IT HAS BEGUN, Subpoenas Filed Over GRAND CONSPIRACY Against Trump | Timcast IRL
James Comey faces a grand conspiracy subpoena as the Pentagon requests $200 billion for Iran operations amidst rising oil prices and Chinese fertilizer cuts. Guests debate rule of law erosion, free speech limits for violent actors, and whether low-skilled immigration erodes Gen Z wages compared to AI-driven layoffs. The episode also examines spurious correlations, transgender definitions, birthright citizenship, and conspiracy theories linking Trump to the Antichrist, ultimately questioning if political polarization threatens democratic stability or merely reflects shifting ideological battles over power and identity. [Automatically generated summary]
James Comey has been subpoenaed in the grand conspiracy against Trump.
So far, 130 subpoenas have been issued, and that proves it.
It doesn't.
It's a subpoena, meaning they're going to investigate.
Maybe there will be an actual indictment for once, but I don't want to be blackpilled.
I just don't know that we're actually going to get any real criminal charges.
I mean, the best it seems the Trump administration has been able to do is accuse certain Democrats of like mortgage fraud for having houses in the wrong location, which they shouldn't do, but it's certainly not evidence of a grand conspiracy against Trump.
So, I'm interested to see where this goes.
It is big news, so we'll talk about that.
Plus, the Pentagon is requesting $200 billion from Congress to keep funding this war, which is absolutely crazy.
Of course, Phil and Ian are here, but we don't need introductions for the people you know and love.
Let's jump to the news from axios.com.
We got James Comey subpoenaed in alleged grand conspiracy against Trump.
Former FBI director James Comey has been subpoenaed in the wide-ranging grand conspiracy case against the ex-officials who investigated and prosecuted President Trump.
Two sources with knowledge of the situation tell Axios.
The investigation has produced more than 130 subpoenas since cranking up last year.
The officials, including Comey, have all decried the investigation as political persecution and lawfare.
The Trump administration's grand conspiracy theory posits that Democratic officials bent the rules, broke the law, and lied under oath to investigate, prosecute, and otherwise undermine Trump from his election in 2016 through his federal indictments in 2023.
The Comey subpoena issued last week relates to his alleged role in the drafting of a January 2017 intelligence committee assessment concerning Russia's election interference that favored Trump.
The assessment referenced the now widely discredited Steele dossier, whose inclusion ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment, according to a Tradecraft review completed in June under Trump's current CIA director, John Ratcliffe.
Ratcliffe then referred Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan for prosecution.
Well, all I can say, folks, is this proves it once and for all.
It is now beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will just assert it as fact.
Well, if this was the standard of due process, then like every single lawyer that we were talking about yesterday is like beyond guilty compared to Comey, right?
But obviously, due process matters, and it's good that we have due process because it protects, as a liberal, I want due process so that when my side, but I don't really have a team, but when we want due process because we want to ensure that people who have vested interests against us can't weaponize systems.
And I think that there's genuine concern that the DOJ is being weaponized against Trump enemies.
Like you can say it exists and we understand the concept.
Like, yes, when I go to bed after my teeth fall out, hopefully not at 40 years old, that would suck.
But I put it under my pillow and then money's there.
Like something did happen.
And then I'm told it was the tooth fairy.
That's how I feel about due process, right?
Something does happen most of the time, but when it actually matters, there's no due process because the left makes the same exact argument I'm making now.
You've got that dude in California who raped that one chick and they said he had affluent.
Was it affluenza from raping that chick?
So he didn't, there was no functional due process.
Yeah, they said he suffered from affluenza because he was too rich to understand what he did was wrong.
So that's from the left.
The left has made that argument.
I think it's fair to say both the left and the right agree that the legal system is just a function of who wants to exercise power against their enemies.
Going behind the backs of people and like spying on opponents has been the norm through history, even though they will tell you we have due process.
And I'm wondering, Rudyard, I really want to get your take on this because since the internet feels like people like Donald Trump actually have a chance at bucking the system, did this kind of thing ever happen in the past?
The first of which is we have to be very careful about eroding rule of law because that's been the English-speaking world's great advantage.
And if we erode rule of law, it's going to have very negative downstream effects on everything between the economy, between politics, because rule of law is the set of rules you use to establish all social interaction.
And if that goes away, you won't make companies because someone will steal the company you make.
But I have another thing.
The second thing is the left has been weaponizing this already.
And there's been a huge issue with conservative judges and with conservatives making the argument that you're opposed to, saying, oh, we can't do this, blank, blank, blank.
The left has already done a weaponization of the political process to an insane degree.
And when conservatives push against stuff where it should be illegal to discriminate against white men under civil rights law, it happens on a mass degree.
But conservative judges don't stand against it.
Conservative judges don't stand against the rampant abuse in the family court system against men.
They don't stand against the rampant biases against white men, where the left has been doing this to an insane degree.
And even defensively, the right does not protect itself.
But I think it's progressives were upset at the time of this case because they wanted a very harsh penalty against him The judge gave him a light sentence, citing what she called affluenza.
Yeah, that's – you oftentimes have to balance two opposing things and figure out where between these two is the reasonable conclusion.
And I understand what you're saying, where, I mean, Russia Gate was a lie, and it's crazy there's been no prosecution for this staggering lie because there was no actual evidence that Trump was colluding with Russia or that the Russians tilted the course of the election.
This was just a story the left made up.
And slander is incorrect, especially slander on that scale.
And you can't let that go back.
And I think another thing is we have laws against treason, and we have seen mass treason among the population.
Because this happened when Trump said this is like sedition punishable by death.
That is when the military seeks to undermine.
So there is a special sedition there.
I would argue that many of the people you may be referring to, you could perhaps argue treason because they are adherent to, say, China or whatever.
But we aren't at war with China despite being adversaries.
Iran now is where it gets interesting because you've got a lot of people that are accusing Tucker Carlson of treason directly for communicating with Iran before the U.S. like as the U.S. was preparing strikes against them.
But I would say for the general leftist, it's seditious conspiracy.
I mean, what I'd say in general is there's been a complete and utter abuse of the rule of law so far.
And it's been done predominantly by the left across a variety of different fields with everything stretching from the national level to the social level to the family level.
And this has been justified by the court system.
And so you have to be careful that if you remove the institution of law, we're going to devolve into being a third world dictatorship.
But he's being obstructed by judges every step of the way.
And then there's this tit-for-tet back and forth where it goes to like three appeals and then finally he wins.
There was a recent ruling with RFK Jr. where he wanted to change the rules on vaccine safety.
And then once again, a judge blocked him.
And you famously have this judge in D.C. that just says literally no to everything.
There was that particularly important court case where these judges were arguing that any district, actually the left was arguing that any district court judge can overturn anything Trump does.
And then the Trump administration argued this is insane because at the time, they had an appeal granted allowing this immigration practice.
I forget the specific executive order.
As soon as it was granted, progressive groups filed a lawsuit in another federal jurisdiction, which put a stay on it, so they can't both be true at the same time.
I think it's fair to say that while I agree with you, the left is absolutely just saying by any means necessary, and the right is saying, slow down their Democrats.
What they're doing is not – it's not justifiable and it's not fair.
And English common law was established in the 12th century under a certain context with a certain aim in charge.
And this was not the end point of the context or the aim that we were trying to reach.
And you have to parallel the left for where they're at.
And it's quite – I'm trying to articulate something complicated where in crisis periods like this, you set precedents that you can't go back.
And so if you compare the English Civil War to the French Revolution, in the English Civil War, you had a political crisis.
And at the end of it, England became a democracy with rule of law.
And in France, it spiraled into being a military dictatorship.
And these are very different outcomes.
And you have to be careful about not establishing precedents that future generations can look to, because if you go to Latin America, there's a lot of countries in Latin America, like Argentina, that's Argentina is more white than America.
It has a temperate climate.
And Argentina is poor because they don't have rule of law.
Where if you can't establish a company and assume that a social superior is not going to steal your company, you can't have a capitalist economy.
That's why I said there's a huge overturn window for authoritarianism, because you're trusting the leader a lot.
If you look to Emperor Augustus, who was the first Roman dictator, he was one of the greatest statesmen in history.
So when Rome did the transition from democracy to monarchy, they had one of the best rulers ever.
And things governed very well until Tiberius and Caligula showed up.
And then it got a lot worse.
And with monarchies or authoritarianism, you're trusting the – and the reason that a lot of the older authors preferred monarchies to military dictatorships is that the monarch has an incentive to pass things on to their children.
So the monarch has a multi-generational incentive.
So they're less likely to hurt things like freedom or the free market.
Because I put rule of law above democracy.
Because if you're a society with rule of law, it means you have functional freedom.
What I will say is that the reason you could not have Timcast in any other Western country, because they've had left-wing authoritarianism remove the rule of law and personal freedoms, where once you start pulling that away, you very quickly end up in a society where you lose a lot.
And it's one of those things where I put property rights and rule of law above everything else in my framework.
But so I guess my ultimate point is when you look at the history of the United States, there are varying degrees of cultural enforcement across the board.
Obviously not military dictatorship, but until you get to Abraham Lincoln, I suppose, when things got pretty serious with the Civil War.
But blasphemy, for instance, was illegal up until like the early 1800s.
My view largely is that if everybody in this country was morally homogenous, they'd be completely happy.
Let's say everybody in this country, 100% of people were Christian theocrats.
They'd have no problem with a member of Congress proposing a commandment law.
But Christian theocracies fell at the hands oftentimes of Christianity because the idea that people will stay like wholly unified in the perfect way insofar as that people will be happy just doesn't happen, right?
Like the United States today used to be morally homogenous to a great degree, and then it started fracturing.
I would argue that since the Civil War, like the bifurcation actually started around the time the country was formed because Thomas Jefferson wanted to actually complain about slavery in the Declaration of Independence, but they were concerned that South Carolina and Georgia would not join the effort if they included that grievance.
And so there was a general bit of, let's call it acrimony, but it started to bubble up in the 1820s when there was a perception in the 1820s that a civil war could actually happen in the United States, though it didn't.
And then it did happen in 1861.
Since then, you've had this clash between two polarized worldviews in this country.
My point ultimately is if you have a group of people that believe the exact same thing, the things they argue about are the minutia.
But in the 90s, Democrats and Republicans lived together, got married, and their arguments were over how much in taxes versus how long a woman should be allowed to have an abortion.
And it was like the Republicans were like, I think 16 weeks is too long.
I guess what I'm saying is that when you look at the moral worldview of Democrats and Republicans, the majority of the country, in like 1994, they overwhelmingly overlapped.
And so they were pretty okay with like, I mean, like, certainly we had protests for the Iraq and Afghanistan war, but still people generally were like, well, you know, 9-11, right?
They rallied around George W. Bush even after 2000.
Ultimately, my point is this, just to simplify.
No one would care about a military dictatorship that was enforcing exactly what their worldview was.
I think like the one of the things that I love about like America and like the American tradition, like Greek philosophy is that we're built on a tradition of people thinking beyond just their own skin and preferences.
This is why you're probably familiar with Rawls and like the veil of ignorance, right?
So it's great.
It's this great kind of political philosophy where it says, you should imagine a world where you can't know what body, gender, et cetera, you'll be born into.
So I agree that it's not the reality of the world we live in to some degree, but I think that like to a large degree.
Well, sure.
And I think that that's a sad thing.
I think the fact that we've like lost the connection to the things that matter beyond just our own skin, that we've failed to understand that principles matter fundamentally and deeply and to hold to these principles, to understand why we said everyone has to be equal before the law, even if I hate that guy and why that matters is a failing of our society.
There's this saying in psychology where we say, if you meet people, if your expectations for people are exactly where they are, all they'll do is be exactly what they are.
Whereas if you look at people and you say, I know you can do better.
I know that we can collect and do and unify.
They might not get up here, but they're probably going to get here.
And so if you walked up to a person and just shot them and they died, we'd find that to be murder.
And Rudyard, this is for you too.
Let's say that you live in a small village in the countryside and the year is 1300 or whatever.
And you're French.
So you're all like, you know, white, brown-haired, blue-eyed people or whatever.
Whatever they looked like in France.
And they're sitting there going, ha ha ha, and inventing croissants.
And then you get people who are clearly distinct from you, and they show up and you say, well, we don't just kill people.
We're a little apprehensive.
And then you meet and you talk and the guy pulls a knife and just stabs your village elder to death and then throws fire on your village and then flees.
If a guy throws a torch at your village and burns on your house and kills one of your people and then flees, and then a person who looks just like him, wearing the same clothes, the same flag, whatever, shows up the next day, do you treat him the same or do you adapt your...
I would probably be cautious, probably have arms and weapons ready in case he whips out his torch to start stabbing and murdering and burning things, right?
But inquire him, ask why he's there, see what his intention is in the village, right?
You could even treat him cautiously, say he gives you all of the perfect answers that makes you go like, oh, he's actually a defector from that village and he's not in the future.
And I'm saying the scenario of human nature is to go to black and white thinking immediately.
And what I'm saying to people is that black and white thinking is just as destructive.
What if that next guy showing up with the torch is just about to show up and like bring blacksmiths and like ironworks to your village and like revolutionize your technology?
Yeah, but this it's not just sure, but the issue is like, this is why when we look at democracies, there are different systems that work better, right?
Like there are certain, like I'm sure you probably oppose like direct Iraq democracy, right?
Like the Greeks did, because it doesn't work very well.
It leads to a lot of tyranny, right?
There's the tyranny of majority to be feared in democracy.
You're appealing to wishy-washy concepts where if there's an external threat, you have to assess it for what it is based on context.
And you pick the highest quality person to do the assessing of context.
And the thing with John Rawls is it's not an accurate depiction of the human condition to randomly pick what individual you would be because that's not how this works.
Individuals have their own genetics, and groups have different genetics, and people are rewarded for the choices they make.
So Rawls operates under an underlying Christian assumption that there's indeterminate souls that you shove into a population.
That's not what happens.
A population is made up of individuals with different traits that make choices.
And so you can't say, if I were to randomly pick a certain population, what would I be?
Because there's nothing random.
An individual is the aggregation of all of the choices that went through them.
And so you can't say, I would, if I were to be born in a blank society, because the society is informed by the contextual decisions of everyone involved up to that point.
It strips context from the entire human condition.
The veil of ignorance is this thought experiment in the way that trolley problems are thought experiments, which is designed to help you decide which principles you want in your society.
So if you imagine a society where you can't know who you will be in that society, what are some of the principles you hope are there?
Rule of law, right, and like fair treatment before justice would be one that we would all be for because I don't ever want to be in the minority group that just gets treated poorly by the justice system because I happen to be in that minority group.
The way that we, I don't know, the way that we usually do it, a collection of people with somewhat unified cultural values, probably bordered by a nation state that unifies together.
Well, this is part of how you can engage in the veil of ignorance is going, well, I don't know who I am in this society, but how do I want that society theoretically to engage in foreign policy?
Well, one of them I would say is, I want my government to protect me as a citizen of whatever this nation state is, because I don't want other nation-states coming in, stomping me and killing me in the future.
But the people of New York have started to move away because they don't like it.
And this has created an entrenched enclave.
Enclaves are bad, I believe, like having a group of people that form their own subdivision that have their own rules is going to create animosity and violence because you'll create two distinct moral worldviews at odds with each other.
Now, the reason I cite this example is because it's one of the least egregious, meaning the people of New York don't really care all that much about the open-air fish markets.
They just move away.
They stopped living in the area, more Chinese people moved in, and now the area is dominated by Chinese.
But you could take a look at this and bring it to its most egregious, and that is like Chicago crime and shooting violence.
So you have areas where there may be a middle-class black family and gangbangers will come into that territory or just young black men who are violent for whatever reason they may be, and they will create crime.
This will cause the higher income people to flee and then just dramatically impoverish the area and create more crime and violence throughout the area.
So then the argument we would make is, what rules do we want?
Well, our principles would suggest that you are innocent until proven guilty and you should not be searched or have objects seized without something that warrants it.
Well, this is where democracy can be beautiful or bad, right?
And so the thing you're posing, right, say you say, I don't want to have enclaves in a society.
And my counter to that would basically say, I think with the size of nation states, it's almost unavoidable.
Even just think about the way that geography shapes a culture, right?
If you've got a nation that's mountainous and full of pine trees, and it's also in a nation with beaches and fishing, and it's also in a nation with, you know, insert different geographies, right?
The people in the culture that are going to emerge from these, even just geographies alone, are probably going to have some of the different values.
They're going to have things where they want to prioritize fishing industry more, but it's possible that the lumber industry is like having issues and they want more advocacy.
And so they'll always have these competing interests.
And I think the beauty of a democracy that's functioning well is that it takes to things where actually there might be reasonable concern, right?
You're not stating Rawls' full argument, where if you, for the argument that Rawls gave, you could also apply that to Aristotle, because Aristotle was saying, what is the abstract concept of good that we can use?
And Aristotle said there's three different political systems which are useful under different contexts that have their own issues.
Rawls is also operating under the principle of equality, which is demonstratively false.
Equality has been continually disproven by the science, as well as there are genetic differences between populations.
That's disproven among all of the academic community.
And so when you're looking at the Rawls, he's automatically jumping to socialism is good because equality is good.
And this is all operating under the assumption that Enlightenment morality is correct.
So it depends on your definition of socialism, because the socialists play a game where there's multiple definitions of socialism used at any given time.
So you can pick one or the other based on context.
The point is, when there are people who enter our society who have a religious practice that is an affront to our moral worldview, we will exert force against them to make them stop.
This is why I'm saying there's this tension all the time between like individual rights of freedom of religion, but also state values of things like we don't need any children.
If you as a society with a moral worldview have the monopoly on violence, you can stop, say, female general mutilation.
But if there is a new cultural worldview that has emerged, a new moral worldview, let's call it leftist, that tolerates and supports what Muslims are doing, they will take from you your monopoly on violence, and then you get a civil war.
Yes, like you might believe in the right to keep in bear arms, but you're not going to give an Islamic terrorist a gun and be like, you have a right to bear arms.
Sure, it's why I like the liberal principles where we said, well, we should have a couple of basic rules that we all apply to because other things we shouldn't impose on the right.
So when you have two distinct moral worldviews operating in one country, and I would say more than that, you are not going to abide them the same rights as you would someone of your society.
possibly with isis i think that's the case in america but i think that there's like good good statutory reason if you're like a terrorist sympathizer or whatever but like in general like right my point is but we don't want to say people who we just disagree with can't have rights you are Domestic terrorism doesn't exist in the United States because of the First Amendment.
So that's why Trump, his declaration, was actually just a statement he made and not anything extra informal.
He would have to do an international declaration.
This means, and I'll say it again: if someone is antifa and says this country should burn, I will not defend their right to keep and bear arms.
These are people who have expressed a violent intent, and we have seen in the past them use a violent intent.
And that's a more egregious example.
Let's jump to the next story.
Otherwise, we'll keep talking.
This is from the Washington Post.
The Pentagon seeks more than $200 billion in budget requests for Iran war.
Some what as officials do not think the Defense Department's request is a realistic shot of being approved in Congress, one senior administration official says.
Additionally, we've got more updates as more Marines are being deployed to the Middle East.
And of course, Donald Trump has said Israel was angry and bombed the South Pars gas field in Iran.
Gas, oil, crude oil, is now up to $119 per barrel, and gas is expected to go up.
I've seen reports, correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read too much into this, that China is now cutting off fertilizer exports.
I will say that $200 billion, the request for $200 billion, if I understand correctly, is to replace the stocks that they've already used.
So it's not technically to continue funding the war.
Not that it's not a slush fund anyways, essentially at the Pentagon, but it is to replace the stuff they've already used because you don't want to have your stockpiles of weapons.
It aims to cover sustained military operations, replenish depleted munitions, and accelerate weapons production in mid-intense strikes over the past three weeks.
My point is, the Iranian government sucks miserably.
But as we already discussed, Eric Prince, he was quoted as saying, the problem with Iran is to roll the dice.
You don't know if you can succeed.
This is not, I'll quote Charlie Kirk in June, I think it was June 17th.
He said, this is a developed nation of 90 plus million people that you cannot just easily go in and topple.
You cannot just ideologically change like some smaller countries.
This is a serious war.
Now, again, I think it's fair to point out, after Trump launched those strikes on the bunkers, a day after Charlie Kirk did say, I stand with my president and I want him to win, and I can respect that.
I feel the same way.
I want to win.
I do think it's ill-advised, but I think we have to just be realistic, and I'm saying optimistic, but let's at least recognize a $200 billion budget request, oil at $120.
This is not good news.
This is not good news for anybody.
I would implore the Republicans to pay attention to this because if you ignore it or poo-poo it, you're going to lose the midterms worse than you may already do.
It's the Persian, it was Persian Persian Empire and stuff, but it's actually been called Iran for a long, long time.
The term Aryan comes from the word Iran because they were like with the Caucasus, I guess the region is similar.
But I don't have so much of a problem with the request for the money because of the fact that it is to restock the depleted munitions, right?
So you can have your problems with the war.
You can have your concerns.
You can address all of the real, actual, tangible problems that this is causing.
But to say that the returning to whatever baseline level our munitions are or should be, I think that that's something that we should do because the idea of allowing the United States to not have the overwhelming military power that we do have, allowing that to be degraded, is far more of a problem for the U.S. than to say, oh, we're not going to spend $200 billion.
Does the American government owe private companies military protection if a government that they went into trade with buys out the company that they wanted to do?
About the principle here, like let's take it out of Venezuela.
If say Walmart has a close relationship with China, there's a Chinese private company that they're working with, and as a result of the Communist Party, China goes, We're actually taking all these assets and they take like $10 billion worth of Walmart principles.
Should America go in there and take private company assets?
We should spend taxpayer dollars to take private company assets.
Question: I got is when the Chinese buy a bunch of farmland in the United States and then the Americans are like, actually, this is our land and they seize it from these private Chinese companies that did everything legally, are we in the right?
And I would say yes, because it's American sovereign.
So, are Venezuelans in the right taking their sovereign territory back?
It's different because it's Venezuela.
That's the problem: you justify, I mean, it's a justification of Monkeytail.
You got to do the strongest, hardest, brutalist winning tactic to surveillance.
The first thing I would say is you are absolutely correct, and that I will always be biased for my society and my way of life, and what I think is right.
And I think that if I enter an agreement with another country to build oil assets and they share in those profits, and then they take them from me, that is a violation of our moral agreement.
Then, if you start privately buying up under my nose through our legal system, farmland near our military bases for which you can surveil them, I'm going to tell you to knock it the F off.
In the hypothetical, it's more analogous to this situation where that's not, because I'm assuming you're not saying that America was actually making it military assets secretly.
And I think it was actually private companies, oil drillings.
Let's say it's private Chinese companies, as private as they can be, that own and buy farmland and are growing soybeans in Canadian, in Canadian and American land.
Venezuela is one of the least defensible regimes you can pick because the Venezuelan government alienated even their own people, where Maduro needed to use Cuban mercenaries in order to establish his power, where Maduro was a democratically elected politician who installed himself as dictator.
He was profoundly unpopular, so he used Cuban mercenaries to install himself in power.
If I have an agreement to produce oil in your country and we share in the profits and you have a problem with that, negotiate the treaty, sever it or otherwise.
Instead of spending money to go blow up Venezuela, we could have negotiated contracts with other oil suppliers to get to the banks of the United States.
Yeah, and one of the issues is we didn't really get our oil back.
Most of the tankers that we seized from them, we've sold off to Saudi Arabia, which only apparently the Trump admin can actually have access to the $500 million.
So the American taxpayers didn't even make back the money that we spent to bail out.
How is it possible that overthrowing a nation state sovereignty is cool and base, but trying to establish democracy within a country, which I agree wasn't done very well in Afghanistan, is somehow morally abhorrent?
I want to get to this next story, which is actually relevant to the conversation.
I'll say one last thing on this, in that I think there's a realignment that's going to happen.
The progressives that lost in Illinois lost largely to APAC-backed candidates, which many people consider to be a shift.
Plus, we're seeing the media purchases by pro-Israel, pro-Zionist individuals.
I tweeted this earlier.
I think that we're going to see a political realignment where one party becomes interventionist and one party becomes anti-interventionist.
I'm not entirely sure if the Democrats will be the anti- or pro-interventionist, considering they're very critical of Trump right now, but it is shifting.
And with APAC backing these candidates, Democrats may actually end up in the we should go into these countries.
And then with Tucker, Candace, and Megan being loud right-wing voices, the Republican may become staunchly anti-intervention, which shifts the dynamic from woke versus anti-woke into war and pro-war, which is exactly what we were seeing with Obama versus McCain after the Bush era, where Obama played the I'm against the war, and McCain was like, well, sometimes you need it.
So again, I think the point you're making about why we may have needed, may have, I'm not saying we should have, may have needed to stay in Afghanistan is a point made by many neoliberals, more moderate Democrats about nationbuilding.
I mean, the idea, the fact that there is evidence that there are thousands and thousands of people that are going there just to have children, particularly from China, right?
Because they're just like, they're going to stand around while the like these Chinese people doing birth tourism are literally saying in 20 years, you will start seizing power and assets from the American people.
And the American liberals are like, they're going to be standing there as the Chinese guy goes like, I have every right to take your stuff because I am American.
Is it just that people don't, I'm asking you too, Rev, I mean, you study this stuff, that people just don't have that outside perspective of the system.
They get in it.
They get emotionally involved with like, yeah, we're accepting of people, but like, is it just that like dumb first order thinking?
And so to make sure that people don't have to face it and have that traumatic realignment that you can maybe educate them ahead of time and get them to kind of see what mass migration can do, see how societies can be destroyed with mass migration as used as a weapon.
But like to get people to realize it without really experiencing it, I don't know.
I don't know how.
I played a lot of Crusader Kings.
And I would watch countries get flipped with cultural, you know, the culture just takes it and then people vote for their own demise.
Yeah, you'd have to establish cultural traditions to because this is something a lot of tribal societies do, where they have rites of passage that force people to grow up through these various rituals that make them comprehend the horror of the world.
Because industrial civilization has protected us from the brutality of the human condition.
And so people are just not aware of how bad things can get.
And so but like we don't this is so I think you guys are like true about something.
Which is that like by and large people are a culmination of their experiences and that's about it, right?
What you're talking about like Anna Kasparian, right?
What you're talking about like the morally lucky individual who just happens to grow up with the whatever morals you prefer and loves them because they grew up with them, right?
But I also think that we can experience and observe things and think of things and develop a sense of self.
Outside of these experiences, it just takes significant work, right?
In the case of learning math, it's really hard to experience high levels of math, Euclidean geometry.
However, if you engage in it at high levels over and over as like a rigorous mental practice in the way that you could do with philosophy, right?
You can actually come to observe and understand these things and have it kind of phenomenologically affect how you engage with the world, I think.
Well, let's go back to the original question, which is there's an island where Chinese people are flying, giving birth and then leaving, so that those babies will have standing to be president and be American citizens.
It's silly that someone from China can fly here specifically to give birth and then fly here a week before birth, give birth, and then fly back a week later.
I agree, but there might be a way to like policy carve out in such a way that people can't abuse it like that, but we still protect the birthright citizenship.
Yes, some way to do that work.
Because I think Pisco points out really aptly, I forget which amendment it is, and I'm going to butcher his arguments for him.
Very sorry, Pisco, I think.
The 14th, yeah.
But the jurisdiction of the state it's talking about is the child.
It's not the parents.
And a child is not responsible for their parents, their parents' sins, their parents' heritage, any of these sort of things, especially in...
The 14th Amendment was specifically for post-Civil War, addressing the issue of slaves.
And the point of if you were born here, you were a slave, was past tense, not future.
The idea was all of the slaves who were born here are citizens.
That's what they were saying.
There was a debate on this in which the guy said, well, no one's going to construe this to mean that foreigners, diplomats, or their children would have to go to the city.
I can't remember the name of the political president.
Where they were like, no, no, no, anybody born here at this point forward will be a citizen, despite that not being the intention of the 14th Amendment.
That the principle here would be that you are not held and bound by the actions or identity of what your parents are.
Why is that good?
I think that that's good because, for example, being held accountable for the sins or like history of your parents is something that was often done in older world orders that I think was harmful.
I don't think that I should be culpable for the behaviors, the actions, the viewpoints, or the identity of my parents.
We fundamentally exist in a world of distinct countries that have their own histories.
And the reality is not that we are fundamentally bored because the baby boomers are going to pass on a crap ton of debt to my generation, Gen Z, by this logic.
And we can't, you can say, of course, it would be nice if we got rid of the debt.
I am going to be stuck with this debt.
I am going to force the generational inheritance the baby boomers gave me.
And I cannot do anything about this.
This is the fundamental reality of the human condition.
And I believe in creating politics around fundamental realities, not around abstract principles, and then enforcing them on reality whether or not they make sense.
You know, I think we form society based off of literal reality, like you're saying, but also off of abstract concepts like our rights are given to us by God.
I agree that, for example, the national debt that the boomers created is something that my generation and your generation are going to have to deal with.
But at the same time, I might be able to say the way that I identify as an individual, the things that I carry into this world, as far as maybe things like opportunity and circumstance, shouldn't be nearly as neatly tied to my parents.
I think that that's a very old world idea that I don't like.
But if there's these tension between these two things, if your parents literally birthed you here, then your whole world identity would revolve around the fact that they did that.
If you live here you're saying it's your identity shouldn't be anything to do with your parents, but your parents decided where you're going to be born.
And also, on top of it, I said that the development of these moral codes is a conflict between the material and the ideal.
What you're basically saying is that if the ideal is a man and the material is the woman, the man should just totally dominate the woman without reference to the material realities.
For the longest time, I just thought I was a quarter Korean, but then I found out that I'm actually 5% Japanese.
Now I'm in favor of the sins of the father because this means the government, the United States government, has got to give me reparations because I'm Japanese.
Do you guys think that we're out of balance with like, okay, so like Rodriguez, you were saying about the politics based on the harsh reality and politics based on the philosophy that we've become so, I think we've become so into philosophy with post- Thank you, Rudyard.
Yeah, talk me in.
That we become like in postmodernism that we're so philosophical heavy that we've lost sight with just brute reality.
How about we go nuclear and jump to this next story?
Donald Trump is the Antichrist.
Now that I've sufficiently made many of you angry, and I'll say that I'm joking, there is something interesting because we've got this tweet from Drew Tang who says, Remember when me and Donnie Darkand and Sovereign Bra went on Timcast in December of 2023 and quoted this exact verse to him saying it would happen to Trump?
And then the FBI had the episode taken off YouTube.
I saw that one of the heads of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery, but the fatal wound was healed.
The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast, Revelation.
Now, what's really interesting about this is that when I saw this tweet, I recalled sitting down with these individuals, and they literally explained to me that Donald Trump would be injured on the right side of his body in some capacity because that was a, if he was the Antichrist, that was a symbol of the Antichrist.
And so when I saw this, I was like, no, wait a minute, because they did say it on the show.
So I asked Grock and it said, the idea the Antichrist will be injured on the right side comes primarily from interpretations of biblical prophecy.
Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock.
A sword shall be against his arm and against his right eye.
His arm shall completely wither and his right eye shall be totally blinded.
Well, in all seriousness, Trump is not completely blinded, but the bullet did hit his right ear.
And what they said on the show was that Trump would be injured somewhere on the right side of his face, not necessarily his eye.
And then, ladies and gentlemen, Pamer drop time.
Nasty bruise on Trump's hand breaks through layers of makeup.
The president showed it off to Irish leader on St. Patrick's Day.
So this is a story the left has been playing like crazy.
Trump's right arm, his right hand, has been consistently bruised for going on months now, which again, I am not saying is the Antichrist, but a lot of these people who are.
If the Antichrist is here, my personal take is that people can behave in a Christ-like manner or in an Antichrist-like behavior.
And if they're super famous and powerful and you start being sinful, then you're exhibiting Antichrist-like behaviors and you'll be like one of those Antichrist people.
He doesn't know enough, which is what the argument is about the war in Israel and Netanyahu saying the messianic era will come, but it won't be next Thursday.
And then you've got people pointing to Donald Trump.
You've got the efforts to breed the red heifer.
I am not saying it's prophecy, but I am suggesting that people want it to be.
If he is making weird esoteric remarks and he drops these things inside his content that demonstrates that he knows more than he says, then you'll know.
What if Karl Marx was the Antichrist because he established a religion based upon material things and he was also a Jew and then it was an anti-church founded upon envy rather than love?
So some people think that the book of so I'm not a book of Revelations guy.
That's not my thing.
But some people think that book of Revelations takes course over centuries and you're compressing a complex historic event like the fall of Rome into a singular chapter.
It's crazy, but for centuries leading up to Christ in the Jewish community, they would constantly talk about the rise of their Messiah and the Messiah was about to come.
And the Messiah would defeat the Romans, and then they didn't figure out it was Christ.
Well, it's, you know, one of my simulation theories is that we're just an AI-generated television entertainment show for the progenitors.
So they made this.
Think about it this way.
Instead of making a show, like We View a Show, you create, you get an AI to auto-generate the stories, and it's like a real-time present thing you can just turn on and watch and then be like, I love the Trump show.
Like, we just watched President Trump be crazy, you know?
It's going to be a lot of fun for people to watch.
Whoa, man, what if reality fans makes money?
What if reality is a dream by the gods in order to simulate different realities to figure out what does and doesn't work so that they can repurpose this into the tree of life?
We got to jump to this next story so we can explain to you, my friends, you need to understand just how powerful AI has become.
While I wouldn't describe this as family-friendly, maybe you don't want your kids watching it.
Which is very funny.
Take a look at this AI-generated trailer for a movie that you wish existed.
unidentified
Three years after a string of brutal, unsolved murders of local co-eds with impossibly fat milkers, the women of Delta Delta D will be headed to the space station as part of NASA's Project Buff.
Scary, the titty killer just disappeared.
We're going to be 250 miles up.
The only person watching us get changed is going to be a 60-year-old man at Cape Sinai.
You know, I heard in space your boots actually get bigger.
Why exactly are they sending a shuttle full of sorority girls to space?
Son, the only thing bigger than the NASA budget after this is going to be the strain on those girls' sweaters.
Yeah, it is worth noting, though, or it is worth pointing out that it was a very, very short amount of time where you could get that, I guess, surreal quality in AI videos where it was almost like Uncanny Valley.
It was just creepy.
Everyone's familiar with the Will Smith eating spaghetti and how that was almost a nightmare in and of itself.
Like it was just so creepy looking.
And obviously that's gone nowadays.
And I'm not even sure if you could get an AI to produce that quality anymore.
To be honest with you, I imagine eventually it will be able to do that.
You know, they'll be able to say, look, make it as if this.
But you can't just prompt it to do something that's that.
I don't know if I want to say the texture is a certain way.
I don't know if that's the right way to articulate it, but it was the capital of conformity was super creepy.
Roseanne, if now's the time to stop making movies and to start just focus on AI because the effort, and she and Jake, her son, were like, no, now's the time.
Yeah, we need a nuclear war to wipe out all of our digital infrastructure so that we're forced to go back to an era of the 90s where we have blockbuster video.
Anything from 90s to 2015 just like was, I don't know, like, bro, Gen Z, look, they dress better than we ever did, but they don't have any like, they don't have goth or punk or live, 94.
I have sensitivities to certain progressive values, but I don't even understand how the trans stuff is progressivism.
Is it like progressivism is like a really loose label for essentially like pushing dominantly for areas where the like the like high levels of minorities have been like disproportionately disaffected, basically?
So like when we, well, if we want to engage with the actual ideas here, right?
Like, okay, yeah, eugenics was popular, so was like phrenology, right?
And then these fell out of favor.
Although a certain level of soft eugenics has almost been held universally even to this date, right?
We just don't want to call it eugenics, right?
Like most people are okay, for example, with like making sure that we try to reduce over time rare diseases that cause immense suffering, right?
Like people are broadly okay with these ideas.
And so obviously I'm not a supporter of eugenics, but I think like saying like, it was just a left idea.
It's like, okay, I could just say conservatives just always really love slavery and just love slavery.
It's just like it's an unsophisticated, uninteresting way in way to engage with the ideas because it requires typifying an entire like half of political thought that has a massive amount of history that's unsatisfying.
It would be the same as if I did that to the conservative side, which I typically aim not to do.
Pluralism means that you have irreducible moral values that often end up competing against one another.
This is what most democracies are built on.
For example, you've got like Hobbes and Locke that are talking about privacy versus freedom, right?
Privacy matters and freedom matters.
And the actual answer is in different circumstances, you might have to prioritize security, such as at the border, whereas we might prioritize freedom, such as people can't just come into your house without a warrant and take things or arrest you, right?
Most of the modern left is broadly built off of like Rawls and utilitarianism.
That's not true.
And here's the issue, right?
I can engage with conservatives and actually take their concept seriously.
I think some of the things that you said have been insightful and interesting and should be engaged with, and I've disagreed with some things.
The problem is that what you're doing instead is, I think I even heard you before saying, I don't even talk to anybody on the left anymore.
Plugging your ears and not engaging with opposition that actually has substantive ideas, especially if such a large population amount finds some of these ideas valuable, is just engage.
So the reason I reached that conclusion is because I've spent hundreds of hours or thousands of hours talking to leftists and I've read thousands of pages in the history of the world.
No, no, you're talking about specific conservatives.
I am saying there is a, when you refer to the right, you're talking about a coalition in modern times, which includes disaffected liberals, moderates, and libertarians.
If you said to me, what do you mean when you say a performance?
I'd say, by and large, when we say a woman, we mostly mean a person that has tits, that looks like a woman, that typically dresses like a woman and acts like a woman, right?
You look at the way that I'm fem presenting, that I have long hair and that I talk femininely, and I've talked about tampons and whatever else I've talked about.
People who would make the argument that the word woman means performance are progressive, hoity-toy individuals who pretend like they're smarter than other people.
The core assumption of the left is social constructionism, that you can use social categories to create reality and that the people in power through using social categories can fundamentally alter reality.
My core assumptions of reality, if you want to look at Aristotle or Plato, Aristotle said that material things exist and that material things are reflections of higher things, but you should assess the material things first.
Plato thought that the world we live in is a reflection of higher divine forms.
Western civilization has used these two different theories based on context to assess for different layers of reality.
And so the West has alternated between these two core theories, and these were the acceptable ones for how to structure reality.
The issue is that when technology exists, we discovered that a lot of fundamental axioms that we held about the world are more complex and fractal than we would have to do.
The New Year, because when I was in my, like, when that song came out, all of the hipster indie kids, like, we'd have a party on New Year's, and everybody would play the new year as soon as the new year hit because we were so cool.
But then also give a shout out to the Postal Service because that was good, too.
I heard there were studies by the CIA studying it that thought that I heard the CIA did research that there are correlations in political events and astrology, but I haven't looked deeply into that.
Personally, I feel like the planets, if it is a magnetic universe, which evidence is pointing at, that they're like lenses, radiation lenses, so that the radiation passes through planetary bodies and it can super accelerate and leave imprints on your body when it comes out of the mom's EMF frequency body.
You're exposed to the radiation and it imprints something on you.
Might have something to do with what their stars and planets are.
People generally believe that the planets inform stuff over history.
What I would best guess is it's a correlation thing, that the planets operate under certain underlying correlations we're not aware of, and that these correlations operate across the universe.
Because lots, like, you know, the suicide rate is correlated with the yo-yo purchasing rate.
And no one thinks that buying yo-yos causes suicide.
No, because Amazon's growth correlates directly with the shuttering of box stores and local businesses, which creates open vacant buildings by which people try to fill them with a service that Amazon does not provide.
So your local butcher gets shut down, your local packaging store gets shut down, whatever Amazon.com can replace, there are now empty buildings in your city center.
No, I was serially sexually abused from zero to three.
I worked for, it's fine, it's nobody's fault.
One of the worst things that I think that we do on all of these types of political conversations is we engage in thought termination, right?
We use cliches that will make our audiences happy, like being like, what is your woman?
It's like, okay, I can just scream, Trump's a pedophile, and my audiences will be happy too.
I think one of the worst things that we also do is we assume a lot about each other, right?
You've assumed, for example, that there's no substance that you can engage with me on, which is unfortunate because I haven't assumed that about you, despite the fact that I haven't been overly impressed by any of you.
Sure, the reason why I'm saying that he's not engaging with me is he just keeps insisting you're morally inconsistent.
And it's like, I'm a pluralist.
Being pluralistic necessary, like, it doesn't mean that I'm not, I can't be inconsistent, but you can just ask me, how do you draw the through line of your foreign policy?
And I'll give it to you.
But instead, you assume things about my foreign policy.
It's more, so I think that, I think one of the worst things, so as somebody who actually loves Jordan Peterson a lot, I think one of the worst things that he did is just excuse all of postmodernism.
I think there's a valid and important critique that we need to engage with, which is that a lot of the things in society that we presume are objective and dogged and material and must be this way oftentimes are kind of circumstantially erected and also circumstantially deposed.
And I think that that's an important conversation to have because we assume so many things that are immutable, oftentimes on a basis that we can't really ground out.
And I think that that's a conversation worth having because it's valid, in my view, to figure out what is unchanging, why one does equal one, and how do we substantiate that.
And so when you look at women, when you look at the left, they have a variety of arguments they use, and they change definitions you can't hold them.
And they'll alternate a definition based on context for whatever can allow them to have power.
And so the term liberal can have five different meanings based on context.
The term leftist can have five different meanings.
Same thing as working class, same thing as women.
And they do this.
You can't hold them down to a singular thing.
And so when I hear leftist arguments, I know that the person's operating under that system.
And so most leftists, and this has been proven through studies, have a quite uniform worldview.
And so if you can know one of their opinions, you'll know the rest.
And once you can see the games with alternating logic structures, you know what's going on because the foundational argument behind the left, and this stems back to the 19th century, is that reality is socially constructed.
And if someone believes that reality is socially constructed, you can't hold them to an underlying argument because they're going to keep changing definitions until they can get more power.
Okay, so if you want to engage with me, I think one thing that we have to establish is that if you front load a whole bunch of information, I either have to monologue back at you, which is boring, or we have to go point by point.
Because Christianity has a series of assumptions that make sense in a pre-modern culture that people can say when they translate into a modern culture.
Where lots of people who, if they lived 300 years ago, would not be Christian.
No, the reason I'm saying is every single thing the left says allows plausible deniability because plausible deniability is the currency where the left can't make it.
So you can simultaneously, out of one side of your mouth, insist that based on some factors of things that you've heard and all the left that you've studied, you could just assume all of my positions and then I go, great, assume one of my positions.
Because if this was a normal historic society like Confucian China or Islam of established principles that everyone in said society agrees to, what the left does is they pick positions that allow an enormous amount of plausible deniability.
So you can say you're Christian, but you don't actually follow a Christian moral code.
And that allows you to appeal to Christians to work with them, but then not actually follow the moral code.
And this is what the left does strategically.
And so when I see these games, I just automatically shove people in that bracket.
Yes, you're doing the leftist strategy because you're denying that.
You're saying, I'm not doing this thing.
I can just say things.
For example, I don't quite know what your politics are.
You seem conservative.
I wouldn't be surprised if maybe you're a natural lawist, because it seems like you're maybe not into, like, it seems like you're not a theist, but I'm not really sure, right?
So I wouldn't be surprised if you're a natural law objectivist, but I could be wrong, right?
These would be some presumptions.
But what you'll notice is I'm not assigning you any of these positions.
What you've done in this conversation is you have assigned me positions that you're assuming, and now when I'm holding your feet to the fire and saying, put some fucking money on it, you can't do it.
You can't label me Christian or non-Christian.
You have to exist in the plausible deniability because you're wrong.
How do you not have plausible deniability by saying, I can assume everything about you based on a couple of things that you've said, but also when you ask me to label me, I can't actually know.
How are.
Aren't you just existing in a plausible, deniable state?
I agreed and established, for example, that the left mistreated and was wrong in how they engaged with the right from like 2016 to 2022, which most partisan hacks won't agree with me.
The issue is that the phenomenon of three-year-olds being, like, having gender dysphoria or gender confusion, as you want to call it, emerged long before the major trans come up.
I think that the strategy you've picked allows picking individual issues where you can disagree with the broader body to say that you're independent while agreeing with them in 90% of stuff.
What's happened the entire time is I've had satisfactory answers to your questions and you're not willing to engage, which is why I said, are you a conservative?
And you said yes.
And I said, do you agree with 100% of your conservative views?
And you said no.
But when it's coming to me, suddenly I have to move and shift and I have to prove I'm an independent by saying where I disagree.
But I actually disagree with 90% of what they believe, which is not true at all.
And even if it was, it doesn't mean that I can't have independent opinions on certain things in the same way that you have independent on certain things.
I'm not moving around in any way, shape, or form other than when we're talking about categorical definitions.
Because as I've outlined, and everyone here has agreed, definitions of things do change over time.
I do appeal to a gender worldview and a sex worldview, where I see these things as different.
You don't, but that doesn't mean that I'm just some silly willy.
Sure, but I would say, okay, you probably have a bunch of stupid conservative shit that you appeal to that I might reject, but I wouldn't just dismiss you.
But I wouldn't dismiss you.
Well, the issue is he's dismissing me out of hand because I have a left worldview.
I would never dismiss you or you because I think you have a right worldview.
Because the point he's making is that the left worldview, a good example is they refuse to define the word woman so that they can apply it in any way they want politically.
I think there are a lot of people that should go, especially people that came in in the last five years.
But the people that have been here, it's just like, how many times are you going to stamp on the ground to try and put the fire out until you snap your own ankle?
Like at some point, you know, there's like an order of operations of who needs to go.
I think the people that have born here and have lived here for 30 years are like very low on that list, personally.
Look, I mean, I'm probably the guy with the hardest take on immigration.
I do think that they have to be sent out of the country.
I do think that they probably should get, they should get put to the front of the line when it comes to coming back because it wasn't their fault.
But you can't make exceptions to the law just because it's kind of mean, especially when you have the situation in the United States that we have where there's been probably 20 million people that have been let in illegally over the past four years.
So I do understand that there's a lot of people that are going to be really, really negatively affected.
And the U.S. can do things to facilitate those people coming back if they're DACA, if they're getting DACA or whatever.
But I do think that they have to be deported, honestly.
And even if you, like, Ian, even if he was a DACA recipient, like, that's why I'm trying to be delicate with it, because like I'm, like, I do understand that there are people that are here that are DACA recipients that were brought here when they were kids and they didn't have any control over it or whatever.
But that doesn't change the fact that you have a country with laws for a reason and their parents broke the law and their parents are actually the ones that are responsible for that.
But because they can go back and they haven't built a life here, they don't have a family and kids or girlfriend or friends that they've got long deep relationships with.
Their kids, they can go back to the country they came from.
DACA recipients are adults or mostly probably adults that have been here and they've known that they're DACA recipients.
They know that they're here illegally and they've been dodging the system.
Like one of my concerns with like sending everyone who's DACA home is, for example, like in the case of the 30-year-old, I suspect it would be incredibly economically costly, not just to get rid of them, arrest them, et cetera, fine them, because I assume that they'll start hiding.
But also all of these people are probably like have some level of skilled labor that they're probably participating.
There's probably a pretty high chance that they're participating properly in the economic system.
So I guess the question would be, would you be open to, since it's not about principles, about outcome, say I could wave a wand magically and we'd have the perfect policy that I implemented right now that would transition them towards being citizens.
And we could even have some requirements, for example, right, that they like subpoena their auditing to make sure that they've their sorry their financial stuff, all the things that you might want that you might be like outcome concerned about with DACA people.
Would you be willing to let these people say if they pass and satisfy all of these citizenship tests, essentially?
So say we could prove the DACA kids in some tests that you'd be satisfied with do have all of those values, especially because they've probably grown up here.
Would you be okay with a system that integrated them and just gave them legitimate legal citizenship?
Because my big concern is people that come to the United States that don't want to become Americans.
The people that like, it really rubbed me raw to see the protests in California where people were waving Mexican flags.
They don't love America.
They don't want to become Americans.
They're just here and they, you know, the people that you see, you know, whatever percentage of the actual illegal immigrants you say it is, or people say it is, the people that get on TikTok and say, we're only here to take advantage.
You hear about the stuff that's going on in Minnesota with the Somali, their asylum seekers.
Like people that come to the United States, you have to come a certain way.
If you can go to another country that's safe, you don't get asylum in the United States.
We totally abuse those.
So my concern is that we're not bringing people into the country that hate America, hate our system, hate the way that America take advantage of it, essentially.
Sure, which is why I'd basically say it's really sucky that Trump forced Republicans to quash the bipartisan immigration bill that Biden brought in 2022.
It upgraded asylum so that you couldn't just claim psychological distress.
You had to have proof of like actual threat.
It mandated thousands more dollars to judges, more money to border control, and it also escalated what certain border control agents could do so that we could process asylum seekers faster so that there was way less catch and release.
unidentified
Because it wanted to, one of the biggest Legalize illegal immigration, like crossing over illegally?
It actually tried to update asylum seeking so that you couldn't just come and claim psychological distress, which is what asylum seekers can claim now.
It upgraded it so that you couldn't easily claim asylum, and it increased judges, and it increased border patrol agents, and it increased fences so that there was way less catch and release because most illegals aren't coming through just fences.
No, but if the asylums, if the asylum laws are you can't come to the United States or you can't like you're supposed to stop at the first place that's safe for you, what kind of updates does it need?
Because technically the only people, the only countries that we should be accepting.
Wait, that's not necessarily no, because again, if the illegal immigrants are the type of immigrants that you want legalized working in your country, that's good.
Because when we're talking about labor, especially affordable labor, when it comes to things like agriculture, this is something that immigrants have often supported us on, and it is really important because most educated immigrants won't do this.
The argument isn't that Americans won't do these jobs.
The argument is actually that when you bring in labor forces that are less educated than your own populace, it frees up your populace from the explosion of jobs and income.
The success of America to me is that the American people of the American tradition have children.
Those children work hard.
The wages for those jobs are good enough that that person can work.
And when you flood the country with low-skilled labor, you erase the younger generation's opportunity because 16-year-olds should be doing farm work where they learn and they get strong and then they graduate to other jobs.
Instead, we flooded the country, told people not to have kids, got tons of abortions, and then gave all our manufacturing plants to China, Mexico, and Indonesia.
They were asylum cleannees that could claim in the way that they could because they campaigned explicitly on blocking federal law that the people of this country voted for.
Because Zorhan Mamdani campaigned as a progressive on blocking federal law enforcement that was voted on by the plurality of the people of this country.
So we said in this country, get them all the fuck out.
End of story.
I don't give a fuck about it.
You can argue every day of the week how you want low-skill slave labor to pick your fucking business.
So I will tell you, as somebody who's an immigrant and has gone through this process, I couldn't apply for an H-1B because I had a business and was working in an industry of media.
And to get an H-1B, you have to prove that you have education in the field you're going to be working in.
I imagine, for example, California is probably more disproportionately impacted by the fact that it's really hard to get approval to build housing centers than it is just like apartment buildings, for example.
So building apartment buildings is extremely difficult because so many areas of zoning that boomers prefer single-family homes and single-family homes are influenced by the biggest issue in major cities.
In New York and California, is that you have empty buildings, and the people who own those buildings say it's not mathematically possible to rent it out because we can't rent them for the money.
I just want to say that there's one compromise to this whole situation with the doctor people: I don't want amnesty for them because a lot of them tend to have loyalties to Mexico, but I don't want to also deport them because they do have lives that they built that they built their entire life while living here.
They have a lot of, you know, people that they know, family, whatever.
I think the best solution for this would be to just give them permanent residency with no path to citizenship through that residency.
They have to go through other means to get citizenship, but at least that way they could keep what they've worked for and not have control over elections either.
Not that they're recently here within the past like five, six years since the Biden administration, but for older kids and Gen Z's, Doc people, then yes.
Now, if you're playing like a brute build where you're just running in with a submachine gun or something, yeah, probably not, or like, you know, Fat Man or whatever.
But if you're playing, if you're doing anything vast, the Lincoln's Repeater is the best gun.
All right, I'll do New Vegas after my current game.
But my question is for Red Yard.
Weather politics, do you believe that the next revolution or Second American Civil War will be possible if the government's able to make HEI artificial general intelligence?
Because I have a feeling that they will use AI to silence people who pose a threat to establishments.
Think of like Captain America.
Can you think of Captain America with your soldier?
The Trump administration is pushing hard for AI and they have used it for the Maduro raid and maybe being used for the war with Iran.
Well, it's completely useless because it won't answer questions because it's like, I'm Asian, and I asked it a question about Koreans, and it refused to answer because it could be offensive.
And I'm like, I'm literally a fucking Korean asking you about what Koreans do, and you won't give me an answer.
To your point, I don't think the authorities are actually strong enough to enforce using an AGI tyranny in America.
I look at the current leftist elite class, and the right-wing was one as well.
I don't think they actually have an elite coherency capable of enforcing an AGI tyranny because most of the boomers in charge, they don't even know how the internet works.
I think the Zoomers are dissatisfied enough they could rebel, and I'm getting – the thing I want to talk to you soon about is I'm getting progressively more worried about mouse utopia.
I think mouse utopia is consuming every other variable.
You're probably going to say this is too far, but five years ago, you came to the conclusion that the left and the establishment were evil, and I was at that point five years prior to that.
So, the actual grenade I want to throw into the chat room.
I believe that we need to start refusing to interact with the left in any way, in any place, and to outright ban them from any conversation as anti-human seditionists and/or traitors.
However, however, they have spent so long raping the golden rule half to death, and very specifically half to death, because the suffering was the point that we can no longer abide by the golden rule.
We now have to abide by the iron rule.
And the iron rule, as I call it, is turnabout is always fair play.
When Nagato speaks to Naruto and Naruto recites the line from the book, Nagato realizing that it was what he said that inspired Jiriah, who he killed, and then regrets his decision.
Of course I am because I am one of the few people on the left that talks to you that talks to you and pushes back against the left when they insist that when we take over power in 2028, we should brutally punish all of the conservatives.
I'm one of the few people doing that.
And yet I'm sitting here, I'm getting lambbasted by people, dismissed as a leftist, and you're calling me a stupid bitch.
And the previous caller is simultaneously not willing to defend the rights of my body, but also wants to sexualize me.
I'm one of the few people trying to do the noble thing.
And I'm not telling you that you must, but nobility must win or we're all fucked.
And that's what I'm fighting for.
I don't think I'm perfect.
I don't think I'm the perfect moral arbiter.
I don't think I'm always very nice, but I am absolutely striving for it.
I am the call girl that he wants to utilize as something to beat and punish, despite the fact that I am one of the few doing the thing that he's asking the left to do.
And yet every now and then you will engage with somebody of substance that has interesting ideas and you should be open to hearing those people even if they trigger off some of your buzzwords of being like, maybe they're not going to be good faith.
You should engage in that anyways.
Just like when I started going through your social media, there was a couple of assumptions I had.
But fundamentally, I engaged and understood your ideas.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the left loves to talk about ableism, but whenever an autist says something that isn't groupthake, they will gladly rip his throat out with their teeth.