Trump Official Who Resigned, Joe Kent, Under FBI Investigation For LEAKING | Timcast IRL
Joe Kent, the former Trump official under FBI investigation for leaking classified information, anchors a chaotic episode dissecting the "trial tax" that coerces guilty pleas and the fragmentation of the right versus left-wing unity. The hosts debate Section 230's potential repeal, which could force platforms like YouTube into editorial roles, while analyzing New York City's alleged wealth exodus and progressive taxation incentives. They explore land value taxes, AI-generated pornography, and the psychological detachment of high-IQ individuals, concluding that stakeholder capitalism intentionally fosters conflict to prevent populist uprisings while corporations control the narrative. [Automatically generated summary]
Joe Kent, the Trump official who resigned, it is now being revealed he has been under FBI investigation predating his resignation for leaking classified information.
Of course, this is particularly interesting considering the narrative that we heard during, just after his resignation, was that he had been removed from intelligence briefings and was uninvolved in the goings-on with this war.
There were rumors that his resignation was largely due to a professional dispute, notably that he had been slighted by the administration.
He was ousted, and thus he's going to resign and say this is the reason.
However, the anti-interventionists are saying it's a principled response to a war of aggression.
Well, based on this new information that he's been under investigation predating his resignation, assuming that's true, I think it says a lot more to what is currently going on.
And there are questions about whether or not he was the one who was leaking these group texts.
So we're going to have to get into all of this.
And you know, we originally were going to lead with, I think, something a bit more interesting in the domestic area, and that is the progressive Democrats in Illinois got blown out completely.
And the corporate press is celebrating.
Washington Post saying that the people of Illinois are not prepared to walk off the cliff just yet.
So it looks like perhaps woke is broke, or at least the online version of it.
So we'll talk about that.
Plus, there's a lot more information.
We got a story about AfroMan that's apparently very, very funny.
We'll get into all that.
But before we do, my friends, we've got a great sponsor.
It is True Gold Republic.
My friends, having sound money and financial independence is important.
Hard assets are extremely important.
That's why you should check out True Gold Republic.
Look at the world right now.
Active wars, NATO under pressure, the dollar being weaponized, $36 trillion in debt.
We printed so much money since 2020.
Your savings are worth less every single year by design.
Gold can't be printed.
It can't be sanctioned.
It can't be devalued by a press release.
Central banks are buying it at record levels right now.
The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print.
That tells you everything.
Insert True Gold Republic, real physical gold and silver, not paper, not ETFs, metal you can hold.
Check out their independence bundle, a physical gold starter kit, a one-on-one with experts, and a bonus precious metals on top.
The chaos isn't coming.
It is here.
Go to truegoldrepublic.com slash Tim and claim your independence bundle or call 1-800-628-GOLD, truegoldrepublic.com slash Tim.
Do it.
Don't forget to also go to Timcast.com and join the Discord where tens of thousands of people are hanging out.
They're building something.
Community is our strength.
The most, you know what they say?
They say it's not what you know, it's who you know.
If you don't have a powerful network, you're going to have a harder time getting things done.
So if you want to start a project or help someone else with the project or find a group of people where you can build things together, the Timcast Discord is the place to do it.
And as a member, you're supporting the work we do here.
Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent is under FBI investigation for allegedly leaking classified information.
Sources tell Semaphore adding the probe began before his departure.
So let me just start by saying I've got my ear to the ground.
As many of you know, we have friends who have been on the show and are now in the administration.
So friends in the administration as well as members of Congress and their staff.
And I've been hearing some rumblings in the Beltway.
The rumors that I heard from people that are much more loyal to Trump is that Joe Kent was leaking classified information, at least that's the allegation, and was ousted from these meetings.
So they basically booted him out and said, this guy's no good.
They think he's the leaker.
He felt, at least this is, again, the perception, slighted personally and professionally, and that from the view, again, this is all just rumors.
They don't think that Joe Kent is truly motivated by the issue of Israel or Iran, and that it's more personal, and that he's using this as a means to slight professionally an administration that he felt had wronged him.
Considering we've got past comments and tweets from Joe Kent about the severity of the threat from Iran, I think this is why many people believe this may be the case.
That being said, he appeared on Tucker Carlson recently and talked about what he thought was the real issue, and that was that Israel had pressured us into this war, and that he was not in favor of that.
It's what he wrote in his resignation letter.
He's being hailed as a principled man who stood up for what is right, pushing back on the Israel lobby.
So I'm not entirely sure what is going on, but what I can say is this reporting is that he's been under investigation before he actually resigned.
So that lends itself to the he was, he's presumed to be the leaker.
Again, we don't know that he is, but I think you were mentioning, you looked it up, he was involved in those leaked group texts.
Are you under the belief that the Trump administration is creating an FBI investigation right now that they're going to create documents with past dated?
If the argument is that he was under FBI investigation, resigned, so then someone in the FBI contacted a journalist in Semaphore and said, look, he's been under investigation.
It could be a couple of, it could be very simple.
No one asked because he was otherwise unremarkable.
So a journalist from Semaphore makes a call to the contacts that she has in the FBI and the DOJ and says, I mean, honestly, here's what I think happened.
The dude resigns and says it's over Israel.
Immediately we heard from the Trump administration, like Carolyn Levitt, people were putting out like, well, he was, you know, presumed to be a leaker anyway.
He was being investigated.
Then this journalist contacts people she knows in the DOJ and says, is there an act of investigation into Joe Kent?
They then say, yeah, it's, you know, from a year ago.
And then she goes, wow.
Then she reports it.
That's how the information gets out.
No one thought to look or ask because, again, he was otherwise unremarkable.
I don't mean that as an insult.
I'm saying he was not high profile in the press.
He wasn't going to big meetings and blasting out information.
He was quietly doing his job, or I guess according to the Trump administration, not doing his job.
So this, in my opinion, based on the rumors that I've heard from DC, lends itself to let me do this.
Let me show you this tweet that Jamie Mitchell says, fascinating stuff, Joe, and it's a post from Joe Kent in January of 2020.
The war with Iran talk is very black and white in a gray world.
Iran has been at war with us in 79.
The killing of Qassam Soleimania, QS, is the first decisive act we have taken against the Iranian terror since the 80s.
And that's not the only post he has which indicates that there was perceived to be a threat or a conflict from Iran.
He also made a post about how Iran was trying to kill Donald Trump and it's intolerable.
So many people are viewing this as a flipping of his opinions on the issue.
The first thing I'll say is, perhaps.
The next thing I'll say is, well, you know, people are allowed to change their opinions.
But I'll say it again.
Considering there was an FBI investigation into him predating his resignation and the rumors that I'm hearing from the Beltway is he was doing his job.
He was excited to be a part of the administration.
They booted him out.
They started like, basically, he was not getting the exit he wanted.
So he felt personally slighted.
Either whatever the issue is started leaking or something, got iced out from these meetings, and they decided to resign because he was basically in golden handcuffs.
You know, I think a lot of people who have worked in offices, either in a managerial level or in a non-managerial level, have talked with somebody who is upset with their place of work and then wants to lash out, either justified or not.
Again, I'm not saying it's true because I don't know.
I'm just saying what I hear from those that are loyal to Trump, and of course you can argue they're biased, is that this guy, for whatever reason, was no good.
So they weren't including him.
He got pissed off because he thought that he should be in these meetings.
And so he was having a tantrum and then resigned and said, yeah, well, you know, Israel made you do it, despite the fact he's been talking about Iran being in conflict with us for a long time.
I suppose the other argument is he came to his senses, was granted access to information where he realized Iran is not a threat to the United States, that Israel is forcing our hand, and then in a truly dignified and righteous stance, stood up and said, I will not be party to this administration.
I'm just going to add the reason why I don't think that's likely is because they already booted him.
So for him to be like, I'm resigning, it's like, yeah, they already kicked you out of the meetings.
So the questions I would have is: okay, well, when the Jeffrey Goldberg stuff happens, I would hope that almost everyone in that signal chat is under investigation because they should look at all the people involved and go, who here is responsible for this leak, right?
So one of the questions I would have is: if he's involved in this investigation, how many other people are also listed as people in the investigation?
And did they experience the same icing that he did?
Right.
I don't know.
Right.
What could have happened is that he sees MAGA as a sinking ship.
He wants to detach himself from it publicly and politically and saw the Iran war, which is very unpopular, right?
As an opportunity to jump ship.
He understands that the midterms are looking rough.
He knows that Trump his legacy is going to end eventually.
And this was the easiest route out.
And he took it.
And then when the FBI saw that, they're now just dropping information that bespurches him, right?
And this is what I'm saying.
When it comes to breaking news, it could be both of these things.
I think that there is a sect of right-wing personalities that think they think Trump is cooked.
And so they're shifting away from him.
I think a lot of this has to do with what I would refer to as a mass form.
Here we go again.
Mass formation psychosis around Israel.
And I know, I just, I'm so sick of talking about it, but Joe Kent's resignation has to do with Israel.
An overemphasis on Israel in foreign policy, overlooking like that Joe Biden was involved in the Barisma scandal.
All of a sudden, it's Israel and the people just ignore this.
Or the cutter-turkey pipeline, which I talk about ad nauseum.
And all of the past 20 years of foreign policy we've discussed on the show, you have prominent personalities there building a massive base by creating a singular enemy by demagoguing and saying Israel's done everything.
So it could be as simple as, and I don't want to say this is exactly what you're saying, but you can clarify after I finish my point, if this is correct.
But my view is that it is a strong possibility.
Joe Kent getting booted from his meetings.
He's reading the room and he's like, look, Candace Owens is getting gangbusters views.
Megan, Kelly, Tucker, Carlson, MAGA is not.
Ben Shapiro is not.
Ben Shapiro's views, they're not bad, but they're way down.
And Candace Owens is through the roof.
So he's going, which side am I going to go on?
I'm going to go on the side that hates Israel.
That's where the people are at.
I think that there's a decent probability there because of what we have seen with the likes of Megan Kelly, Candace, Tucker, Carlson, Jimmy Dore, and many.
Well, to be fair, Jimmy is not a conservative, but many people on the right have just dramatically shifted from being anti-woke to anti-Israel.
And I have no idea why.
I mean, just people started doing it.
Make up any reason you want.
Maybe it's just that it's a very compelling argument, I suppose.
I think it is wrong.
But they've all started doing it.
And I will say this, there's a lot of money in it.
So, hey, look, if we wanted money, if we wanted to get, you know, 120,000 current viewers, just like old Candace Owens did, we can sit here and rag on Israel.
But I don't think that's correct information, unfortunately.
I think it's very interesting looking at what's happening to the right because I think the left experienced this type of same kind of populist wave takeover and then the problems that fall out as a ramification of kind of that unholy union, right?
So on the right, we've got this populist alt-right, which Joe Kent was somewhat attached to before because when he was getting confirmed, right, that was the Democrats' biggest issue with him is claiming this guy's altruist.
He's got Greiper connections.
He's a Fuentes type.
And so him now continuing in that trajectory as we see this right populist, America-first isolationist kind of zeitgeist getting more popular isn't overly surprising to me.
And I think part of the problem is that MAGA really shook hands with these populist further right people and were like, we're the same guys.
Even though I was like, neocons are not the same as Nick Funtes.
But the current trend that we're seeing with like Candace Megan Kelly and what I refer to as like the Israel posters, like Jimmy Doerr is a good example of this.
He's not a nationalist, America First guy, but he's posting all about Erica Kirk and Israel quite a bit.
There are many leftists who are on the same page.
Anna Kasperian of the Young Turks talks about how she watches Candace Noins now.
She loves her show.
This is a progressive, and it's like they've unified around the issue of Israel specifically.
So certainly the neocons, MAGA was very different two or three years ago.
It was very different.
And so there is a distinction between the America First and the anti-Israel America first.
There are people who, I would argue as a predominantly disfected liberal or libertarian, that don't want to fund Israel, but Israel isn't their boogeyman for every single issue.
They're more concerned with border security and the U.S. economy and not spending money on Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, whatever country it may be.
But then there's a group of people that are just like, nothing matters but Israel.
And we've had them on this show and like you could ask them about like, there is a raw bar that sells oysters and then they'll immediately somehow turn it into Israel.
And then they'll say, have you ever been to the Mediterranean?
And I'm like, why did you bring this up?
We were talking about oysters.
I'd be like, well, because when I was in Israel and then you're just flipping the table over, like, what does that have to do with anything?
So I have a lot of conspiracy theories, I suppose, or theories on this.
One I would say is that it's potentially just an emergent phenomenon without the constraints of, well, I would say not with constraints because the progressives don't like Israel either.
But you are seeing on X, people will get thousands of retweets when they just blame the Jews for something.
And I think this has to do with the foreigners that are operating bot accounts that we know they are.
There are a lot of anti-Israel countries in this world.
There's a lot of Muslim nations in this world that don't like Israel.
And they can click retweet.
And then if you're an American influencer and you make a post and you get 10,000 retweets, you're going to do it again because these people are just like, wow, this must be what people like.
Well, I'll tell you what I think.
I think I'm going to tell you what I think is true based on the facts and not based on what is going to get the most views.
And sometimes that means we won't get that many views, but at least we'll be more likely to be correct.
I'm curious, though, you know, I know you may just be a former actor guy, but following all of this stuff and seeing this shift and what people refer to as the mega civil war, whatever, like, what is your take on all this?
Well, I think that, well, firstly, talk about Joe Kent, right?
I think what is disappointing for me about that is that he was held in such high regard by so many people and so many people that I know that served with him.
And that's been very disappointing to me that when you resign, you have to burn the bridges.
Like, can't you just resign like the way it used to be and just go off and say, thank you very much.
I'm done.
I'm moving on.
I think exactly what you said as well, that it would make sense that if the FBI was investigating him earlier on, that maybe it got to a point where it was a problem for national security.
So we couldn't be in those meetings just by necessity if he's being investigated.
So it makes sense to me that he was being investigated before.
As far as the groups are concerned, I feel that, and we spoke about this earlier on, that the left has been trying to balkanize us for a long time.
And we've kind of resisted it to a degree.
And over the past few months, I'd say, it really has been moving into those directions.
like people feel like they have to have a take.
You know, they have to, you either you hate Israel or you love Israel.
You can't like say, well, as you just said, well, listen, I don't want to fund them.
But I see, I can look here and see that Americas and Israels have similar goals in this, so they join for this.
Nobody makes the argument about Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf or all these other Arab countries coming together.
You never see someone saying, well, you're doing Saudi Arabia's bidding ever.
I think it's always, this is like one of the worst things about evil or wrongdoing is that so often it's banal in its purposes.
Like, why does Google maybe allow certain algorithms to be overtaken, probably by Russian and Chinese bots that are trying to sell like dissidents amongst our democracy?
Because it makes the money.
They can sell it to advertisers.
As long as they have sufficient plausible deniability, they can get away with it because there isn't really great rules about the internet because it's kind of the wild west.
It doesn't always have to be this like string puppeteer at the top.
Oftentimes it's really simple machinations of like wanting money and having enough plausible deniability to get away with it, right?
Like every con man's line is, if I wasn't conning people, somebody else would be, right?
The crazy thing about it is when I ask people, you know, if, you know, why is Candace Owens on the front page of YouTube?
When you open a new account, why is she a recommended personality?
Certainly, right, she has broken many of the rules and she's being sued for a lot of these things.
There's specific rules against brigading and targeting personalities or making accusations and things like that that people have gotten strikes for.
Other people have gotten their channels outright deleted without warning for doing less than she's done.
And when I bring this up to people, they say it's because the Jews want it to happen.
Now, I'm not kidding.
They say they want to be hated to bring on the Messianic era, which I suppose the argument then is the Jews are propping up Candace Owens for the purpose of fulfilling their whims, which means Candace Owens' anti-Israel content and Candace Owens herself are a function of Israel's desires.
Like none of it makes sense.
But you know what?
Maybe the real point is just to make sure none of it makes sense.
And my view of what's currently going on based on the conversations I've had, and I know I've said this 800,000 times for the sake of the guests here, the big networks, you know, CBS, HBO, whatever, NBC, they are looking to buy up prominent shows.
And the path, like where we are going is YouTube is being dominated by AI-generated slop content.
There's more and more videos videos popping up explaining how to make slop content, interviews in prominent news outlets with people who do it saying in two hours, you can make 500 videos per day and make 100,000 per month.
And so what that's going to do is just massively flood the zone.
Independent channels without the ability to be on top of the mountain of the broadcast tower will get drowned out.
They will not be able to make a living doing these things and they will be relegated to small back corners of the internet.
Then the networks are going to buy out the shows they view to be compelling, put them on their apps, and then you're going to have 10 big shows in politics and it's going to go back to the way things used to be where you had CNN with 10 million views per night and no one watched anything but Anderson Cooper or,
you know, at the time you still had Hannity and Rachel Maddow centralizing all views within a small handful of people where they may disagree on certain issues, but they all agree on basically the most important things, which is largely war.
No, I think what we've seen with many of these YouTubers that are willing to talk about Candace Owens, I think they've proven it to anyone with eyes.
These people never had a genuine opinion.
They were just making videos about what they thought would make them money.
And so take a look at the individuals who make video after video about Erica Kirk's pants or whatever, you know, or like the look on her face because she did an interview and they're just like, look at her face.
Like, why is her face looking like that?
And I'm like, literally nothing's happening in the video, but they know they're going to get a ton of views.
Or that guy who went to a shopping center and said, why is Turning Point paying fees to an LLC in a parking lot when he knew full well he was in front of a UPS store with mailboxes where it is presumed the LLCs were registered to.
These people just say whatever they have to say to make money.
Well, yeah, when Google bought YouTube, I was making videos on YouTube 2007 and I was like, well, here we go.
Get ready for the corporatization of communication.
And then a bunch of my friends started getting really rich doing maker studios and like all they would sit and watch the analytics and they're like, they started calling it content.
And they'd be like, yes, our product is doing well in the market of analytics.
And I'm like, oh, my God.
And like, it just became about getting the money.
It became about the views.
Not just the money, but it became heavily about the money and being the, I mean, relevancy is one thing, but the money, when Google got that money in there, it's not that, I mean, I don't think you started doing this, Tim, for money.
I think for a lot of these people, it's the viewership.
It's looking at that number.
It's like putting out a video and seeing 300,000.
And you're like, wow, I filled three stadiums.
And they get addicted to that social acceptance.
It's the same thing we see with like teenage girls on Instagram.
They post a picture of themselves.
And if they don't get enough likes, they delete it and then post a new one.
And they get depressed when their metrics go down.
One thing I've pointed out quite a bit is that you will get YouTubers, and you can look throughout history of YouTube, that will have like breakdown videos where they're crying, saying, I just can't do this anymore.
And all you got to do is look at their past several videos, and you'll almost always see like 1 million views, 900,000 views, 700,000 views, 400,000 views, mental breakdown video.
Guys, I can't do this anymore.
And it's because it's a normal human thing where they feel like I am fighting as hard as I can, but no matter what I do, I'm failing.
Instead of just making videos because they have something to talk about and they want to talk about something, they're actually feeling more and more depressed because they're not getting views anymore.
So stop chasing the algorithm and that growth for the sake of growth is cancer or can become cancerous.
Corporations, the ethos of we must expand for the, I think that's going to change too, because a corporation that just grows for the sake of growth ends up overtaking itself and strangling out its own system.
Like becomes a machine.
sustainable corporations man that their whole sole purpose is to sustain the environment and if you can live like that as a creator too it's not about you mean like a generic environment like just the system that they've built is to sustain itself Yeah, to sustain the luxury and the beauty that's provided for you to create what you're, you know.
This is why nonprofits don't work because the function of a nonprofit should be to put itself out of business.
But have a 20-year-old nonprofit with an executive director who signed on three years ago who makes $200,000 a year and he's going to be like, I don't want to lose my job.
But let's jump to this story.
We got more news.
It's from Axios.
The squad left suffers complete wipeout in Illinois.
Heavens me, all the progressives got just wiped out.
And here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
I got a question for you guys.
What do you think Axios focuses on in this article about the progressives losing in Illinois?
What do you think is the true subject and focal point of this article?
It's so frustrating, too, because I'm very critical of APAC, but I'm critical of APAC for the same reason I'm critical of almost every single super PAC and carry committee, which is that I don't like unreported money and I don't like high power special interest lobby groups having so much capacity and weight in our elections, regardless of like what they're for, right?
I don't want oil lobbyists just like funding and driving.
I'd have to see what the funding differences were because a lot of people know that when you're running elections, funding makes a huge difference of who wins because a lot of election is just getting people to see your name and face, right?
Because most voters are not that informed.
Most voters aren't on Instagram looking for Kat and liking her stuff.
And I think a lot of progressives are trying to take the Soron Mamdani, kind of Gavin Newsome social media strategy, and really trying to utilize alt media to campaign themselves.
James Talarico did it really successfully as well.
But I think one of the issues that they have to contend with is that if you have massive carry committees funding moderates and moderates will take it, because a lot of these people won't take PAC money or they'll take very limited PAC money, you just can't get your name out there, right?
The reality is that a lot of elections are won by who spends the most.
Not always.
And sometimes there are breakout elections, but the statistical norm is that.
Well, I suppose like an article like this, the progressives are going to make the arguments and they're going to rally a ton of support from conservatives that Israel interfered to stop the far left from losing.
Then I imagine with articles like that, I mean, this is Axios, right?
Axios is supposed to just be like plain old report in the news.
They do lean liberal on a lot of issues, but certainly you can criticize APAC for funding candidates, but there are many other issues in this election.
Notably, like Kat Abu Gazela, for instance, was arrested.
She was at these ICE protests.
That's going to sour her view to many individuals who live in Illinois.
She's also Palestinian, pro-Palestine, critical of Israel in the most Jewish district in the state, I believe, in Evanston.
So, again, that does play a role, but all they do is talk about APAC.
What'll be interesting is I've made the arguments, half-jokingly, that the future of the left and the right will be anti- and pro-Israel.
That you've got it's terrifying to think about.
Yeah, I think what unifies the whatever this group is, the anti-Israel right with the left, and it's the issue of Israel.
You could take Tucker Carlson and bring him on the Young Turks at this point, and they will get along perfectly.
I mean, the fact that, like, Anna Kasparian says she's a fan of Candace and watches her show, so long as the issue is Israel, these people have come together and aren't really arguing these other issues anymore.
And the reason why I say that the potential for the future of the left and right will be Israel, anti-Israel, is that you can take a look at the previous coalition for MAGA, which was disaffected liberals who were maybe like pro-progressive tax, but were now aligned with the Republican Party who was opposed to this because they were concerned about like gender dysphoria issues or critical race theory.
Well, I think you know, you mentioned something earlier going back to when you said you know you're at a stage where you didn't have views and then you had views.
And it's probably around the same time that the entertainment industry was getting more and more emboldened with the way that they wanted to influence culture.
So if you look at something like this, where you've got 12 references to APAC in there, that's really obvious.
I mean, all you've got to do is look at it and say, boom, So when you have someone else that's coming out and they're saying, hey, listen, I'm just telling you the way I think and I'm being reasonable and I'm not being swayed one way or the other by money or by bias.
I'm just telling you the way I have, the way I am, there's an element of authenticity there.
And I think that what you, what you, and I was just going back to talk about what you were saying earlier, that nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore.
Nobody trusts CNN.
Nobody trusts Fox anymore, right?
Like nobody trusts any of these people.
So I think that what is going to happen with the increasing, because they're not stopping, right?
You think that they'd be like, hey, hang on a minute.
This is a little bit too obvious.
It's a little bit too obvious, right?
Let's let's just scale it back a little bit.
They're not doing that.
So there's going to come a point because they do want to make money.
They are essentially, certainly on the news shows, they are entertainment, right?
They want to get the clicks.
So they will go back, I believe.
And I do think they'll do what you're saying.
Certainly with the way that YouTube is moving with all the crap that's on there, that it's going to end up, they're going to come in and they're going to say, okay, well, I'm going to bring these people in and try and make them mainstream and make their own news organizations through it.
And hopefully, you know, that might be a good thing in a way because you still have authenticity.
Because if you think about it, like the YouTubers that have been a success have done it themselves.
They've bootstrapped it.
Whereas if you look back at the Yur Anderson Coopers and whatever, it's the channel.
The channel was the platform, right?
The channel was already there.
It already had funding.
It had money behind it.
And so they kind of slotted into that.
And when they started parroting the BS and everyone was like, hang on a second, like what?
I'm telling y'all right now, it's already happening.
And the big networks know that like Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, this model is on the way out.
People don't trust them anymore and their views are largely pumped up, but it's not organically sustaining itself.
So Colbert can do well in terms of his videos, but it's because YouTube puts them up on the front page, default viewership, because he is Colbert, because it is, you know, NBC is CBS or NBC.
These networks have a mandate right now to purchase authentic feeling podcasts.
Fox News launched the Hennedy podcast, Hanging Out with Sean Hennedy, because they know they have to do this, otherwise they will cease to exist.
70-year-olds, you know, a big component is the viewership of these channels is in their 70s.
And that's it.
They're not getting the views in the key demo.
So what's going to happen is there's going to be a semi-decentralized series of podcasts picked up by every major network.
Everybody else, you are going to be on YouTube and you're going to be fighting against AI content that can be produced 10 times as fast for a tenth of the money.
And there's no way you'll make it.
Regular, one more point.
Regular people are going to say, I don't use YouTube.
It's just noise.
YouTube will start to prop up just like the other big networks.
Let me put it like this.
I have already had conversations with powerful executives that are making these moves.
It was explained to me a month ago that a meeting was held in Florida between large television networks to discuss specifically how they purchase podcasts and take the space over.
They didn't say it's so nefariously.
They said, we recognize that the industry has shifted.
These old shows don't work anymore.
And so the mandate of these companies is to start acquiring prominent shows and authentic podcasts that we can put on the network and generate money through because that model works better.
So what we're going to see is YouTube will be a network just like Paramount Plus, Netflix, or any of these other channels.
The way they're going to operate, though, is not going to be the same where it'll be somewhat like a hybrid between Amazon and say Paramount Plus.
Paramount Plus owns IP.
You pay per month and you get the shows they make.
And they got awesome shows, but Landman's fantastic.
And they got all the Star Trek stuff.
So I like it.
YouTube is supposedly the user-generated content of organic producers.
But it's becoming increasingly more difficult to be an organic creator on YouTube.
Amazon is the you buy it.
They do have their originals, so you can sign up for Prime, but they have certain creators they allow to be on the platform.
You register, you get approved, and then you can submit your movies and Amazon will host them and you can make money, but not everyone can do it.
YouTube is going to be a kind of a hybrid between that, where there will be people who start their own channels, but then YouTube behind the scenes is going to decide this channel should be on the front page.
And that's largely what we're seeing right now.
We're seeing who they've chosen to be at the top of YouTube.
Obviously, Mr. Beast is one of them.
Whether or not people actually care to watch Mr. Beast shows, YouTube has decided this is family-friendly, generic entertainment.
You know, I'm not saying that disrespectfully.
It's like very basic.
That's going to be on the front page.
They've decided that a series of other political personalities with certain views are going to get heavily promoted and others are not.
I think a lot of this will come down to liability, though, right, as well.
Like one of the issues that I think mainstream is always going to have, like something like CBS, is that they have a lot more liability to the content that they put out there.
They can be held accountable if Sean Hannity goes on like a crazy long anti-Semitic rant, right?
Whereas Candace Owens, YouTube isn't held liable for it because YouTube's being like, well, we're not producing any of this.
We just make a platform.
We try to, you know, mandate some of these things.
So I think a lot of this is going to come down to probably different lawsuits.
I think that the cron lawsuit against Candace Owens will be really important to look at of who has liability for what type of content.
And this is why I think right now alt media can be so successful with a lot of this more conspiratorial stuff is because YouTube is not liable for Candace Owens screaming every day about Erica Kirk being a trans or a Jew or like whatever else she says about Erica Kirk.
But CBS might actually be liable for that and they won't take that risk on it.
There was a hearing today over Section 230 and this is largely overlooked and the Verge is not going to let us read the article.
So I'll have to offer to log in.
But I'll give you a quick bit.
Internet Platforms Liability Shield Section 230 faced another round of attack at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday, this time with two distinct undercurrents complaining in the conversation.
One was an unprecedented wave of ongoing legal challenges to the law's scope.
And the second was a heightened bipartisan concern over government censorship.
I genuinely believe, well, I shouldn't say genuinely believe, but I would put it this way.
There is a strong probability that Section 230 goes a bye-bye.
For those who are not familiar with what Section 230 is, it is blanket immunity in an absolutely ridiculous way for internet content providers.
What it's supposed to do.
Well, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is supposed to, basically, the argument is this.
I'm a website.
You can post stuff to it.
You made the post, not me.
You can't sue me because of what someone posted on my site.
However, Section 230 is a protection.
It's more than just that.
It's specifically to allow a website to remove content they find objectionable, lewd, and lascivious without facing liability.
And that's where things get weird.
This blanket immunity has resulted in psychotic levels of defamation for which many people have consistently challenged it.
At the same time, it's basically the only reason user-generated content websites can exist.
The question then becomes: why is YouTube allowed to have a political and editorial agenda?
They do.
When they create rules saying that you can't disparage one group, but you can another, that is an editorial guideline.
And then allowing that content to exist is propping that content up.
Certainly, they bear some responsibility there.
The issue is that there is no unified definition of lewd and lascivious.
And as our culture has bifurcated, they've come out saying, you're allowed to insult white people because no one cares, but you can insult black people.
Well, then conservatives get mad and say, why?
That's racist.
So now you have YouTube saying, we're going to remove anything that insults black people, but not white people, because we find only one thing objectionable, creating this political conundrum where now there is a question of whether or not any of these sites should actually have liability shields.
I have entertained the prospect, I don't know how probable it is for a while now, that we could enter a future where Section 230 is dead and YouTube has a sort of filtration system for new content where the rules become particularly egregious.
That means YouTube says, if you say anything that results in a lawsuit against YouTube, you will be banned instantly.
Because YouTube wants to be using generated content, but without immunity protections from Section 230, they can't be.
So how you hybridize a scenario where they lose Section 230, I honestly don't know.
The only result then is that YouTube will turn into a website where you have to apply for approval and have a meeting with YouTube to determine, and they would ask you, show us examples of content you have made in the past.
And if we believe that this is safe content, we will then approve you or worse.
Anyone can upload a video, but it has to be reviewed by a human at YouTube before it gets confirmed to post.
Yeah, the antidote is for people to upload and maintain their own data with networks, kind of like BitTorrent systems, where I'll just be hosting my own videos locally on my device and you'll be able to subscribe.
And then we'll have networks of networks that are interoperating.
So it takes the load off of central systems because you can't have liability on central systems or they shut down.
Yeah, I'm really of two minds here because I think on one hand, I'm a really big proponent of free speech.
And obviously a lot of these platforms have become kind of our town square.
And so people having high, high, basically stakeholder, because it's fundamentally what they're going to get rid of is stuff that makes them liable and stuff that their stakeholders don't like.
Deciding what free speech is on the platform feels a little bit spooky, even though it's a private entity.
And at the same time, I really hate the way that Russia and China have been able to utilize bot farms to cause so much political polarization and rage through intentional kind of like bot farming and AI slop and all these sort of things that I think is actively dangerous for democracy, let alone for kids, right?
I think that people increasingly don't even know what's real.
It's terrifying talking to my dad and being like, yeah, that crocodile video like at the person's door is not real.
I mean, like, there's this interesting thing, right?
If you go to like the Curtis Yarvin kind of like the dark right, which the dark right.
The dark right here.
I know I'm giving you a great segue for your, uh, one of the topics we talked about before, but Yarvin and a lot of the billionaires that are his proponents are accelerationists, right?
They are anti-democratic.
They think that democracies don't work.
They've been tried and they failed.
And they do genuinely want to see like the ending of the democratic liberal order.
And when I say liberal, I don't mean Democrats.
I mean just like liberalism of democracy.
And I think that there are other oligarchs who fundamentally think that capitalism and democracy has been broadly good and want to continue fighting for this.
In fact, the 17th Amendment fundamentally changed the structure of our government because it used to be that the states would appoint senators to the federal government.
And now it's the people voting for it, which dramatically altered what the Founding Fathers' vision was.
Because the system they created, obviously there was dissent.
There were the Federals and Anti-Federalists.
But the system they created functioned as you voted for your state reps, your states were effectively their own entities, and then the state would appoint senators to go to the federal government.
I actually think that I think that stakeholdership, the issue is they at the time were like, oh, what's the best test of stakeholdership in our brand new little baby country?
Well, at the time, it was actually landowning, right?
Because they're like, well, landowners are the most motivated to make sure the Brits don't take the colonies back.
So we're going to give it to landowners.
But they were always open that it would have to update and that suffrage would have to change based on proper stakeholdership.
I think now being a citizen over 18 is sufficient stakeholdership.
No, which is why every political philosopher will tell you we have a democracy.
Well, actually, actually, we have to argue we have simultaneously a multicultural democracy and a constitutional republic, and they're trying to coexist within the same space.
And that's what's causing a lot of these problems.
Because I certainly don't agree that being 18 and a citizen is sufficient because you have people who don't understand and don't care voting simply because the strategy of the Democrats, the reason why they don't want the SAVE Act, for instance, has nothing to do with illegal immigrants voting.
Like the conservatives will say, the Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, which is not true.
The Democrats want to send young activists to rock concerts to register people to vote who don't know and don't care.
Then they can do ballot, they can go ballot harvesting or they can do voter drives and get people who aren't paying attention to vote.
That is bad for any democracy, whether it's a constitutional republic with democratic institutions.
You agree, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about those man on the street videos from Times Square where they ask someone to name a country that starts with the letter U and they go Utah.
Is it good for a system when an individual who doesn't know their own capital when they vote?
And let me stress this.
I worked for a nonprofit and we did, I told the story a couple weeks ago.
They asked me if I wanted to go register people to vote at a Death Cap for Cutie concert, of which I am a huge fan of that band and said, holy crap, are you kidding?
And then I didn't even realize they gave me an all-access pass and all I had to do was get people to register to vote.
The people who were at that concert did not know the first thing about what they needed or wanted.
They were completely clueless 18-year-olds.
When voting time comes, people go to them and say, vote Democrat.
My point largely is that if you argue that you only need to be 18 years old and a citizen in order to vote, you are going to have the ease of opportunity to get more ignorant voters versus smart voters.
So if you take a look at the well, no, because lower IQ people are also going to come up against different resistances that make them less likely to actually turn on a vote.
Like I suspect you're going to have to urban locations where you have high density of people and you need two activists to go to each apartment building to get 500 votes each.
And all you have to do to convince them to vote is say Trump's a Nazi and they go, okay, and then they vote Democrat.
Indeed, but Republicans don't have population density.
Republicans don't have population density.
And Republicans are disagreeable.
I'm sure you've seen that graph that shows the Democrats are a singular cluster that largely agree and the Republicans are a disparate bunch.
I think a great example of this is the current trends that Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candace, et cetera, that were big Trump supporters and now are not.
The right is absolutely fractured.
Joe Kent's resignation.
MAGA may be still MAGA.
People may still support Trump, but the libertarian, disrupted liberal coalition that wrapped around, that boosted them, are not on board.
So that's going to make it increasingly difficult to convince someone on the right.
You know what really, really sucks is that I watch some of these liberal YouTubers, and it's just really, I'm going to throw David Pachman out here as a great example of this.
So several years ago, this was Trump's first term.
I made a video for my 4 p.m. segment saying Donald Trump sees record high approval rating.
And David Pacman on the same day made a video saying Donald Trump sees record low approval rating or record high disapproval.
And I thought to myself, this is crazy.
How could both of these videos exist at the same time?
Am I wrong?
Well, I look back at my video and I checked all my sources and I was like, you've got 538, you've got RCP, you've got all of the aggregates showing that Trump's approval rating is at a record high, especially compared to other presidents.
How did David Pacman make a video that's the inverse?
He cherry-picked a single poll and made a video about it saying the exact opposite.
And it wasn't coordinated.
He just made a video.
And I said, is David, I thought to myself, because I've known him for a long time, I'm like, is he doing this on purpose?
Like, any honest person that's assessing Donald Trump's approval is going to check the aggregate, not a single poll, because a single poll can have errors.
See, this is, and this is, so the left will look at the right, and they'll look at Tulsi Gabbard defending Iran, and then they'll pull up her shirts, right, and be like, interesting, right?
You'll look at, you've got RFK Jr., who's still doing making, so this is why the smarts line is also dissatisfactory to me, because nobody's going to agree on it, right?
Everyone's going to feel unfairly like punished by this system, which is why I go, probably universal suffrage is over 18 incidents is the best measure we have.
We on this show, with a disaffected to right-leaning audience, specifically addressed Tulsi Gabbard's tweet, how she did not make an assessment and just defer to Trump, and that she sold shirts saying no war with Iran, and that I support her in 2020, specifically for anti-interventionist regime change policies, because the people on the right expect the context and the nuance, and it's very difficult to keep them in the same room together.
When I pull up, the only person I ever give credit to on this, despite not really liking the guy, is Hassan Piker, that he actually discusses a variety of topics and his thoughts and opinions on them, even when I think he's wrong or contradictory.
And then I pull up the most prominent of liberal pundits, and I'm like, they just make fake videos.
Like David Pacman made a video saying Donald Trump poops his pants, which is just like, yeah, that literally didn't happen.
And like, if I could get away with that on the right, man, I'd be making 10 times as much as possible.
When I say far right, I basically mean they are probably going to share a lot of cultural values of a lot of conservatives.
They're probably going to be pretty critical of trans stuff, might be critical of gay stuff, although obviously conservatives vary a lot more on the gay stuff, right?
So they're going to be right on this culture war stuff, by and large, like more traditional values, right?
Nuclear families.
And then when you're getting to the far right, they're going to be accelerationist and usually like anti-democratic.
But we have the issue is like our schism happened a lot earlier, right?
And it's somewhat that what disaffected you guys, right?
Is that a lot of liberals couldn't figure out what a woman was.
Well, no, we shook hands with the progressives and we said, we're just like you.
And the progressives are like, yeah, except some of the progressives just, it's an aesthetic.
But a lot of them were communists who were like, yeah, we want to take away private property rights.
And at no point did the liberals go, hold on, we're actually not like you because that's a rights that we're not willing to get rid of, actually.
And we don't even want to do it democratically, right?
But we pretended that we were the same, which led to this culture war like takeover where we were like canceling and ourobosing ourselves and it was awful.
I don't think that it's a good thing.
And I think we're seeing the same unfortunate dance happening on the right right now.
I think the, you know, we were asked the other day if, you know, one of our, one of our callers, if the Democrats can start winning back the disaffected liberals because of the route some of these people on the right are taking with like the Israel post stuff.
And, you know, my first point is largely that I'm Israel ambivalent.
What irks me is when every problem in the world is specifically about Israel and they ignore the history of the region, the liberal economic order, the petrodollar, et cetera.
But if it came down to policy and they said you can vote for funding Israel or not funding Israel, I'd say we should not be funding Israel.
Our money should be going to our people here in this country, helping the working class.
I'm for some form of universal basic health care.
We should be spending money in that direction.
If you come to me and then say your choices are the war machine or politicians who five years ago advocated for cutting off children's testicles and breasts, I'd say, I will never vote for that person no matter what happens.
Like when you take a look at all of the stuff that we had seen throughout the censorship era and the COVID era, I'm going to be like, we've got a litany of issues.
We can start with the charges against Donald Trump, which were ridiculous, the arrest of his lawyers, which is shockingly terrifying.
I'll never support any of these people.
By all means, you can claim Trump did something wrong, but they arrested his lawyers in Georgia and Wisconsin.
You can't charge a lawyer with RICO for drafting a letter on behalf of their client.
And that's what they did in Georgia.
And in fact, if Jenna Ellis did not plead guilty, the charges would have been dropped because they eventually dropped all charges because they're unfounded.
That's nightmarishly insane.
So you've got Democrats in office now who supported that.
And if they came out and said, we are not for transing the kids, we are not for appropriating property, we want to help the working class, we want to secure our borders, we're not for illegal immigrants, I'll be like, bro, four years ago, you were for all of those things.
So get rid of all of those people and bring in a new Democrat who's got a little bit of charisma behind him.
Jenna Ellis submitted a letter requesting information to challenge an election.
She wrote, I think, like one letter, and they gave her two counts of RICO.
They dropped all of the charges in Georgia.
All of the people who refused to plead out had their charges dropped.
This was insane.
You take a look at the charges against Trump in New York over fraud.
They said that he falsified the records to secure more beneficial terms from Deutsche Bank.
What were the terms?
Apparently, in one of the filings, they argued that Trump's penthouse, which was 10,000 square feet roughly, was actually 30,000 square feet.
However, it was testified in court that the Trump administration, first and foremost, Trump didn't draft the documents.
Why would he?
He's the CEO.
And the documents always came with a disclaimer that they may have gotten things wrong and required the banks to do their own due diligence to verify, to which Deutsche Bank did, came back and said your information is incorrect and reduced the terms of the deal to which the Trump organization accepted.
They called that fraud, even when Deutsche Bank testified, we were not defrauded.
We clarified this.
We made money and we would love to do business with Trump in the future.
Yet you go to Democrats and they say Trump was convicted and found guilty, he was liable for civil fraud.
And I'm sitting here being like, man, I followed that case.
It's insane.
You take a look at the falsification of business records, which for the first time in New York state history, there was a claim of falsification of business records without an underlying crime found unanimously by a jury.
If we are dealing with Georgia, where Ellis was relevant, a lot of the people who did not get charged were not charged because they were given immunity deals to give details on the city.
It's hard to track all these patterns, see what's really going on.
There's a million and one different conspiracies as to what the political machine is actually doing.
The one that there's several, one of which is that Trump's been in it the whole time and the machine state just keeps shifting the narratives that nobody can get a footing.
And that we had woke versus anti-woke intentionally crafted by the machine so that the left and right would fight.
And then now we're getting the like the right is being broken apart through the, you know, like the Tuckers and like the Joe Kent versus the neoconservative.
And then we're going to see an evolution on the Democrat side where they start to try and come back to the moderate point.
And in this new decade of 2030, I would not be surprised if we're sitting here being like, I can't believe the Republicans are saying these things.
They've gone nuts.
And the Democrats are the only ones speaking clearly now.
I wouldn't be surprised.
I predicted that before because it happened during Occupy Wall Street and I am predicting it again.
During Occupy Wall Street, I was, the left loved me.
They were like, Tim Poole's the greatest.
He's for free speech.
Occupy Wall Street gave me private security.
I'm telling you this, they were volunteer security guards at Occupy Wall Street.
And when the far leftist black block types, we call them, we didn't call them antifa, physically attacked me, the organizer said, Tim, we're going to have these guys watch your back while you're streaming because the coverage you do is so important.
Even when I had filmed far leftist vandalizing police vehicles, the organizers of Occupy said you were right to do it.
This is not what we're all about.
Thank you for filming.
Now these very same people are like, Tim Pool's far right.
You know, he's crazy or whatever.
Now we're going to see a shift on the right.
And what I was saying before you got back is that the Democratic Party is going to shift in the next several years and start to look sane.
And the Republican Party is going to increasingly become insane.
And moderates are going to shift the other direction again.
And my thought was, I wonder if the machine does this intentionally.
Many have speculated.
Constantly shifting what left and right is to keep everybody spending so they can never actually form a real populist uprising.
What I said while you were out is about a shared stakeholder.
Like you were saying, what kind of stake in the system to vote to control the system?
And it used to be land ownership in the United States.
Now it's just, you know, you sign the paper, give a social security number.
But the corporations want to do stakeholder capitalism where they're going away from shareholder capitalism, who owns the corporation to decide the future of the corporation.
But do you have a stake in the benefit of the system that the corporation is a part of?
So they're really like, and then they get to decide what that means at any given moment if you have a right to participate.
That's like, I don't have a point to tie it to, but when you guys were talking about voting, I think that is very much the future of what the corporations are trying to do right now.
I don't think it's a left and a right thing.
Probably never has been.
There are obviously sects of people that spin up, but this global technocratic oligarchy really wants to control our speech and shut us down.
She knows that there was a precedent set in the Nixon v. Kennedy election where they submitted alternate electors despite the fact that Nixon could have won Hawaii.
The argument was that it didn't matter anyway, so they weren't going to count these electors.
They submitted electors for Kennedy, which were not certified by the government.
And that was the precedent by which Trump's legal team said, we can submit the alternate slate.
Then once the court cases are, once they are officially adjudicated, they will update, just like with Kennedy v. Nixon.
So the argument that I have is, regardless of what you think about Jenna Ellis, let's go to the procedure of 2020.
The only process by which you could challenge an election that you did believe was stolen is to file the paperwork of an alternate slate of electors and then wait for the court case to be resolved by a judge.
Otherwise, according to our electoral system, the deadline is like December 17th.
There would be no paperwork filed at all.
And even if you won in court, you'd be past the deadline.
Sure, but we've done recounts multiple times, right?
There was like the famous Al Gore case in like Florida where the vote was decided by like 500 votes and yet all precedent to just like ask that we like redo the slates and then verify and audit all of the votes, right?
And like there is a process by which if you legitimately think something has been falsified or tampered with, like there is a process for that.
And I'm for that process, right?
I have no problem with auditing votes necessarily, right?
And the issue is in the case of Ellis and Chessebrough, they explicitly were not doing these things.
Presidential election, which is specifically Electoral College.
Right.
My view would be, just like in, I think it was 1960 with Kennedy v. Nixon, when Hawaii challenged the election results, even though it was Nixon who won, they sent an alternate slate of electors after the fact without certification.
And even though it wasn't even adjudicated, they said, look, it doesn't matter anyway, so we're going to let it slide.
So if you did have a disputed election and the difficult with our legal system is how long it takes, I'd imagine the process would be file the paperwork as though you won while it's pending adjudication.
So you ask for a recount, you file an election contest in state court in whichever state you're concerned about, litigate before certification and during canvassing.
So you get a court recount.
And after the state results, the result, after the state resolves the result, the state sends its lawful electors to the Electoral College.
And again, the precedent from Nixon v. Kennedy is that because adjudication was taking too long, they submitted an alternate slate of electors before there was official adjudication, and that was deemed acceptable.
And that was the precedent by which the Trump legal team said, we'll do the same thing.
And then my understanding is one of the main lawyers involved, I believe it was Chesaprow.
I could be wrong about which one did this.
He genuinely believed that there was faulty votes, there was faulty issues, and he looked it up and he was trying to legitimately have the election audit.
There was like a genuine belief that it was stolen.
And one of the lawyers in the emails explicitly knows that this is false and is trying to follow through with Trump's.
It was the podcast I did with Jerry O'Connell where he was saying that the Democrats have continually embraced people who are out of touch and don't know how to speak to regular Americans.
So they embrace insane issues.
And I mean, as you know, like Bill Maher has been very anti-Islam.
And so he's sitting here looking at everything the Democratic Party has been doing.
And he's like, these people have gone crazy.
But I don't want to harp this.
We should segue because we can keep the conversation going with this story.
We've got this from Fox News.
GOP governors, AG's back, the Trump Save Act push, warn the system gives undue influence to states with illegal aliens.
The coalition argues current registration systems give states with large illegal populations undue influence over the federal elections.
I am here to tell you all that everything everyone is telling you is fake and a lie.
The Save Act requires proof of citizenship at the point of registration and would require an ID when you vote.
However, the Republican argument is incorrect.
And they're doing this because they're oversimplifying to make people want to support it.
Republicans are arguing that there's voter fraud and Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, which, no, that's not really the issue either.
Democrats are saying this will disenfranchise 20 million plus voters.
There will be women who will struggle to register to vote, which is also not true because you don't get booted off registration from the Save Act.
The real issue is that by allowing anybody to register to vote without documentation, you can do rock the vote, voter registration drives, voter in the park.
And this means you can go to people who normally don't care and wouldn't take the time and register them to vote.
You combine that with universal mail-in voting and or ballot harvesting, and you have a massive voter base of people who will passively vote.
The Republicans can't do this because they're predominantly rural.
So if an individual goes to an urban center, like in New York City, you can go to one apartment building with 1,000 people in it.
And in one day, two activists can get hundreds of ballots from people who normally don't care.
Republicans can't drive door-to-door in rural areas because some of these houses are, you know, what, half a mile from the next one.
So overwhelmingly, that benefits Democrats who are trying to convince as many people as possible to vote.
I would refer to them as we call that default liberal, meaning they don't really pay attention to politics, but they lean a little bit left.
And You knock on their door and say you're registered and they'll say no, sign this and you are, and they'll go, sure.
And so it's very easy for Democrats to get the numbers, which is very difficult for Republicans.
But I will just, my final point on this, Republicans don't want to publicly admit they are intentionally trying to create barriers to stop low-interest voters.
And the Democrats don't want to admit that they win elections through low-interest voters.
So both are creating their own version of why this should or should not pass.
The issue is, so say you get like a the issue is this one, this could affect the popular vote, but that this type of logic actually wouldn't necessarily change like the electoral college because the way that the electoral college splits up and all these lines and stuff is to try to balance out the it'll change Congress in the swing states in the swing districts.
Maybe, but in swing states specifically, we can probably presume that in these apartment buildings, Republicans could reasonably go and collect ballots from all the same people and they'll.
We just, again, revert to the previous argument of why it is that Republicans don't invest money in like D plus 20 districts and why Democrats don't do the same.
It's largely a cost-benefit analysis.
Republicans are going to say, look, if we go and ballot harvest in these areas, it's going to take 10 times the effort to get half as many ballots from Democrats.
So we're better off passing the SAVE Act and just slicing off Democrats' low-interest voter base.
And Democrats are saying you will disenfranchise voters because women will have to get their marriage certificates and like this convoluted argument.
Look, Republicans are going to claim it's about illegal immigrants voting, which is not the issue.
The issue largely is that illegal immigrants count towards congressional apportionment, but Democrats can easily ballot harvest.
They do.
I have done voter initiatives for Democrat nonprofits.
Republicans can't.
So they're trying to make it difficult for low-interest voters to vote.
We're talking about how in densely urban areas, it's overwhelmingly liberal.
And when you go to the suburbs, you will have to go door to door in the, like, let's use Chicago as an example.
The city of Chicago is Democrat everywhere.
And only in the past election did we actually see the edges start to turn red.
So my neighborhood on the south side near Midway Airport has been slowly shifting Republican for some time, which is very interesting.
If you go to my neighborhood in the city, it's still 60, 70% Democrat.
Well, actually, no, my neighborhood actually is red.
But the bulk of like the Midway area, which includes like two or three neighborhoods, it's actually shifts more blue as you get closer to the city.
You are going to be going door to door, house to house.
Okay, going to a building on like Michigan Avenue with like 50 apartment units, you will be able to get two or three times as many ballots harvested and voters registered than you would in the suburban areas where you're going door-to-door or driving.
That's my point.
Dense population areas tend to be liberal, and that makes it harder for Republicans to ballot harvest as effectively as Democrats.
Again, I don't even know if I'd grant that because I have a suspicion that a lot of Republican voters that often probably don't come through in voting would be like, for example, like working class construction workers or truck drivers and stuff that often probably have a lot of the same limits to voting that like low-income left.
I think that cities tend to fall left, but I think that's because like Chicago's been run by Democrats.
I think that Democrats tend to fall.
I think that cities tend to fall left because I think that Democrats have good policies that are better for cities and better for running them.
Like I think that that's why I think if Republicans wanted to be better able to farm cities, they should probably have policies that city people like, right?
It was to tell the people who lived that they wanted to renovate the project housing so they would be temporarily relocated, and then they bulldozed their homes and poured dirt over it and never did anything again.
That has consistently been what the Democrats of Chicago have done to deal with the problem of impoverished black neighborhoods.
How about the policies of redlining and blockbusting in Chicago?
Redlining literally comes from Chicago's red line, where the cultural practice at the time under the Democrats was to force black people to live in impoverished areas and they wouldn't sell them property outside.
The Democrats do not create policies that benefit these cities.
In my experience, growing up in a city that was run by Democrats for 100 years, you couldn't do anything because the processes by which they collected the votes made it impossible to actually change this system.
Like Los Angeles is a great example as well, where they have the worst homeless problem in the developed world.
Yet for the life of them, they just keep dumping money into what we call the homeless industrial complex, a series of NGOs and government programs that dump money to corrupt individuals.
But we have huge, huge, we just have an incredible nonprofit sector.
It's actually where my husband and I met is working for the same homeless shelter.
But we have such great resources that people will get bus rides to Edmonton as a homeless person to take advantage of the system that they have, right?
So what's often happening is red states aren't educating people.
They're getting them hooked on jobs, giving them construction jobs.
And then when they become, like the government is not getting people hooked on drugs, people are not educating them.
They're not building successful economies that scale up to allow people out of just construction jobs, which is why you're right, Republicans don't have very big red cities because Republicans don't build good cities, it seems to be the case.
It seems like if cities have to be ontologically left, we have to ask ourselves why.
Well, I think the issue is the process of lowest common denominator population bases.
So cities are multicultural, multi-demographic, whereas rural areas tend to be less so.
They tend to be more homogenous.
So it's really easy to win a red district that is overwhelmingly white and like traditional American values.
Chicago is much more difficult.
If you look at the election of Brandon Johnson, remarkably, every neighborhood voted based on race, 100%.
What I find truly remarkable is that in the black neighborhoods, you had the top three candidates.
You had, I forgot the guy's name.
There was the white dude.
There was Brandon Johnson, who's a black guy, and a Hispanic guy.
When you go to like the Pilsen areas, top candidate was the Hispanic guy, followed by the white guy.
You go to the white areas, top candidates, the white guy.
You go to the black areas.
This is where it got interesting.
The top three candidates were three black people.
And the reason Brandon Johnson is because only one neighborhood defected, and it was the Loyal University area, like near Evanston, where you have a predominantly young leftist base that voted for the more socialist black candidate.
And so you combine that with the racial demographics, and they voted for a candidate just because he was black, for the most part.
Like the progressives probably did too.
He was like a socialist, and he was black, and they didn't want white supremacy or whatever, but that's a small portion of the Chicago base.
Chicago votes based on race, right?
This is not a function of being a Republican or being a Democrat.
It was literally just the black neighborhood saying we were only going to vote for black people and the white neighborhood saying we're going to vote for the white guy and the Latino neighborhood saying we're going to vote for the Latino guy.
And it's not necessarily that it's overtly about race, although I do think that's a component of it.
I think it's who's speaking to who.
If you're a white working class suburbanite kind of guy and you meet like a firefighter family and you say like, I used to bring my kid to go play baseball.
And then if the Latino guy goes to that same dude and says, we used to bring the Malisa and we'd sell them on a porch, the guy's going to be like, I don't know what that means.
Desperate Hochul begs wealthy New Yorkers to come back as Momdani pressures her to hike their taxes.
They say Kathy Hochl is begging wealthy New Yorkers who fled the city to encourage their rich pals to come back and continue patting the Empire State's lavish public handouts.
Hochul made the case against caving to mayor, made the case against caving to Mayor's Armandani's demands that she hike income taxes by saying she not only wants fat cats to stay in the city, but also by clawing at those who have moved to states with better business climates like Florida.
Hey, I'm one of those people.
I left New York for a variety of reasons, not entirely because of high taxes, but that was a component.
Moved further south largely because of riots and violence, went to New Jersey, and then New Jersey had crazy taxes.
So we got out, now we're in West Virginia, although we're currently enjoying the beautiful weather here in Austin.
I was recently asked, as I've explained quite a bit, there are big investors, media companies, looking to buy out podcasts and get in the space.
And so, of course, as many of you know, we've been having negotiations with companies for years and in various ways.
That doesn't mean we'll take any deals.
But I was recently asked by a company if we'd be willing to relocate to New York City, where there's a lot of infrastructure, high-profile guests, celebrities, great opportunity, all of the big podcasting network companies.
And I said, never going to happen.
And they said, what is prohibitive about New York?
And I said, the taxes are too high.
Even with those benefits, when we do the cost-benefit analysis, we lose money by going to New York.
It is not worth it.
Now, Florida and Texas, maybe, but New York, no.
And now New York's facing a massive deficit where Zawarmandani explicitly stated if they cannot tax the wealthy, they will have to tax the middle class.
So this is a economic, it's an understanding in tax policy that there is a point at which you increase the tax rate and you decrease tax revenue because you'll either stagnate activity or you'll pressure people to leave.
So there is a happy medium where people will be satisfied paying a certain percentage of their income at a certain level if they feel like the benefit is worth it.
However, New York has been experiencing a lot of problems recently.
Notably, they've had a massive dog feces problem, which is new.
I think this is a component of low trust society.
You've also had high-profile cases of subway people being pushed on subway tracks.
Whether this is more than normal, it is certainly popping up in media and it's causing people to freak out.
So you've had, since COVID lockdowns, a mass exodus.
Now you have with increased taxes, a continued exodus where we're not just seeing the upper class, the wealthy leave.
You're actually seeing middle class people leave the city because they don't feel that they're getting their value from the city.
I would also throw it back to when AOC joined in these protests against Amazon, which is projected to bring in somewhere around like $30 billion in tax revenue.
And she came to these financial district protests, ultimately, whether intentionally or otherwise, created a hubbub that pressured Amazon not to create, not to put their warehouses in New York, in Queens, and that cost the city billions, which they were hoping to get to fix their crumbling train infrastructure.
So for a lot of people who live in New York, it feels like the taxes are just not worth it.
Quote, maybe the first step should be to go down to Palm Beach and see who we can bring back home because our tax base here has eroded.
I have to look at the fact that we are in competition with other states who have less of a tax burden on their corporations and their individuals.
The comments are a far cry from her much-directed remarks in her 2020 election campaign where she ripped her GOP opponent, Rep Lee Zeldin, as the then Duchess of blah, blah, blah, blah.
Trump and Zeldon and Molinaro just jump on a bus and head on to Florida where you belong, okay?
Get out of town because you don't represent our values, she said.
Blah, We have to be smart about this, but we can fund what we want to fund with what we are already taking in.
The state has been facing its own multi-billion dollar budget gap that was largely patched after a great year on Wall Street, caused bonuses to shoot up 25% over 2025.
Blah, blah, blah.
I am focused on 100% or affordability issues.
It appears, actually, there's two quotes, because I played this video earlier where she's sitting at a conference meeting saying, like, we need to get the wealthy to come back.
This is how Trump revitalized New York.
He created these luxury towers and then told wealthy people this is where the high class is.
They came back in, combined with Giuliani's broken window policing, which really just means heavy law enforcement crackdown.
And it became more appealing to wealthy individuals and corporations, which then boosted its tax base.
Like the controversy, as thus far, which is not up for dispute, Zorhan Mamdani gave a speech to the city saying, we must tax the rich to fund these programs.
If we do not, we are going to have to tax the middle class.
so i understand and i understand why he's saying that and i agree with him that we do need to tax the rich right so when i'm looking into like this laughter stuff my understanding is that like you're not going to tax me i left So most wealthy individuals do not leave from taxes, only 2%.
So millionaire tax flight is only about 2% of top owners are moving in response to higher taxes.
I just Googled it, so we'll just pull up whatever Google says.
How about that?
New York City is experiencing a significant ongoing exodus of high net worth individuals driven by high taxes, steep living costs, and remote work flexibility, with many relocating to low-tax states like Florida.
Despite this, this year remains a global wealth hub with over 33,000 residents worth 30 million or more as of July 2025.
That's interesting.
I wonder what is motivating the governor to be like, please come back.
I'm going to have to go down to Palm Beach and see who we can bring back.
Like clearly she's saying this because she's experiencing a problem, right?
She, well, possibly, like taking politicians at their word, it's like one of the worst things, especially when we have a quote in the exact same article of her saying literally the opposite, like two years before and saying she was saying, why don't you leave?
So like one of the issues you have to think with why people move, right?
Some people do just move purely for wealth, but a lot of rich people have families.
They have kids.
They have plugged in.
They have all of the local restaurants.
They have all the digs, right?
Have this entire life and community connected to the city, which is why I agree there is some little bit of pressure of if you tax the rich, yeah, they might like move elsewhere, which would just make a better argument for greater federal taxes.
No, no, no, A general comment on cities, right, where people may or may not leave is not the same as literally me pulling up a series of articles where they're like the wealthy are leaving.
And the only conclusion I can come to when the governor says, please come back, and the news reports say they're experiencing a wealth exodus is that they are.
Probably, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount, probably like the top, like say we've got 100 people, right?
And 10 of them are the top earners, and two of those people leave.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the top top earners are the ones that leave necessarily, right?
But the issue is that calling that an exodus is over-inflating the issue.
It makes it sound like millionaires are packing up their rich, blonde, beautiful kids into their beautiful Land Rovers, and they're driving down to Florida en masse.
And that's not happening.
What's happening is probably a select few of the top top performers.
Between 2019 and 2020, the number of New Yorkers earning between 150 and 750 fell by 6%, while the number of true high earners dropped by 10%.
Wait, so according to the city's independent budget office, this erosion matters because the city's tops 1%, about 41,000 filers pay more than 40% of all income taxes.
The top 10% pay about two-thirds, which means the remaining 90% of taxpayers contribute only about one-third of the city's income tax revenue.
When even a small share of these high earners disappears, the impact is seismic.
So recent migration trends confirm the damage.
More than 125,000 New Yorkers have fled to Florida in just the past few years, carrying nearly $14 billion worth of income with them, according to the Citizens Budget Commission.
About a third of these movies, movers, more than 41,000 people, went to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties between 2018 and 2022.
Those escapes alone stripped New York City of an estimated $10 billion in adjusTedros income.
When money and mobility align, no amount of political rhetoric can stop people from voting with their feet.
Into this fragile situation, steps Zaranandani, and et cetera, et cetera.
Since April 2020, New York City has experienced a significant population decline, losing nearly 500,000 residents or 5.3% of its population in the initial years following the pandemic.
While the population outflows slowed in 2022, the city saw a net loss of 216,778 residents in the end of 2023, largely driven by domestic migration.
They did recover a little bit in the past year or so.
But people say Hassan streams for eight hours, but he doesn't actually talk for eight hours.
I actually have hard, straight talk for five and a half hours, which is about eight or nine hours.
Well, it's about eight or nine hours of like research plus talking.
So I work for about 16 hours a day with business stuff in between.
I lose money by doing it because of progressive taxes, which has driven me to the point where like my wife and I have had the conversation about like we probably shouldn't anymore, but you know, like what would make this work?
So here's how it works.
The first eight hours I work, I make the bulk of my money.
After this, we decide to do Tim Cast IRL, in which I'm working for 16 hours, but I'm a salary-based individual.
And then, of course, we have our profit margins.
Because I pay more taxes after a certain amount, it means the more hours I work, the less amount of money I make.
If I stop working these hours, 30 to 40 people will lose their jobs.
However, I'm looking at a diminishing return on working these extra hours.
I would be rich if I didn't.
This is the problem with progressive taxes.
Should these producers and personalities who work in this industry lose their jobs because the progressive tax system is punishing me for working extra hours?
The assumption with the taxing the wealthy is that these are people who are just, they're working 40 hours like everybody else.
Therefore, they're earning a salary and they should pay more.
When the reality is, at least for me, I'm only making more money because I'm choosing to work 80 hours a week or more and getting punished for doing so.
That creates a perverse incentive, which would tell people not to run their businesses, not to work.
And for that reason, I largely disagree with, I would call it like higher end progressive taxes.
That doesn't create a challenge because there are some people who barely work at all and make a ton of money.
But the problem with a blanket tax system is that not everybody makes money in the exact same way, but they will all be taxed in the same way.
That creates a problem.
A problem for productivity.
And it creates a detriment to working class people who rely on CEOs who are going to work 80 hours a week.
The main thing that I would say is we need a distribution system that allows for, right now, what we seem to have is a distribution system where there's like a K going on.
This is what a lot of economists are calling it, right?
You're either getting poorer or you're getting richer and there's a diminishing middle class.
What I want is actually a taxation system that is most incentivized for the common man.
I want the middle class to have the tax system built around them, actually.
I think that that would be the best.
I think that there should be way more tax credits for middle class earners, small business owners, these types of individuals.
And there should be a lot more scrutiny looked at corporate businesses, right?
For example, if you've got a corporate like Walmart or these like major, major companies, and their corporate profits have gone incredibly high over the last few years, but their wages have stagnated for the past five years.
We need to look at that and figure out a way to redistribute it.
Maybe we find that company and we just force.
Maybe we don't need to do all more taxations.
Maybe we need to force companies to pay workers more.
Probably the issue is I have no, I don't have a good idea of like what military budget was necessary in an age of like China and Russia because we need to be stronger than them.
I think the solution is we do that first, then we go through the budget and figure out where we need to tax more if we need to fund other things.
Because I feel like we can probably find a bunch of missing money from waste, fraud, and abuse, but also programs we don't like, and then be like, hey, we could put that money towards things we do like.
Sure.
Then after that, we might not need as much tax as you think.
People for some reason, people have decided to make a meme trend where when their wife is giving birth, they go on and chat like, it's now, we're doing it.
Frankly, if anyone's actually looked at ChatGPT, I once tried to use it for debate prep to be like, debate me on my ideas to see what my opponent would say.
Badmouth Bandit says, did you see James O'Keefe put a video out undercover as a homeless man on Skid Row, catching petitioners paying homeless people for signatures and paying them to register to vote?
Indeed, I did.
And guys, like I worked for, do you know what the perg groups are?
The group, it's redundant.
It's the public interest research groups.
It's a series of nonprofits, and they had me go out and do voter registration.
And like, literally, I walked up to people who are like, uh-uh.
And it's like, well, just sign up anyway.
I'm like, okay, I guess.
Like, these people don't pay attention.
They don't care what's going on in the world.
I think that in order to vote, you have to sign up for selective service, men and women alike.
Then you get a voter ID card after you do, and then you can vote as you see fit.
All right, let's see.
Lachev says, there's no mess exodus, just a steady stream of the richest people leaving.
That means you're wrong because I'm arguing a term you didn't say.
Semantic BS and avoiding context on purpose.
Uh-oh.
YouTube super chats crashed.
YouTube always crashes.
I swear, like, YouTube's been shadow banning the show.
I mean, like I said earlier, we were asked by a production company if we'd consider being in New York, and we're like, no, 13.7% or whatever it is, because you've got city, state, and federal combined.
Taxes shouldn't, your question to taxers shouldn't just be, well, what do I get out of it?
Because part of the point of taxes is we all get something, right?
The reality is like, I'm willing to pay a certain amount of taxes so that if my employees have some sort of nightmare in the future, they can claim an unemployment and like have a life raft, right?
Okay, so property taxes basically disincentivize you from developing property, right?
Because if your property gets better, they charge you more despite you contributing to society.
Land value says you're going to develop it as much as you want.
But if that piece of land, say you have 40 acres and it's in downtown LA, you're going to pay out your ass because it's high prime land and you have a lot of it.
Whereas if you have 40 acres in bum fuck nowhere, you're going to get taxed almost nothing.
It's saying we decide how much value a piece of land is worth based on its location, based on the size of plot, and you get taxed on that instead of the project.
So are you familiar with how property breaks apart and value taxes are government appropriation?
So I'll just explain it.
So you have 50 acres in 1800 and you're in an empty area that no one really cares about.
You do a little bit of farming there, but 50 acres isn't really enough to do any kind of substantial farming.
And it's a relatively small plot for back in the day.
You build a house, you die, your kids get it.
1900s come around and there's some development around your 50 acre plot of land.
And so the value has more worth now because of the existing businesses.
So what used to be just kind of wilderness trash now actually is reasonably valuable for anybody who wants to develop, but for the most part, they don't think about it.
However, property taxes for your property.
So let's do it all based on just modern property values.
So you have a property that's worth $100,000 and you got to pay a property tax about two grand per year and you make that money from your job or whatever it is you do and then you pay those taxes.
You give the property to your children, they inherit it.
But now because there's some development around, which you can't control, the property is worth $300,000.
You got to pay $6,000 this year.
Well, your kids who inherited are just working the same farm they always did.
They're not making $6,000.
The farm generates just enough to get by.
So what do they do?
They parcel a piece of that land.
They carve it off and they sell it off.
After 75 years, the land is now 50 different single acre parcels owned by a random spattering of people.
Or the worst part is they can't afford the taxes.
So the government seizes the property and then appropriates it.
But in the case of property tax, now we have a different incentive structure where they sit on their land and they let it get increasingly dilapidated over time because if they improve it, if they single warehouse.
Well, your incentive in that place, if all we tax is like sales, for example, then everyone is going to be incentivized to just keep property in the land.
Well, arguably, what you're saying is that while generational wealth will be maintained, but there will be no housing development ever at any time, because if you sell things off, you lose money.
Yeah, because if you if you are the person arguing that.
You've got uh Mikey Taylor, shout out to Mikey Taylor, who's a real estate developer saying, You don't want to own, you don't want to rent, you want to be a renter.
Sort of one of the largest contributors to American GDP, so we are definitely renting, and there is definitely incentive to agglomerations.
What I'm saying is that we have two different tax systems.
I'm taxing either way.
I think my system works, and I'm fine with people selling off their property because suddenly grandpa's property from 300 years ago is worth $17 million, and then they can go buy a farm and probably buy six times the land.
Yes, I think that that's a better system.
Although, yeah, whatever it's going to be in favor of it, sell it off.
You could do like, oh, I'm eating Crossland if you need it.
If you didn't know, you tax their property, but if they rent out their property, you stop taxing them while they're renting, as long as they're a renter.
But anyway, I was going to shove that in during the show.
I think Bezos, his income is a million dollars a year.
And he's probably got, that's income, that's like salary income.
And then he's probably got capital gains and things like that.
But Andrew Tate was talking about a very clever system, a very, very well-known system of avoiding paying income tax for high net worth and high-profile individuals.
And that is he creates a corporation in the Cayman Islands that owns the rights to his likeness and his image.
And he has to pay a fee to publish his name and image to the Cayman Islands.
So he says he's exaggerating the numbers.
He's like, if I make $50 million, I got to pay a $50 million fee, which obviously would not work tax-wise.
There needs to be a predetermined fee before.
But so one of the most common things they'll do is people will set a company that owns the intellectual property to develop.
When their company uses it, they'll have a set fee of $10 million per year, which is a static fee that is unchanging.
And then they'll say, well, we made $13 million this year, but I got to pay a $10 million fee, which goes to the business in the Cayman Islands, which takes that income, doesn't pay taxes on it.
There's another trick that people do.
And this is, again, the reason why I largely just don't think taxes work is there is no function by which you can ever actually tax somebody.
So right now, there's something, there's new trusts available in Delaware.
They're relatively new.
And the way it works is wealthy people pay $5,000 a year to maintain this trust that holds their assets.
Here's a little-known secret for most people.
If I have a million dollars, I put it in a trust.
I've paid tax on that million dollars.
It's clean, good to go.
The trust uses that million dollars to buy a $1 million house.
That house is in the name of the trust.
A year later, the house is now worth $1.5 million.
Taxes are paid, insurance is paid.
The trust then sells the house for $1.5 million.
The trust does not pay taxes because no entity took in income.
The trust is not a taxable entity.
So the $1.5 is still considered in an investment.
It can then invest that $1.5 million into the market, a year later, make $1 million and be worth $2.5, sell all those assets for cash, have $2.5 million in cash and not be taxed because it is not a tax-paying entity.
And that's what most people do with these Delaware trusts.
So when people are like, we're going to tax it or tax that, what they're really saying is we're going to create barriers by which working class people who may be on the cusp of becoming upper class will be constrained.
So when you say like the highest tax bracket is $250,000, the important thing to understand is if an individual makes $250,000 a year, they're living comfortably.
The estimate is that you need about $150,000 on average in the United States so that you have everything taken care of.
You got two weeks vacation.
You can afford to have a family.
You've got healthcare.
And then you got $100,000 per year.
Well, let's stop.
With $250,000, you're going to be paying about 37% in taxes.
So you're going to have roughly like $175K after the fact.
Or maybe like, what are you going to be?
$150,000, maybe?
And so you're just about breaking even.
If your taxes, you're living comfortably.
Let's say you're at $275K, so now you've got about $1020,000 that you can realistically just put in investments.
Those investments are slow growing.
I mean, putting $17K per year in a 401k is something massive, way better than most people.
Now, let's say you make $13 million per year.
Use $150,000 to live comfortably, and then you've got $12,850,000 to literally invest wherever you want in whatever you want and just grow money rapidly.
But you are paying the same tax rate.
Worse, the access money is being funneled through trusts or the Cayman Islands or whatever it is.
So you're probably not paying anything on that.
The taxes that they're putting in place the way they are target individuals who are just, here's the way I view it.
I think the system is designed and increasingly being designed so that there is the working bracket and you will have the impoverished and then you will have the upper class.
There will be people who pretend to be rich, who feel like they're rich because they make a couple hundred thousand dollars per year.
Then there are going to be the ultra-wealthy, the people who are making maybe like 10 plus million per year who have blasted off and broken orbit, and you will never catch them.
There is nothing you will ever be able to do to stop them.
You go to Elon Musk and say, we want to tax you, he'll say, hey, China.
And China's going to be like, anything you want, brother.
We will give you a palace if you bring your companies to us.
You give us SpaceX, it's yours.
There is nothing you can do to catch these people.
The world that's being created is the base peasant class, which does have its wealthy merchant types.
And then there's going to be ultra-elite global class that can escape and go wherever they want, no matter what.
Yeah, I mean, we have a situation right now where it seems like what you're saying is we have capital owners who can bend the financial reality at whim.
And these upper caste members will always bend reality in their favor.
And then if your actions create a negative ripple effect, one of the challenges is that at the highest levels of intelligence, you start to get like I think there's a reason there's a correlation between like sociopathy and like high IQ people.
Because when you start to ask deep philosophical questions and entertain higher ordered thinking, so like the highest order of thinking is contemplating like multiversal phenomena and like things like that, it minimizes the human experience to a great deal.
The people who can't comprehend like the higher levels of the universe or whatever, higher order thinking, they're living in a very human visceral plane.
They understand the human experience and that's what they live in and they deeply care about it.
The smarter a person gets, the more robotic they get because they start to look at the needs and wants of humans as minimal.
And then there's certainly people who have deep philosophical understandings.
Like a good example is just like how we, how we, how we envisioned Dr. Manhattan and Watchmen, are you familiar?
Yeah, his statement about having witnessed things so small they could not even be have not even have said to happen at all or whatever, whatever the quote is.
And he can see forward and backward in time.
So he just doesn't care about humans at all.
This is a perception of the smartest people.
You know, like one way I can phrase it in a way that like reduces it is, imagine you were going to work and everyone at your work was seven years old and they were complaining about the, there's not, there's not cookies in the refrigerator.
And you're sitting there going like, guys, if we don't get the generator ring again, the press is not going to work and we're not going to sell products.
And they're all banging their hands on the table being like, what don't you get about the cookies being missing?
This is the perception that the ultra elite high, I'm not saying every ultra elite is high intelligence.
Some are dumb as shit.
But there are a lot of ultra high intelligence people who hear you talking about things like property taxes and they're just like, they're like, what don't you understand about like, you know, like the exponential expansion of the human population and the lack of resources if we do not accommodate.
And then you're sitting there being like, look, man, I'm just trying to get gas to go to work.
So while the average person is concerned with these low, like base level things, whether they're intelligent or not, highly intelligent people are looking down at the being like, I'm much more concerned with like the plasma fuel injectors for the new ship that's going to put humanity on other planets.
And one great example of what you bring up is there was this great debate that I saw where this very intelligent woman was talking about Agrippa's trilemma and this other guy just didn't understand what it was.
And it's frustrating.
I'm kidding, by the way, that was Kyla Debane and Andrew Wilson.
Well, the point I'm making is that the highest level of philosophical debate get to the point where they're all nihilists, complete nihilists.
They just, there's low-tier nihilism, I would describe it, where you get like a lot of lefty activists where they're just like, nothing matters, so who cares?
And at the highest levels, you get these people who are like, nothing matters but what I decide.
And those people are building spaceships and building factories and nuclear submarines or autonomous drones with lasers on them.
Like the stuff that Andarilla's building, like that AI-powered night vision headset that can track human beings behind buildings, fucking insane.
These are people who are just like, they see the world differently and they bend it to their whim.
There is no law you will pass that will stop them.
So I guess I'm curious, do you, and I'm not saying that you're a communist and I'm not saying I'm a communist or a Marxist, but Marx often levies a lot of these criticisms of capitalism.
It just seems like for you, maybe what's different between you and Marx is that you think these hierarchies can't be flattened.
They can't be reduced.
Whereas Marx's solution to these problems that you're outlining is to flatten hierarchies.
So I guess I don't think you can ever perfectly solve the world.
But I think what you're advocating for is this type of kind of intellectual nihilism that I don't think is pointing out what it is.
I'm not advocating for it.
You're saying that it's an inevitability.
And I think like one of the most, I think it's a fact if you act as though it must be, right?
I think one of the most important things that I learn in philosophy that I love about philosophy is that the future isn't set, right?
I think one of the ways in which we have lifted more humans out of poverty, we have maximized on these kind of Machiavelli geniuses is to convince these people and people like them and some of our base instincts to uplift humans towards the best conditions we've ever seen in human history.
We should get 100 random people to play a game of chess against Magnus Carlson by vote.
Like, that's not even a joke.
I'd be really interested to see if this could work if you took like 100 random chess players of various ELO and they would convene and then they would have like three minutes to come to a decision.
Because if I was one of the hundred and I'm like, I think Tim knows the game better than me and I think everyone else would all get to vote to Tim because he can beat Magnus one-on-one.
The point I'm bringing up is that I explain to people all the time that it's extremely easy to manipulate a human being.
And I love this.
I have this trick that I do where I will tell someone, I can make you say a sentence.
I can make you say it.
And there's a couple of, there's a bunch of really funny rudimentary tricks.
It's a basic magician trick.
I can make you say, yeah, but not me, though, or something to that effect.
And then everybody goes, try me.
And then I explain the basic functions of social engineering over a period of two minutes, to which after I explain the basics are rapport extreme turn.
This is how you manipulate someone.
This is one-on-one, right?
You get more in-depth schooling on this one.
You can learn out more.
The first thing you got to do is rapport.
Rapport means you can only convince a person you are.
If you go to a businessman wearing a suit and you're Ian, he's not going to listen to you.
It's going to be very difficult.
The first thing you have to do is approach them as a friend.
Otherwise, they're going to have defense barriers.
The second thing you do is called the extreme.
So for example, what you would do is you meet someone who likes Obama.
Maybe a little controversial, but he was willing to do what needed to be done, even if he blew up children.
And I know that sounds harsh, but when you're dealing with these fucking Muslim terrorists that are willing to kill women and children, I say, turn them to fucking glass.
But I will just put it simply: you can ban wealth.
You can literally say no one is allowed to legally have more than $1,000 in their bank account, and there will be a guy who is worth $7 trillion.
You can create any system you want.
You will not, you are not smart enough to beat someone smarter than you.
And there are going to be cream of the crop, ultra high-end, especially with 8 billion people who are so smart, they will manufacture a system and you can't stop them.
And maybe that system is, they have 100 employees who hide diamonds in various markers in the desert.
So they know where all of their wealth is, but it's not visible in the system and no one can find it.
And if they ever need to move large amounts of wealth, they have a network to do it.
You can make up a million and one ways they do it.
To be fair, though, there are still pretty easy ways to manipulate people who are like that.
For one example, one example, one example I call bugs bunnying, when someone is clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing, you do a little dance and you can slowly ask questions and shift your positions until they're arguing the opposite side.
Not to prove them wrong because they'll still think they're right, but to show people they weren't actually arguing with in the first place.
I'm just wondering if there's a way, like, is there that kind of hubris when you get that smart that you think that you're smarter than everybody else?
So what you basically have is people's level of scientific literacy and then their confidence and position on something controversial like climate change.
And what you'll notice is that the more scientifically literate the person is, depending on if they are pro-climate change or anti-climate change, their confidence in their position only decreases.
Professionals will probably tell you, yeah, I'm good.
I'm a pro, right?
It's like, are you the best?
They'll be like, no.
I know some of the best poker players in the world, and they'll say, I am not, you know, like we had Daniel McGrano on, and he's my, I'm like, this guy's my favorite.
I love watching his videos.
The best speech play.
He reads people like a boss.
He's the best.
He goes, I'm not.
I'm not the best.
I use an example because poker is the perfect, perfect, whatever you want to call it, game or whatever.
Because regular, poker only exists because stupid people think they're smart.
It's not even a joke.
When you're the highest level of advanced poker player, of which I am nowhere near, and you've got what's called game theory optimal mapped in your mind, you know how to play exploitative, all of these things.
There are strategies in poker that are like mathematically, like I'm still trying to grasp.
It's brilliant stuff.
And I'm talking about specifically Texas Holden.
If I play against a low-stakes player at 1-3 at my current level, because I've been coached by some pros, I've sought out to improve myself.
It is mind-blowing to me, but I totally understand it.
There are people who make the stupidest mistakes.
They all do it 99%, play poorly, refuse to study, refuse to learn, and then say, I'm a good player.
And I'm like, wow, you're losing money.
You don't understand how to play, and you think you're good at this.
eventually there's a so there is a i mean eventually there there there is uh in poker you can if you if you're um if you're playing table images is something that that matters depending on online it's very different but it still exists If you're it's strategy and how you appear.
So I was playing at MGM and three hands in a row, I got what are called premiums.
So I got Ace King suited.
Fuck yes.
I raise, get a call, flop comes out, I hit a king, I bet, they fold, they're pissed off.
Next hand comes, I have Jacks, another premium hand, like fourth best hand.
And so I make a bet.
Everybody calls, the flop comes out, it's nine, seven deuce, rainbow, meaning my jacks are good, most likely.
I make a bet, dude folds.
Maybe, you know, it's not always the right move to make a bet, but sometimes your hand needs protection.
I'll get into the advanced strategy in a second if we need to.
And then this dude starts getting mad, being like, the dude's raising nonstop, and he's betting everything.
He can't have it.
This literally happened.
I got Jacks again.
I make a bet.
And then the dude calls, and the flop comes out with a jack, which gives me what's called a set, three of a kind.
And now I'm real fucking happy.
There are no draws.
I have what's called at the time the nuts, the strongest possible hand, and I make a bet.
And then he says, oh, you got it again, did you?
So he calls this time.
And then I said, or you're walking into a trap because I'm playing straight up and I got good hands and you are too arrogant to think you're wrong.
And he lost all his money.
He was like, you're bluffing.
Like, it is mine.
It's not possible that someone will get three hands in a row.
Therefore, you're lying to me.
I call and I said, I have the nuts.
And he's like, fuck.
So sometimes these things happen.
It doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad player.
But what I will stress is all good players sometimes lose.
Good players, typically on average, we track what's called big blinds per hour.
Bad players will go to a casino or they'll go to a poker room.
They'll win a hundred bucks and go, I'm pretty good at this.
And then they'll come back and lose everything.
So I only bring that up one because I love poker and I'll always talk about it.
Dude, when it comes to the same thing, we got to go.
I love the difference between intelligence and wisdom and like the intelligent able to memorize a lot of data and the wise knowing when to utilize those things.
So I'm actually a psychometrist by trade, so I do IQ testing.
That's what my background's in.
So I'm decently familiar with IQ.
So when I'm talking about IQ, I'm talking about generalized intelligence.
I just think like Marcus Aurelius is very wise, right?
Love the Stoics.
But I don't think we have good evidence that he had the highest IQ in the world because I think you can be incredibly adept at knowing how to think with a low IQ.
I think people with 80 IQ can outperform in like actually navigating the world.
With the government recovering from years of spending our hard-earned tax dollars on things like making gay maps, do you think that the government should redirect that sort of money toward making pro-America and pro-traditional values entertainment instead?
No, I just, I think the less the government is involved in your life, the better.
But I do think to a degree that there's been such a shift.
And certainly in the entertainment industry, like you can't go out and make, for the most part now, a movie or a television show that doesn't have some kind of agenda in it.
And I think that what it's done, and I'll look at this from someone who grew up loving America from the outside and the values that America projected around the world, they've been systematic, I think this is what the caller's talking about.
They've been systematically like destroyed over the past at least 30 years.
So I actually think all of our content always had an agenda.
It's just that when our culture was homogeneous, it was just reflecting our values.
And what we're seeing now with like, you know, what we would describe as woke content, that's the left reflecting their values and the right saying it doesn't reflect ours.
So when they said in Florida that like kids are being indoctrinated and they shouldn't be, you go to any conservative and say, should schools teach people about the greatness of America?
They'll say yes.
In fact, you go to Christian conservatives, say, should they have the Ten Commandments?
They'll say absolutely.
The left would call that indoctrination too.
The difference is that we have our culture has bifurcated.
That's the real issue.
I don't know how, like, if you want to say that the government, like we have control of the government, so we can fund programs in some way, either through like grants or like we create a special program where the government grants production companies.
The left is going to say that you're making fascist propaganda.
And you can argue that they're wrong.
It's really just two distinct cultures fighting each other.
I think that we're moving away from things that culturally kind of defined us to a degree, you know?
And I think that because there are certain things that are worth, they have intrinsic worth by themselves, right?
Because of the art history of it.
And I think that we're losing that.
We're losing that with ballet.
Like, for example, ballet Timothy Shalamay said something recently about ballet.
And what happened as a result was a lot of ballerinas and ballet dancers came out and said, listen, we couldn't do this without the patronage of the arts.
So I think that, you know, I think that it's not necessarily about putting out content with agenda.
It's just, I guess, putting out just something to even things up because everything is so far on one side right now.
No, but I was going to say, but I hate to say it like this, but we're at the point where it's like, while we've got the reins, can we please try and do some of that?
And he believes he has a technique that could reignite their dying son.
However, in four days will be his 60th birthday, which is where he will be ritualistically killed.
His planet dealt with, as the technology advanced, the aging population was left uncared for, and it devastated their economy, caused a lot of problems.
And so they decided hundreds of years before that at the age of 60, they kill you.
And so he tries to save the sun from burning out, fails, and he thinks he's come up with a solution.
He needs to keep working.
He meets Deanna Troy's mother, and they, like his wife has long been dead.
And so they, you know, end up having a crush on each other.
And she's like, I can't believe you're going to die.
Don't do this.
You have everything to live for.
You're still alive and healthy.
And he explains it's his culture and what they believe.
And then she says, you know, she convinces him.
He calls the planet and he's like, I'm not going to return to die.
I'm going to continue my work.
And they say, no, someone else will do the work.
So he fails.
And then he decides ultimately he's going to go back and kill himself as per his society.
And Luwaksana Troy says to him, then why do you even care to reignite your son?
Because if you believe when it's your time, it's your time, then why not just let it die?
And that was kind of what convinced him.
Basically, it was an interesting juxtaposition in the show where this civilization should die by their own values.
They have aged to the point where they can no longer survive, so why bother trying to survive?
I bring this up because I take a look at what the American right has become.
It's fractured and for 70 years has been unwilling to sustain its own moral systems.
The left has grown increasingly.
They are centralized.
They have control of the cultural institutions, or at least they're losing it now.
And as you mentioned, the right isn't producing any of these things.
White people in Europe and the United States, countries they've colonized, have, and even their home countries, opened the door to foreigners to come in, whether intentionally or otherwise, displacing them.
And they're not having kids either.
So I hear these white supremacists and white nationalists saying like, we need a country for white people.
And I'm like, why?
White people have killed themselves.
It is not China.
China's having too many babies, and they're all Chinese.
And they're killing the people who are ethnically opposed to them.
The Koreans and the Japanese are ethno-supremacists.
It is only the countries that are prominently white, save Eastern Europe, that have opened their doors to non-white individuals, to people, to foreigners, and have not been reproducing at adequate levels.
Don't get me wrong, fertility has dropped everywhere.
But the point is, if white people are so great, why are they killing themselves?
Then you're just putting your heteronormative preference into it anyways, because what we're giving them is books with superheroes.
So if you want to, sure.
I just like, this is, this isn't the meaningful conversation we need to be having about when we're talking about like interventionism is like whether or not there's a gay superhero in one of the comic books for a $32,000 grant.
What actually matters here is conversations like going back to what you were talking about of like our morals and principles, right?
One of the things we were talking a bit about before of how there's always going to be that one guy who wants $7 billion and there's nothing the system can do about that.
And I'd say, that's true.
These people will always exist.
And yet liberal democracy has found a way to utilize those people and everyone else to bring about the best society we have experienced thus far, right?
I prefer that 7 billionaire and all of the problems that he has to now versus the 7 billionaire in feudal times, right?
Because I have more controls.
He can't just walk into my house and rape me because I let I'm on Rumble, not right.
I'm all with you on the Epstein stuff that there are problems.
I'm just going to say, I'll just finish this.
In the feudal system, you can get raped by Epstein and Larry Nasser and all of these losers, and he can rape your wife, and he can rape your kids, and there's nothing you can do about it.
And if you try to, you get killed by the state.
At least in this state, there are things we can do.
On Native American reservations, there's a black market where wealthy individuals will hire these security guys.
I say security, but they're like trained dudes.
And they'll ride into a reservation until they find a young girl, capture her, the wealthy person will rape her, and then they'll dump her out of the car and leave.
What I'm outlining to you is that the way that you talk about the system is that there are always going to be pariahs that abuse you in it, which I agree that there will be pariahs.
There are always going to be individuals that are abusing the system, that are taking advantage of it and are harming smaller little people underneath them.
I am clarifying the difference between a statement that implies that there will always be wealthy people intentionally trying to harm people versus a clarification.
Dr. Michael Beacon, do you want to add anything or shout anything out before we go to the next caller?
Maybe it's a shout-out because, man, are we going long?
unidentified
Sorry.
I forgot about the family.
I'll make the shout-out real quick.
So I want to shout out my comic, Seven Legions.
It's a sci-fi fantasy historical fiction space opera about Hiko, an orphan born in Sengoku era, Japan, adopted by a low-ranking samurai family, whose dreams are actually the memories of the life of Azrakow, an angel who served one of the greatest soldiers of the Seven Legions until he uncovered a plot to destroy them from within and vanished.
Now Hiko finds himself drawn to a galactic conflict while his own clan has gotten a war of its own.
Before we jump to the next caller, I'll just my point is that all of the laws that we make are only for those who are not smart enough to get past them.
But we got the caller, so I don't know if you want to just.
It was very famous in 2020 when Tulsi Gabbard said on the stage that she kept prison inmates in prison beyond their term to have them fight wildfires for a dollar an hour.
Trump, before he got elected, said that torture was on the table.
Trump said that he was going to nuke and destroy North Korea and Syria with fiery hell, which was crazy for all of you anti-war people who voted for him, right?
He was been hawkish from the beginning, despite the fact that he lied to all of you and insisted he didn't.
He insisted that he was going to do tariffs.
And most people who voted for Trump said, he won't do tariffs.
He used those tariffs to trade off for personal favors from Vietnam, from Saudi Arabia, and he loaded his pockets and raked in Kohl's while all of the manufacturers that didn't own local and couldn't do what you did and can't pivot quickly just passed on the cost to the consumer, which is why you should care about the common man.
When Trump told the auto manufacturers they were going to slap a 30% tariff on them and they moved their factories back to Michigan and Ohio, then Biden got in and cut that deal.
So the factories moved back to Indonesia and Mexico.
Trading tariffs so my crypto son can make money from Saudi Arabia investing in my crypto.
That is exactly what he did.
He used these types of tariffs specifically.
Answer what I said.
Is it better that you have to-is it better that you have a president who levies tariffs, global tariffs, to get personal favors from autocrats and from dictators around the world?
And they make sure that they should actually sign trade greedies like TPP, which Trump pulled out of, by the way, which made Vietnam have to establish certain rigorous standards of treating their workers so that we can keep working with Vietnam, keep lifting them out of poverty, which is what globalized capitalism does, and then also insist on Sir Wood Morgan statures.
But actually, we should get rid of that so that now Vietnam is only reliant on China.
The problem with the TPP was the investor-state dispute settlement, which allowed the corporations to sue the U.S. government for discrimination if we chose not to buy their oil.
And then we taxpayers would have to pay Vietnamese corporations back.
And what should have happened, rather than Trump pulling out of TPP, is he should have just amended it, which you can do as actually as a brilliant business negotiator.
Okay, so this is misledin, but everyone else can put in your input.
I don't give a shit.
So with graphene, what seems to be 10 years away from mass production, just like fear, what makes you think that we'll actually see the properties of this so-called wonder material?
Because if we start looking back into the past, because history always rhymes, it does not repeat.
This exact same thing happened with PTFE, or as we know it off as Teflon.
It took roughly, though, 16 years from it to be discovered in 1938 for it to be publicly available on store shelves in 1954.
So with graphene first being isolated in 86, it's going on now 40 years without seeing any major publicly available products.
So does it actually have the claims?
Because if it did, why aren't they investing into it?
They figured out, so the internet's a big part of why it's accelerating and becoming mass adopted.
They didn't have that back in the day.
So it's easier to quash new things, but they figured out how to produce bulk graphene.
It's different than you said 10 years away to make these sheets of it, these perfect sheets of it.
That's going to be a challenge.
That's when we're going to get microelectronics out of the stuff.
But the bulk graphene is how you make like roads and buildings with it.
You mix it into asphalt and make it two and a half times stronger, last longer.
And you mix it into with steel.
You can mix it with bitumen in the roads.
Did I say concrete?
You mix it with the concrete in the buildings to make it lighter and stronger.
So that's going to be the mass adoption round one.
And then when we start building with fucking rocket ships that are like touchscreen computers that can handle 10,000 degree temperatures, but that's going to be after.
Everyone already know what it is at that point.
unidentified
Then why hasn't the likes of General Dynamic 3M Dow Chemical DuPont or Honeywell decided to dump billions of billions of dollars into the development of it to actually make it viable in mass production?
It might be that they're using shell companies to invest so you don't see them investing because that would make investors think that they're going to jump ship or change their business model.
But it's very likely that they are.
unidentified
But it would help them in their financial gain because if they're able to add it into materials like you're saying, you're going to end up being able to make more money because you're able to take your waste products, burn it down to carbon or extract it from the air and put it back into your material at a cheaper cost.
If they pivot away from steel, for instance, and go into carbon, like just graphene, the steel manufacturers might be like, oh, shit, this sends ripples through.
I don't know.
It's just a proportion.
I don't know if, I don't know.
I haven't looked into like Dow's investment strategy and how deep they are in the graphene game right now.
unidentified
Well, that'd be something to think about if you talk about it all the time, because that way you actually can realize, oh, shit, is it actually viable or is it just empty claims?
I know it's been a little controversial tonight, so I want to ask something really easy.
So there's been a lot of talk about women's sexual liberation and how it's devalued women because it makes all of the desperate men no longer have to work hard to see boobs anymore, which I hear is a very important part.
See boobs, do thing.
That's why men work.
So I personally postulate that women's sexuality is a lot like a sandwich.
I would be pretty mad if 15 men fucked my sandwich before I ate it.
But I would be a lot less mad if I was the one that fucked my sandwich before I ate it.
Women have a higher body count than men at a certain level of attractiveness, and then it inverts.
So, at the higher end of male attractiveness, they're banging a bunch of women.
So, like, women have a general lower body count than the most attractive guys, but they have a slightly higher body count than the average guy because this is just evolutionary biology and psychology.
Attractive guys get more women than unattractive guys.