the area, and that an investigation has been launched to clarify the event.
In a statement posted X, the ministry said the Florida registered vessel with the registration number FL7726SH was detected near Keo Falconez in the country's central villa, Clara Province, on Wednesday morning.
When a Cuban boat carrying five members of the ministry's border guard approached the vessel for identification, the crew of the violating speedboat opened fire and wounded the Cuban commander.
As a consequence of the confrontation, as of the time of this report, four aggressors on the foreign vessel were killed and six injured.
Those who were injured were evacuated.
Now, the important context here is also this: CNN reporting last week: no food, no fuel, no tourists under U.S. pressure.
Life in Cuba grinds to a halt.
Since we seized back, that's an important thing to understand.
Since we seized back our oil assets from Venezuela that were stolen from us, even though we had a treaty in 2009, okay, this is an important, I'm going to say it again.
We had a bunch of oil investments in Venezuela.
We had a treaty.
We were doing peaceful trade, and the commie government came in and stole all our stuff, and we didn't do anything about it.
That pisses me off.
Since we took it back, Cuba's not getting the free energy from Venezuela they were before.
Now they're in trouble.
So when you hear a story like this, you have to wonder what really happened.
That being said, I will stand corrected.
I thought it was Americans.
We don't know.
I would say there's a decent probability, surprise, surprise, these could be drug runners operating in a U.S. boat.
And when the Cubans approach them, they think, oh, crap, what do we do?
Maybe.
We're not entirely sure.
But the big concern, I think, here is the animosity between Cuba and the United States since the Venezuela operation is bubbling up.
It's getting pretty intense.
So that's why my immediate assumption was a U.S. speedboat was driving around and the Cuban National Guard just killed them.
But we don't know for sure.
This guy, to be honest, if they came back and said, actually, it was a bunch of Venezuelan narco-drug guys on a speedboat selling drugs, I'd be like, well, you know, that's been happening too.
But I'm curious if you guys think this means, let's just, I'll just crank the knob all the way to 11 and rip it off.
So the U.S. had a treaty with Venezuela for a long time.
Venezuela was one of the most prosperous, it was the most prosperous nation in South America.
And our oil companies went there under our normal trade agreement and said, we're going to invest billions of dollars building oil refineries, bringing in oil tankers.
And then the country voted for socialism.
And again, I'm not being cute or insulting.
It literally they voted for the socialist candidate, Chavez, who then, I think it was 2009, announced the nationalization of all oil assets that were built, paid for, and owned by U.S. interests.
The U.S. government said, I guess they just stole $20 billion worth of our oil infrastructure and did nothing about it.
Then Venezuela started pumping that oil, burning down their economy with weird commie practices like mandating jobs that don't need to exist, and then using that oil to give to our enemies, largely to Cuba, but also they've been trading with China, Russia, Iran, et cetera.
So the U.S. used to really be close with or close with Europe.
There's been significant changes in Europe and not only the policies that Europe has, but also the makeup of Europe because of all the immigration from like the Middle East and from North Africa.
And so the U.S. is looking at Europe and they're saying, well, they kind of don't really share our values.
We're going to refocus our interest.
We're going to refocus onto South America and we're going to really kind of enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
I mean, most people don't even know what the Monroe Doctrine is.
James Monroe said that we don't want Europe meddling in the affairs of our hemisphere.
So basically the Western hemisphere, North, South America, the U.S. is like saying, hey, Europe, keep your business in Europe and in Asia and stuff, and we'll keep our business here.
We don't want you influencing countries here.
And so that had kind of gone away for a long time.
But now the U.S. has decided that South American countries actually have more in common with the United States than Europe will likely have in, say, 25, 30 years.
Here's a crazy history of the communist stuff down there that a lot of people don't know.
When Che and Fidel were working together, they were actually guarding the oil fields for Standard Oil.
They had a huge battle between them.
They ended up falling out.
And Fidel basically ran Che away because Che seemed to be a committed communist.
But there's a good book by Servando Gonzalez on this.
He argues that the Council on Foreign Relations, because they always favored a synthesis of communism with capitalism, that they actually wanted Fidel to take Cuba, even though there was interest with certain elements of the organized crime that took over, or that opposed Batista when they took over.
So basically, organized crime, the CIA, they wanted resorts in Cuba.
But the question is, well, if we have a base there, why did that ever happen?
And Gonzalez has a thesis that the Council on Foreign Relations had a bunch of communists amongst their members that actually wanted Cuba to be communist to have an excuse to promote the dialectic down in South America.
Yeah, you know, today's political debates are largely, I would describe it as the people who actually know what's going on and the people who have no idea what's going on.
So the Democrats are composed largely of an ignorant voter bloc that believes what they're being told by the Democrat politicians and Democrat politicians that are intentionally lying.
The Trump voter bloc is a mixture of different political ideologies that often disagree quite a bit, but know what's going on in the world.
So you'll get, you know, we call them disaffected liberals, people who used to be Democrats who are now like, y'all have gone crazy.
My favorite part of last night with Donald Trump's State of the Union is when he pointed to the Democrats and said, these people are crazy because they're trying to give children sex changes.
You'd think, you'd think going to somebody and being like, don't you think we can draw the line at giving a child a sex change?
And the response from most of the Democrat voters is, that's not happening because they listen to their politicians who are lying.
One of my favorite things, actually, I fact-checked this this morning.
I'll pull it up for you guys when we get into the CNN, Trump State of the Union address.
But Trump says, like, they want to kidnap your kids.
He said, they want to take your kids from your parents and then transition their genders without the parents' consent.
There's a big piece of news right now where like 16 states are filing a suit saying we can't allow that to happen.
And all of these fact checks get written where they're like, no, Washington did not pass a law saying they can kidnap your kids to give them sex change.
Right.
The law basically just says if a child is a runaway, they can provide shelter and they have to inform the parents of the runaway's whereabouts unless they're seeking gender-affirming care.
So they put one headline saying, no, it's not happening, and then literally three paragraphs down say, yeah, absolutely it is happening.
And so I just got to say, bro, I don't care if you're a communist where you're literally like, we should seize all of the means of production.
We call this the dirtbag left.
They just go, yeah, but the weird thing the Democrats are doing with child sex changes like and the woke stuff, nah, none of that.
If you're like economically far left, socialist, communist, or whatever, but you're not violent and all you do is have, have cordial debates that we're friends.
Well, I think also geopolitically, Cuba is particularly important because if you look at the map in the Gulf of Mexico, the main exit is having to go north or south of Cuba.
Cuba is a sort of Taiwan equivalent, if you will, of a way of blocking trade and shipments from large parts of the United States.
So part of the reason why China wants to take back Taiwan is to get those critical shipping lanes.
If you look to go through the Gulf of Mexico, you have to pass Cuba.
And it's sort of, you know, an island just directly a threat to the United States.
And then I think the leftovers from the Cuban missile crisis and then also so many refugees, Cuban refugees that left Cuba, came to America, continue to influence our politics right now.
Marco Rubio is famously a descendant of Cuban immigrants.
So yeah, that plays into a lot of this.
He's been famously a hawkish senator from Florida prior to this, where there is a large Cuban population.
But if we talk, if we said we're going to turn to a smoldering crater, you'd be like, is the only reason, given the Monero doctrine, though, the only reason that the U.S. never took Cuba from the communists, because like we have Guantanamo Bay there, is it just because of the ramifications of what it would do in other countries?
Neocon is a tribal reference to a group of people, but there are ideologies that people would then associate with what we would call neoliberal and neoconservative.
It's actually quite simple.
Hillary Clinton is neoliberal.
What does that mean?
She's on the liberal side of American politics, but she wants to, well, no, now.
I mean, if there's a barren wasteland and a company is like, we need to import a bunch of people and there's no industry here, then they have to create means by which people can choose to buy food.
So then if I, as the landowner and the company owner, then say, I will open a restaurant on the property from which you can purchase goods, that's the beginning of communism.
If we're talking about the structures of communism by which there is a private committee, and there's two ways we can look at it, your argument seems to fuse together both the authoritarian dictatorship components and the economic – That's monopoly capitalism.
Again, bro, I got to tell you, if the argument is I have no choice in my circumstances, therefore I should get public rights, it's literally this guy's a communist.
Well, you can say that, but in a company town, especially like in situations when in the 1800s company towns were being set up, you didn't have the ability to just leave, right?
The origin of the left is the left aisle in the French Revolution referring to those who wanted a socialist, anti-monarchist, and the right wanted a top-down monarchist system.
So I argue that the rights of man are derived from the will or the duties God bestows upon man.
The requirements that we have from God, which is be fruitful and multiply, require a handful of things for which we recognize in the United States that we allow other people to do.
Fully recognizing that other groups have different ideas of what rights are.
So I would argue rights are we need to be able to communicate, we need to be able to protect ourselves, and we need to be secure in our possessions.
These are principal rights that we struggle to survive without.
As the basis of this is look at communism in general in the Soviet Union.
And when you don't have property rights, congratulations, look what happens.
When you have mass monopolization and oligopoly, you get something similar.
So in a simple sense, certainly it is my moral worldview and faith-based structures that define what I think someone has an inherent claim to.
Progressives think you have an inherent claim to someone else's labor, which would just, I would describe as slavery.
So when it comes to the idea of private land ownership, the argument is fully understanding population expansion can come to a point where some people will never own land.
But the idea is I need to be secure in my possessions to know and prepare for harsh winters, for instability, so that I can survive, so that I can be fruitful, and that I can multiply.
Well, I think to a lot of people, they have a moral worldview and a philosophical understanding of some things and not others.
And I base mine largely on, first, I would argue that perhaps there are greater moral philosophies than the Christian moral structures.
We just don't know them yet.
I would say historically, based upon what we have seen throughout the world and what we think we know, the Christian moral worldview has been dramatically superior to other moral structures.
That being said, I am not a Christian and I don't believe in the faith structures they have.
However, I have recognized that the moral structures of a Christian society tend to make life more successful for individuals, which is ultimately beneficial to the standard function of life, which is organizing complex, organizing free energy into complex systems.
So when you say something like you're utilitarian, and then I bring up, we do not take immoral actions against an individual for the betterment of the.
Well, let's go back to the origin of what we think we know.
Again, because everything we think, everything is rooted in what we think we know, right?
Some people think the earth is flat.
They're probably wrong.
But honestly, I've not done the experiments myself to a great degree.
I've just been in a plane.
So if we go back to, again, the roots of science, we can take a look at a few things.
Free energy tends to coalesce into complex systems, starting with the baser elements, or we can say quirks, I'm sorry, quarks into particles, into atoms, into elements, into compounds.
At some point, for some reason, you get gravity, likely because if you're familiar with our current understanding of gravity, mass creates attraction, et cetera.
And this results in certain masses coming together.
Eventually, you'll get something like a gas giant.
You'll get something that compresses, then ignites fusion, and you get a sun.
We get all this stuff.
Then you get an earth.
Earth is the result of certain things slamming together, creating a bunch of complex elements through process of fusion, et cetera.
And then at some point on Earth, for some reason, again, we don't really know for sure, these molecules and compounds start forming self-replicating proteins.
Again, in modern science, the one thing we recognize is that there is greater entropy and limited entropy, negative entropy, can only exist in a slightly greater entropic system.
But we do see free energy organizing into complex systems throughout the earth and in the universe.
That's what we monitor.
Eventually, these complex systems ultimately become multi-the-cellular organisms, single cells, and multicellular organisms, by which they then create complex organism systems.
They create ecosystems.
Now you've got a squirrel planting a nut growing a tree.
The tree then drops the food for the squirrel.
And now you've got two distinct life forms that form a complex system within its own free energy.
And then we get to the craziest part with humanity in the creation of abstract complex systems.
That is, humans give names to things that don't exist anywhere in reality except in the energy transference between the mind and the vibrations between their mouths.
So what we then see is the function of life is negative entropy within a larger entropic system.
If we, as life, which are driven to reproduce and are, and we typically associate all of those things with being good and enjoyable, like having kids, having Christmas morning, then we track, based on what we have seen throughout the earth, what is the most beneficial to that?
There are a few answers for this.
Islam could be one of them.
They've certainly been massively successful, have lots of kids.
We can take a look at Africa and say, certainly, that is beneficial.
However, I would make the argument that the European cultures that developed science, space travel, cures for diseases, and then effectively colonized the whole planet, as well as the Asian cultures, have proven greatly that these moral worldviews lend themselves greater to the ectropic system within the entropy.
And then we would say, well, it's maybe a toss-up, but I do think that the American Judeo-Christian or just Christian moral values, which include things like private property, have lended itself to the formation of complex systems.
That is, life expansion and all the things that we cherish in the world.
And thus, those are the things we aim for.
Certainly, these things are very subjective, and some people believe other things.
Some people might think it's better to watch the whole world burn because humans are a virus that spread like a plague.
I don't believe that, but I do recognize I can't convince other people, nor do I know everything.
So, in the end, I ultimately conclude: if we want people to have families and have kids, private land ownership is probably the best thing we can do.
Well, if the world is made by God, if we have ethics being made in the image of God based on the Ten Commandments, these kinds of things, then it makes sense why things are wrong and right.
That was the fact that based on what we think we know right now, and there may be better structures we discover in the future, this seems to be the best course of action for promoting human existence.
just means is it binding everywhere at all times you said it was subjective to me and i said you said that I said, no, I recognize other people believe other things.
You view your religious structure as the coherent structure and other structures are incoherent.
Okay.
I disagree, and we are allowed to disagree that we have two different moral religious worldviews, and that is the inherent disagreement.
So in my moral worldview, I believe there is a basis in private ownership because if you are to fulfill God's will of having children, having families, you need a way to control your resources so that you can do that without it being taken from you.
I saw that headline and I was like, geez, it must have been a pretty awful State of the Union address, guys.
As it turns out, instead of headlining the article with Trump's State of the Union viewed positively by masses, which is actually what they concluded, they tried to still make it negative.
Some viewers are unconvinced.
How many are some viewers?
38%.
Indeed, my friends, the polls show 63% of people polled by CNN viewed Trump's State of the Union positively.
Yet, of course, and this is for you, Jake, when you're talking about how regular people don't know this stuff, when you read a headline that says some people are unconvinced by Trump, according to our poll, the immediate assumption most people make is, wow, Trump must not have done a good job.
When in actuality, the poll is Trump won two to one.
This is the world that we live in.
I thought it was a tremendous State of the Union address.
Look, I do think it was, he did put on a good performance.
Trump, always the showman, did a really good job, I think, creating a lot of images for Republicans in the midterm with the constant like applaud and then the Democrats not applauding and the contrast between the two, especially when they're bringing up things for like obviously bringing in the Olympians too.
But when they referenced Ina, the woman who got stabbed to death on public transit in Charlotte, and then the Democrats didn't stand up, I think that made for a poll image.
So stuff like that.
But otherwise, I mean, the State of the Union, I don't think most people tune in.
I think after the first 10 minutes, 50% of the people who are watching generally tune out.
I think you really know what the president's going to say.
Nonetheless, it was a good speech.
I was unimpressed.
I think Republicans are obviously going to cheer this on because it's the president.
And if it was Joe Biden or whatnot, they would say.
And this is why, you know, after this speech, you know, Donald Trump says at the speech, he goes, stand up if you agree that the duty of, what do you say, of government is to protect the American citizens, not illegal immigrants.
You'll see it all over the place because people do this.
And Navy Pier does a private firework ceremony every weekend, but they ended the 4th of July celebration for the city because it is being run by communists who hate America.
Governor J.B. Pritzker suggests no matter how Indiana v. Illinois fight goes, the new Bears home won't be in Chicago.
And I knew this because Chicago bought, I'm sorry, the Chicago Bears bought land in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
And they're looking at a swath of land in Hammond, Indiana, which, to be fair, is basically, it's still a Chicago.
Like it's still the metro, but you cross the border.
It doesn't matter because Arlington Heights is not Chicago and Hammond is not Chicago.
So Pritzker said, let me read this.
He was like, I think now there's a common understanding for most of the General Assembly, they're not going to be able to build in the city of Chicago.
For at least a year and a half, there's been a significant effort by the Bears as well as Chicago lawmakers and others to try and figure out if the Bears could build what they need to build in the city of Chicago.
They looked and they, I think, gave the old college try, so to speak, to try and find a place where within the city of Chicago and they couldn't.
So that's why I think we're down to the question of whether they're going to build in Arlington Heights or they're going to build something in the state of Indiana.
He said it's very hard to find in a dense city, a dense city like the city of Chicago, he said.
This is, I remember when the Redskins lost their name.
The argument is there is a faction, a political faction in this country that hates this country, views it as evil, and wants to destroy it.
Many, many of much of this is guided by manipulations and propaganda from overt communists and socialists who literally want to destroy our economic system and create a communist system.
They use these arguments like racism as a vehicle to trick people into voting against their interests.
So Democrats as politicians, they're just, you know, like the Democratic Party I would describe as basically just like if you took 200 Candace Owens and told them to go campaign.
They're going to just spread around like nasty little NPC and go into each campaign district and just say whatever needs to be said to get the votes.
Conservatives, unfortunately, keep fighting.
Like Thomas Massey is fighting with the Republicans and the Epstein stuff and they're always going at each other.
The Democrats, to a certain degree, sometimes do this with circular firing squads, but they largely march in lockstep.
Because America is irredeemably bad because of our history, is what roughly they would say.
They would say that we were founded by white supremacist slave owners, and there's no way to reform a broken system like this.
Our police department is irredeemably racist.
Therefore, we need to completely abolish.
There is no reforming.
Same with our DHS and ICE and Border Patrol and stuff like that.
That's what they would argue.
So it's complete abolishment.
And then what would replace it?
Probably some People's Republic of retards and some socialists think that they could scramble together.
That is the ideology, though.
It truly is that we are irredeemably white supremacists and founded.
Not only that, the Bill of Rights is not humanistic or maybe you'd want to call them Christian principles, but like beyond that, that they are fundamentally white supremacists.
If you actually talk to any prominent organizer on the left, I don't mean prominent, they're famous, they will outright tell you they don't think it's white supremacy, but it's a vehicle by which stupid people react.
Yeah, and that's because postmodernism has taken over the left and it's all about power.
So, you know, ever since the 60s and with like Foucault and stuff, like they, the fall of the Soviet Union was a big deal, right?
So it used to be that vulgar Marxism was going to be, which is like economic Marxism, the classes, money class, the property owners versus the bourgeoisie, the working people.
I'm sorry, yeah, work versus the working people.
And then when the Soviet Union proved that it didn't, you know, that it didn't work and capitalism kind of made it clear that even the workers could have a good life.
Then you had people like Herbert Marcuse saying, oh, hey, look, this is all false consciousness.
You believe that you're free.
You believe that you have a good life, but you don't really.
And so what they did is they said, well, we have to find a new place to find the revolutionary energy.
And that's when they went into the race communism.
So they said, basically, it turned into racial stuff.
Even in my liberal college classes when we did American history, they made us watch this video of an interview from probably the 60s or 70s with one of the last living slaves who was still, you know, around.
And the South, it was around 3% of people who owned slaves.
So the Civil War, yeah, 3%, because it was wealthy.
It was like big companies.
You know what I mean?
Like, how many people own an Amazon warehouse or like a distribution warehouse?
It's like not that many relatively.
So how many people need 100 workers working for cheap?
The other thing is they never really asked themselves these questions of like, how did slaves buy their own freedom?
Because the origin of slavery was that there was an indentured servant to a black man who could not pay off the debt no matter how much like a lifetime of work would not pay off the money owed.
So a court ruled he would remain indentured for life, which created de facto slavery.
And then, of course, certainly people were bought and sold.
All of that was miserably bad, but it was much more complex than you'll get from the average left.
So there were circumstances.
So then the question is, question I asked a long time ago: hey, how did people buy their own slavery?
It doesn't make sense.
You're a slave.
Oh, well, they were allowed to make money.
Okay, so how did it work?
Slaves answered to the slave owner, and the slave owner just defined the parameters by which the slave could do things.
That is, there were many slaves where the slave owner would be like, I need you to be a shoemaker, right?
We're going to make 10 pairs of shoes.
And then the slave would be like, well, what if I do 12?
And he goes, if you do 12, I'll give you some money.
After the work you are supposed to do, if you're going to do more, we'll pay you.
I will say this also isn't unique to the United States.
Many other countries have slaves.
And some countries around the world still have literal slavery.
A lot of Middle Eastern countries and North African countries are heavily involved in slavery.
And then there's the de facto slavery and things like happening in the country of like Qatar, where it's like literally slave labor where these people have their passports and whatnot taken away from them.
So to go back to your original question, though, is what was the left or liberals' goal in the United States?
And for the left, I do think it genuinely is to weaken the United States from inside because they believe that many of our enemies are righteous.
So I do think leftists and communists in our country do believe that, you know, the CCP is righteous, that they do think China is good.
And they look to them as a model of something that is good and just in the world.
And then they look at us as evil and such.
And a lot of their rhetoric actually comes from the CCP.
So what you end up with is economic instability in Europe.
And then you get authoritarian traditionalists, fascists and Nazis.
they're distinct from each other but similar and the communists which are internationalist uh uh progressives that want to erase the the difference you know people like you're a fascist you're a communist They're both authoritarian governmental structures where an authority tells you what you can or cannot do.
So when it comes to the Nazis and the fascists, functionally, economically, I'd argue we're splitting hairs.
They're both authoritarian, but the communists want to erase your history and they believe everyone's a blank slate who should be wearing a great jumpsuit.
The Nazis are my nation and my people are the best and we should preserve our history and traditions.
One of the principal arguments was it's the lucrative merger of corporation and state.
And one of the reasons people conflate the Italian fascists with the German Nazis was that while you'll hear a lot of people say that the Nazis were socialists, it's the National Socialist Party, the left will argue they weren't actually socialists because it wasn't a command economy the way they want communists to be.
But the structure of the German economy when the Nazis took over was, I would describe it the way our economy functioned from 2018 until like 2022, which is if you don't adhere to the cultural mandates, we will end your company.
So that's why you end up with people bending the knee.
Everybody's scared to speak up.
They fired an executive from Netflix for explaining racial slurs.
So you had this, the culture was, but aren't you against racism?
During Nazi Germany was, you're not going to produce steel for the war effort?
What are you doing?
And you'd be canceled.
So the difference with the communists, they would be like, here's your book.
Here's what you're entitled to.
And then it's like, the state's doing it.
The fascists were like, why won't you do what we demand of you?
And then you'd have all these social pressures, which I think is to a degree scarier in some ways.
Like the fascists and the Nazis are very, very similar in the general description, the fascists being the merger of corporation and state, where the state would basically go to the corporation and be like, you're going to do what we want you to do.
The Nazis basically did the same thing.
The argument, however, was that it was cultural enforcement.
You don't want to be.
There's that famous picture where everyone's doing the Nazi salute and the one guy's like this.
And it was like, you don't want to be that guy.
You are going to march with everybody in lockstep or else you will not work in this place.
So basically, what happens with the Korean War is China was with the North and the U.S. with the South, and they went back and forth and then formed this line, the DMZ.
And China's attitude is like, we do not want the United States on our doorstep.
And for the United States, we want to stop the spread of communism.
Which, you know, it really is interesting.
And I know a lot agrees with this.
When I grew up hearing about the Vietnam War and all this stuff, it's painted in modern history as like this terrible unjust thing that never should have happened.
And while I do largely agree it was a mismanaged, botched thing, we used a false flag to enter it.
I then go back and think, but isn't it good to stop the spread of communism if the United States was facing a imagine what would have happened if the U.S. did not win the Cold War?
We'd be surrounded on all fronts by a unipolar communist Soviet force of people that are half-starved and they're trying to steal our stuff like a zombified planet.
Well, I mean, to be honest, communism still exists in some form, but what China is is some kind of like I don't think it's fair to call China communism.
Oh, they definitely think of themselves as the idea is that the Chinese Communist Party said we need to allow certain forms of economics, but we need to maintain absolute authority.
So they'll let people file to open a business and try it out.
But if you get to a certain size, the Chinese Communist Party gets an office in your building to make sure you're operating under their purview.
The issue that I think many people on the right in this country have with China is the function of their ideology.
Let me clarify that.
The ideology they have, not the function of their governance.
Meaning, if you had a United States that operated similarly under a Christian nationalist structure, many Americans on the right would completely agree with it.
If the argument was run your business, do what you want.
When you get to a certain size, you're going to have an ideological minder, but it's to the betterment of the Christian ideals.
Many people on the right would be like, yeah, I'm okay with it.
Yeah, and that sounds exactly like China, but the point is, if you replace the ideology of China with Christianity, a lot of Christians would be in favor of it.
And the West argues they're people being oppressed.
The stories that we get are horrifying.
If you were, my point is, if the ideology of China was purely Christian and it was like a Christian nationalist country and the perspective of the people was we have arrested Muslim criminals.
Like, again, I'm clarifying from what the West is saying about what they're doing versus what they say they're doing.
My point is, if in the United States we had a Christian nationalist government and many extremist Muslims were arrested and put into prisons, people on the right would be like, yes, absolutely.
No, in the case of the Dalai Lama, this is declassified, but also this was a relationship going all the way back to the Nazis, right?
He was actually, when it looked like the Nazis might win, there were those famous meetings with the Dalai Lama and the SS because they were trying to curry favor with him, establish a relationship because the Nazis also were concerned with that geostrategic location.
Like you're talking about earlier with Cuba, Cuba relationship to the United States, Taiwan with China.
Well, Tibet as well, right?
Because it's kind of like Ukraine.
If you can break Ukraine off, that's a, which Hitler wanted to do that too.
He wanted Ukraine.
That's a buffer against Russia.
So a lot of it's just geostrategy.
I'm not pro-CCP.
I'm just saying that I think that's the geopolitics.
The last time there was something like this was like 1800s Russia, where you had a symphony, a relationship of the Byzantine two-headed eagle is the model.
I'm just curious on if the end result was you had government that would go in, they'd say prayer, they would have discussions with religious leaders on does it make sense to implement a certain law?
My argument is the function of Christianity is superior to everything else we have seen throughout history, and that the United States would benefit from actually having Christianity in its government as it did historically until we started to pull it out.
Liberals don't know history.
And, You know, so one thing that I've talked about quite a bit, you know, I grew up Catholic and ultimately just left the church and then became like an angsty teenage atheist, but then kind of realized I was wrong.
And I remember reading about Blackstone's formulation, which is it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
And I thought, man, what a beautiful thing, right?
And then Benjamin Franklin said it's actually better that 100 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
And I said, yeah, but why?
I mean, like, if you've got a rapist running around and you're like, we're going to have 10 rapists running around just so that one, don't aren't there sacrifices.
So I decided to read into it and like, why did Blackstone say this?
The Bible.
It's rooted in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
If there's but one righteous man, I will not destroy this city.
And the legal framework by which the U.S. operates for its innocent until proven guilty is quite literally from the Bible.
And I believe it is logically and mathematically correct.
And this is my argument about my worldview on private rights: that we can actually mathematically map out why Christianity is correct.
And that is the founding fathers argued: if you take the religion out of it, you can go very simple and say, this is what God wills of us.
It is better that, you know, if there's but one righteous man, we do not condemn, right?
However, how does that translate to a functioning society?
The founding fathers said, if you tell a man, regardless of his innocence, we will punish you just in case, you have created an incentive for a man to be derelict.
You will tell the person, why bother being righteous and moral if we're going to harm you no matter what you do.
In fact, the incentive then is if I'm going to be imprisoned unjustly, I might as well try and get what I can while I'm at it.
So they ultimately logically came together and said, then in fact, it quite does make sense that we should tell the people, even if a guilty person escapes, we are going to make sure the innocent, the burden will be on the government.
And I believe that is the righteous thing and the just thing.
It also completely adheres to the Bible and the perspective on, you know, it was Sodom and Gomorrah, but it also makes complete sense when we watch how humans are.
And when you take a look at what the left is doing, releasing criminals intentionally, it is, I believe, anarcho-tyranny.
They want to create violence and instability.
But it also, I believe, is an attempt.
I believe largely what the left is doing is trying to destroy Christianity.
It is what these communists have argued for quite a bit.
And I think a lot of what they do, and maybe not as directly, but it's a way to say, see, your ethos doesn't work.
We let these guilty people escape and crime has been miserable and everyone's upset.
Maybe we shouldn't adhere to this.
And you'll end up with an Otto von Bismarck where he said, it is better that 10 innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape.
And what do you get with that?
You get oppression, authoritarianism, command economies that ultimately collapse and everyone's pissed off.
Anyway, anyway, we're going to have that uncensored portion of the show over at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL, where we have a special treat for you that certainly can only be played on the uncensored show, and you will laugh.
But you got to go to rumble.com slash Timcast IRL at 10 p.m. to watch it.
In the meantime, we're going to see what y'all have to say.
All right, Jacob Hawley says, from what I understand until the investigation is over, is that they were potentially drug traffickers trying to smuggle drugs in Caribbean.
That is still unverified, but that's from the Cuban embassy.
There's a bunch of, so left and right is the challenge with a lot of these ideologies, how you define them in different contexts.
For a while in the 2000s, many people defined left as lacking authority and right as more authority.
But that doesn't necessarily, because that goes more to like the French Revolution vision of it.
But it didn't make sense because then people started to define capitalistic economics as right-wing and socialist as left-wing, which created two distinct and then a third left-right acts emerged of culture where the right is traditionalist and the left is progressive.
So you actually have a bunch of different left-right paradigms that that's why we have to try and figure out what that means.
The funny thing is, actually, there's one leftist paradigm and then three different right-wing branches.
It's basically the same water that we get, we drink out here.
And it's pure, filtered, delicious with all the good stuff in it.
And we made it as a gag because I was beefing with Liquid Death over the plastic contents of their cans, for which Liquid Death has plastic in their cans.
Shador says, Tim, you got to have a tiki history on culture war to explain the proper differences of socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism.
Sure, but I would also say everybody argues even academics.
I think I've read like four different academic papers on the definition of fascism, for which one of the most common is the lucrative merger of corporation and state.
Then you'll get others that argue, well, you know, technically, you'll get some people saying the Nazis were socialist, as self-described.
And then you'll get other academics being like, well, actually.
So, I mean, that's well, that's the communists said the ultimate goal of socialism is communism.
But I would say that if you're trying to make a distinction between the two, a simple way is that socialism defines the economic system and communism is the political infrastructure of it.
And now his great-grandson is a representative from New York City who impeached the president the first time around, was the lead lawyer impeaching Dan Goldman, Representative Dan Goldman.
That what we think of when the left and the right both say, like the right says the left is trampling the Constitution, the left says the right's trampling the Constitution.
What they're literally describing is a Constitution is shout out to Wait Stotz.
What constitutes the people and the right view their constituency, what constitutes the Constitutional Republicanists, and the left views what constitutes the multicultural Democrats, both are completely meaningless to what the Founding Fathers intended.
The Founding Fathers, blasphemy was illegal.
You could not go out and besmirch the good name of Jesus Christ.
Today, the argument from both sides is that it's allowed.
If in 1706, 1790, if you walked into the heart of New York and started holding up a sign saying Jesus, well, that's a little vague, but literally saying like, like insults, insulting Jesus, they would arrest you under obscenity and blasphemy law.
What's fascinating to me is the Christian response to people blaspheming Jesus, which is to say almost none at all of the Christians who I'm around who see Jesus being blasphemed, they don't seem to care much or are just very tolerant of people doing it as opposed to it.
And in order to run for office, you had to swear a faith in a Christian God.
And it started to change around the time of the revolution.
Maryland was one of the only states, it was like, I think Maryland, Connecticut, where you didn't have to say Protestant, but many of the states required you to be a Protestant.
Maryland, because of a high density of Catholics, said just Christian.
And because of Thomas Jefferson, largely, Virginia said, just say God.
But now today, you'll hear these liberals say, we have a separation of church and state.
We never required a belief in God.
And it's like, no, actually, all of the colonial charters required it.
The problem with it is that the mistake made by the, it's not necessarily even the founding fathers, because separation of church and state is not the constitution.
It was largely born of like the First Amendment, the right to practice religion, your own religion.
The problem is the assumption of 5 million people who are 99% Christian was our moral worldview is already absolute.
We don't need to make the government start telling Christians and Protestants because we don't need to deal with that.
What ends up happening then is the moral worldview erodes and starts incorporating degeneracy and very bad things that are detrimental to our country.
And we have this enshrined now that you cannot have your ideology in your law, which to be honest, look, there's a lot of bad laws that we got rid of, but there's a lot of really bad things we've adopted.
And I do believe that even like if you go back to the 50s, largely we were still like a 90-some-odd percent Christian nation.
People were still going to church.
And the moral worldview was still culturally enforced.
Since we've had an expansion of multiculturalism, immigration, and what we would describe as heritage Americans, I guess, like long-standing American families have stopped reproducing.
You have an erosion of your moral worldview.
So now you are getting rampant degeneracy across the country.
I have no problem with Christianity in government so long as constitutional rights are protected.
That would be, you can't give a blowjob in the streets of San Francisco.
I think there's a lot of connotation comes along with Christian nation that I am not suggesting mandated churches or that people will be forced to buy Bibles.
I'm saying that Blackstone's formulation, the foundation of like the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments is understood and taught to our children.
They understand their heritage.
They're explained to, here's why we do it.
The founding fathers didn't simply say, you know what?
Christianity is absolute.
Therefore, we don't got to think about it.
No, they actually debated it and said, you know, I thought about it.
I don't think divine mandate describes in and of itself.
Like, there is a logic to why it actually is true.
It's not just that we have to bow down to this idea.
We can actually understand it and provide to the people: here's why it works.
And they did.
They wrote that, again, the point was: a society that tells an innocent man, regardless of your virtue, you will be punished, incentivizes a man to do whatever they can, regardless of honor, because they will be punished.
But a society that says even the guilty will get their chance tells a man of virtue, do your best, and we will protect you.
It creates an incentive for people to try and be good, trustworthy, and honorable, which, of course, a high trust society is a successful society.
So the Founding Fathers are literally basically like, Hey, you know, I know it says it, but when you think about it, it's true.
And so that's the basis by which I think if we were more informed of the roots of our ideology and laws and why they work, we would be much better off today.
And you could still have, like, we don't torture people, like, we do away with these things.
We have civil rights for people of different race.
You can have interracial marriage and all of that stuff.
These things are not restricted under a Christian worldview.
You believe I'm sold you so long for salute if you can't keep the pace without the text that the tweet says, We've crossed over into something, but I don't know what it is.
Later, Jeffrey is on the iron with Mrs. Gisley Maxwell.
Blue Clinton as well.
And the gates in Trump and Eel on the stand of steam.
Prince Andy, and says he, did he likes them on the younger side, there's no doubt.
Now try to ask yourself why.
Minos, private chefs and the like would email each other 50,000 times about Jesus, All paid for with taxpayer funds.
The sweatiest hands in all England.
One handshake and then you will be drenched from your head down until your toes exceed.
So it is headlined.
and kids to me scream but the royals can do what they want for the rest of you are we blunt come just not lucky as long as we're not getting here he's got 72 stops teddy bears seriously just he's got lawyers and sir the man up to him surely will end up like virginia
he's actually a good tool daughter's a sight to be known, And the devil is why he's decided to stop by.
He'll take her off your hand straight to the island.
They'll be her to amend and bury her in the sand, never to be seen or heard again.
The leading conspiracy theory right now is that uh, Les Wexner hired Epstein to be his criminal fixer and uh, I don't know if that's true, but uh, is Lex Wesler Mossad?
No uh, maybe that's because Ghilain Maxwell's dad was like uh Very, he wasn't overtly known to be like an agent, but he was treated like one when he died.
And so uh I I, I think it's fair to say uh, one of the theories, the first theories, was that he was, he would get dirt on powerful people to leverage against them for intelligence agencies.
However, right now many people are arguing, powerful people want to do illegal things and Jeffrey Epster was their guy.
So they, they basically bring this high school teacher Epstein, and say, you're gonna live like a king of an island and when we want something done, you you're the guy who gets it done and then all the bad stuff falls on you.
If it happens and Epstein's like wow, I get to be worth 500 million dollars, all I gotta do is evil shit.
And they go that way.
If you're the fall guy, the fall guy.
So why was Epstein acquiring these young girls?
Powerful men wanted wanted to bang young girls in a place where they're not gonna get caught.
So when we learned that, you know, Bill Gates, he admitted that he had that affair with those two Russian women.
So that corroborates what Epstein was saying in that email.
Epstein was like, Bill Gates got an STD and accidentally gave it to his wife.
Then he needed antibiotics to secretly give to his wife to cure her of the disease he gave her.
Holy shit.
So this is part of the theory that Epstein's existence was Bill Gates would go to him and say, I need antibiotics that no one can know about and a way to secretly give it to my wife.
So like the issue with the way divorce used to work was you can't just leave and a court could order you to therapy and like because it was like, hey, you can't, you know.
And the idea was the reason why the wife would get half your stuff in alimony is because she's not working to generate revenue.
The man is income.
But now if they, if they're divorced for a legitimate reason, the man is responsible.
Divorce requires something.
It required fault.
So the woman would be like, my husband is abusive.
Here's proof.
They'd say, okay, well, then you're free to go.
Like, this is wrong.
And now you got to pay your shit.
Or she'd be like, he cheated on me.
He's unfaithful.
Now it's just literally like a woman can be like irreconcilable.
And so it used to be you lived in a town of 300 people, you went to school, and then as you got older, like even in the 50s, you were dating the girl from your school, your high school square, you got married.
Today, the problem is, yeah, some dude from New York met this wacky from California who loves surfing, and he's a finance bro, but she's really hot and he has fun with her and he's like, this is amazing.
If someone said, we're like, if I don't know, so when we got there, I was like, I think I'd rather just snowboard because I want to just strap on and just go.
And I was like, yeah, but the problem is if I'm snowboarding, it's going to be a task.
So my modest proposal for tonight to deal with the growing communism problem is to give them exactly what they want, but a twisted way.
Bring back McCarthyism on steroids, proceed to put them into labor camps consistently, and if they do not work, have escalating punishment that ultimately results in capital punishment.
Now, there will likely be many who do not wish to work, and therefore we will likely need an area such as a wall to deal with that.
Hey, I say, like, let's take a big, like 10,000-acre swath and call it Commutown and tell all the communists, this is yours to be a communist nation, special economic zone.
First, he ruled with an iron fist, and that killed a lot of people, and he had to persecute a lot of people to secure his place as the leader and the dictator.
But then unfortunately, communism leads to a lot of famine and ends up killing a ton of people.
And then he also famously used this as a weapon of war against the Ukrainians.
Really, Stalin did in the Holden War by not giving them food, right?