Youtube Loses MASSIVE Lawsuit, This Will END Independent Media | Timcast IRL
Tim Pool and Mike Benz dissect YouTube's $3 million negligence verdict, arguing algorithmic liability could dismantle independent media by overturning Section 230. They debate NASA's $20 billion lunar base amid skepticism about moon landings and conspiracy theories linking a 2026 Israel-Iran missile exchange to Antichrist prophecies. The discussion covers the Charlie Kirk assassination's impact on conservative culture, potential Democratic midterm victories leading to gun bans, and broader fears regarding AI governance and demographic collapse. [Automatically generated summary]
A landmark case against Meta and YouTube, arguing that they are responsible for their algorithms and the addictive nature of these platforms.
They have been ordered to pay $3 million in damages.
Not only do we have this landmark case, but another fine issued in New Mexico for $375 million to Facebook over harm to children.
Now, what does this mean?
If YouTube is liable not for the content, but for the delivery mechanism itself, then there is no delivery mechanism they can have.
That means content must just be without algorithm based on you subscribing, and that's what you get.
Discovery has to be organic.
Now, I don't know how this will play out, but we did just have a hearing on Section 230 a week or so ago, and that is the protection that allows it or that shields these platforms from liability if a third party makes a comment on their platform.
So, let's say I say something like that that the AG in Virginia tried to kick a dog, right?
He can't sue YouTube for it because I'm the one who said it.
The truth is, he actually did try to kick a dog, so I didn't make that up anyway, and the truth is an absolute defense.
But what's interesting now is, based on what we are seeing and arguments being made, Section 230 may get blown up, which is a component in ending the independent media space on social media and turning the clock back to a time when there were only a handful of channels and a handful of approved commentators.
I think that's where we're going to be going.
So we'll talk about that.
Plus, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to the moon.
NASA has announced $20 billion to go to the moon, build a moon base.
So we're going to talk about that stuff.
And then, yeah, I guess there's Iran war stuff.
Allies are like, okay, Trump will help you.
But I just, we're so tired of talking about it.
And it's kind of scary because it's war.
And there are weird prophecies about what's going to happen.
A comet is about to graze the sun and explode.
Most people haven't heard this.
It's crazy.
You might be able to actually see this in the sky early April.
And then people are talking about this guy who claims he was abducted by aliens.
And he said years ago, it's like 12 years ago, he said, in April of 2026, Israel and Iran will be firing missiles at each other and then orbs will rise from the ocean.
I'm not kidding.
This interview actually exists and people are freaking out about it.
So we're going to talk about that.
And of course, the new trailer for Harry Potter came out and everyone's wondering how Black Snape is.
The answer is very.
And we'll address that as well.
Before we do, get a great sponsor for you.
It is Venice.ai.
Sam Altman said ChatGPT will get to know you over your life.
Indeed.
Chat GPT also has the former director of the NSA sitting on their board right now.
Edward Snowden called this a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
Additionally, they're shutting down Sora so you can't even make videos on the platform anymore.
That's crazy.
Anyway, my friends, it took us too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data over the last decade.
Are we really going to make that same mistake again?
OpenAI has hinted, they may even require users to provide a government-issued ID.
Venice.ai utilizes leading open source AI models to deliver text, code, and image generation to your web browser.
There's no downloads, no installations, or anything.
Private and permissionless, they don't spy on you or censor the AI.
Messages are encrypted, and your conversation history is stored only in your browser.
AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy to use it.
The Venice Pro plan unlocks the full platform and features, including PDF uploads for summaries or insights, the ability to turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation.
And that doesn't just mean naughty images.
It could be political images that other platforms don't let you make.
You'll get the ability to change how Venice interacts by modifying the system prompt.
Very cool.
So go to venice.ai/slash Tim.
Use code Tim.
Check it out, man.
It's a weird time.
We got a lot of critiques of AI, but at least you can get some privacy and utilize a tool that's not going to do weird things.
But don't forget to also smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know.
We're going to have a lot of fun tonight.
Joining us to talk about everything and more is Mike Benz.
They did a whole presentation about how you were the origin point of a malinformation incident during the 2020 election cycle, and they tracked it was about ballot harvesting, right?
It started off with disinformation, and then they tried to distinguish miss and dis.
And they said, you know what happens when something is true and we can't even engineer a fake fact checked fact check.
It's just true.
But if people know this is true, they'll think this thing we don't want them to think.
Like if they know that there's a myocarditis risk because the CDC published a peer-reviewed study on this or PubMed, well, that's going to be malinformation.
It's the same thing with like the ballot harvesting.
Yes, it's true that it happened, but if you believe that, it will lead you to think the election's not secure.
And so therefore, you're contributing to the narrative.
Jury finds Meta and YouTube negligent in landmark lawsuit on social media safety.
The jurors award the plaintiff $3 million in damages, finding Meta 70% responsible for harm caused to her, and YouTube responsible for 30%.
They say that the LA County Superior Court jury said that Meta's and YouTube's negligence were a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.
It awarded them the money.
We know this.
The trial began last month in LA County, which included testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and other tech executives, was the first in a consolidated group of cases brought against Meta and other companies by more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and over 250 school districts.
Guys, what they're basically saying is that YouTube and Meta knew their platform was addictive and harmful to children.
We also heard this from TechCrunch just the other day.
New Mexico just handed Meta its first courtroom defeat over child safety, and the rest of the country is watching.
A jury in Santa Fe on Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties after finding the company misled consumers about the safety of its platforms and endangered children.
So where does this go?
It's actually quite simple.
If YouTube and Meta are responsible, not for the content, but for the mechanism by which they are delivered, they'll have to delete the algorithms.
I believe this is step one in overturning, removing the independent media space, shutting it down.
Where the future will go?
Well, the first thing I'll say is, I'm going to let you in on a secret.
I have actually been in communication.
I've told you guys this already a million times.
I've been in contact with media companies, executives, C-suite guys at media companies who have outright told me the future is going to be Peacock, Paramounts.
It's going to be Netflix, Amazon Prime.
YouTube will be there, but YouTube will effectively be like any one of these other companies.
The idea that you or anyone else can start your own media business is over.
And this lawsuit is step one.
We had a hearing a week or so ago in Congress over Section 230.
Nobody talked about it because it's kind of a tired issue.
But the end result is going to be if you'll sign up to YouTube and you'll see, I'll make an account and you'll submit for approval and you'll wait and they'll vet you and ask for your ID and say, if we approve you, you can make content.
And then you will and nobody will be able to see Because they won't be able to create any algorithmic delivery mechanism.
Only those who have the money to advertise and do paid placements will be seen.
So everything that we think we know about the media space now, I think we're going back to a time when it was just a handful of broadcasters and the machine state is going to choose who is allowed to speak and who is not.
You might be able to install a setup like some video games have pay or like play to pay.
Like you can pay 20 bucks a month or you can play the game to earn the currency in the game to pay the monthly fee.
And if you could do that with like internet, so either the rich could pay to promote their stuff or if you use the website enough, you generate enough internal activity that you can use that to pay for your advertisement and keep up with, so like the power users can keep up with the money men.
That would be a possibility.
Also, I think decentralized tech and mesh networking, like now's the time to start really drilling that in because if we wait until they say you can't do it, it's going to be a lot more annoying than if we get it installed now and everyone controls their own media, uploads their own, has their own server on board, and then people can follow them and cross network narratives and things like that.
I think this case is really about how, as a society, we're struggling to deal with the impact of social media and how it affects not only our youth, but even adults.
And in this case, there was some nine-year-old who was using all the social media apps and she blames them now for her mental health crises that she has.
She said she struggled with her self-image as a result of beauty filters used on installments.
Yeah, and I could understand how that would affect young women.
And it's also been a platform for kids to bully one another.
And I think there is something to be said about how the youth is affected by things like endless scroll on a lot of these apps and other addictive features that exist.
But we do need a way like the freedom that these apps have to exist.
Obviously, she didn't use the terms and conditions correctly because she wasn't of age and she shouldn't have hypothetically been allowed on there.
But then again, it was very easy to bypass.
I think we're struggling as a society with that issue.
And also, as far as this case goes, though, I don't see a case in which they don't appeal this and it'll probably make its way up to the Supreme Court.
I think from what I saw, Elon replied to Nikita Beer, the product head, saying that they're taking feedback under consideration after some feedback and criticism of how that regional policy might impact monetization for folks by given the point.
Right.
But there was, I think there's concern that the international audience may be disproportionately nuked.
What I saw is Elon reply to a reply to Nikita saying this is disproportionately impacting.
I'm a French person and I use this platform every day and it's a source of income.
Because of the filters, this is basically going to have a disproportionately negative impact on me being outside the United States and hear the following reasons and presented a pretty internally consistent argument about it.
And Elon replied and said something like, thanks for the feedback.
Yes, that's also bad, but that's a one-of-one instance.
With the Bangladeshis, it's like a million times.
And again, literally, people uncovered when they rolled out the region identifier feature, like probably dozens of Native American accounts saying things like white people stole our land, but it was Bangladeshis exploiting cultural issues.
I mean, could you imagine?
Could you imagine, Mike, if there was like, say, a dude who was just tweeting incessantly about American politics, but he lived like, I don't know, in Malaysia or something.
At the same time, I'm an American who speaks prolifically about elections that happen in other countries.
And I do this from an American perspective, but I am, you know, I have a platform.
When I say something about what's happening in Hungary or what's happening in Spain or Germany or France, there are news headlines about it that will say former State Department official Mike Benz, you know, said this, and that becomes a like a story or ignites a scandal in a foreign country.
And with the audience that I have, they can drive amplification.
And they could make the argument that this is like American outside interference through some like, you know, because foreigners in our region in Hungary or France or Spain or Brazil or whatever are impacting our own internal dialogue because of the size of the platform they have.
And to me, I think that's fair game.
There's no monetary contribution.
It's not like there's a far a registration type thing.
It's hard to be able to like have it.
I think there is something beautiful about the global nature of X.
They said that they're going to reduce the amount of money you make off foreign countries.
We have to.
Because what's happened is there is a pool of money that is going into X ads.
And they were just basically like, based on the replies you get, the engagement you get, you'll get a share of ads.
Now, I have a conspiracy theory as to what that's really about, but put a tack in that.
We'll come back.
What happened was when this first launched, people who were on X at the time, who were really making content and posting things, were making great money.
And they're not even a couple hundred thousand followers.
Like it's big, but they weren't like in the millions, but they made content people engaged with.
The money started to go down.
We found out that a bunch of people in India, again, not a joke, literally, made accounts and would all reply to each other en masse.
And they would say, how is your day going?
It's good.
And they would just spam blast each other.
And then all of a sudden, our money went down.
And people were like, this is why they're pulling from the pool, producing junk.
So that needs to stop.
But I will add this as an aside.
I believe the monetization system on X has nothing to do with engagement and monetization.
I think it is incentivizing engagement for AI model training.
And so the argument originally was you don't get money based on views of your tweets.
Advertisements appear in the replies.
So it's the engagement to your replies that will generate money because that's where the ads are, right?
Well, that also doesn't quite make a whole lot of sense as far as I'm concerned.
And what I think actually happened is that Elon Musk bought Twitter because he wanted the fire hose.
This stream of human consciousness of people just blasting out what they're doing.
Excellent AI training data.
Then he wants more data.
So he says, monetary incentive if people reply to you.
I have a I put out a tweet.
We call them tweets.
BuzzFeed included me in an article because their writer, Hannah, what's her name?
Something I don't know.
She's retarded.
And I made a joke, a very obvious joke.
When the war with Iran started, I said, is there literally one reason why we shouldn't take over Iran?
Or Canada, for that matter, or Mexico?
Which is obviously a joke and everybody understands.
It's sarcasm.
And she screen grabbed that, like, look at these MAGA idiots.
Well, I tweeted, this is why we should repeal the 19th.
Another joke.
And the first reply was a bot, a very obvious AI bot with this long-winded and saying, like, you can't even, it was just a response where it was like, she made an argument and you can't even respond with one.
You insult her.
Everyone deserves rights.
Blah, Here's the point.
I believe these bots are part of the AI training.
What does the AI know?
It knows what we've said, but not how we've replied or corrected it.
So right now on YouTube, something interesting is happening.
A lot of AI content has stormed the platform.
And YouTube has begun asking people if the videos look like AI slop.
And people are going, yay, YouTube's going to start deboosting AI slop.
Wrong.
They are using that to train VO.
When an AI video is made, they say, is this slop?
And when you put yes, it sends the data to VO and says, this is bad.
Don't do it.
Fixing it.
And then people will look at good videos and they'll say, not slop.
And they'll say, this is good.
It needs the human response to correct it.
So on X, you make a post, a robot responds, and the human goes, well, yeah, how dare you say that to me?
And responds, providing insight beyond the first layer of human input.
I mean, look, if you were an industrial stakeholder in this, because the other thing about the bots is that they're there immediately with like three paragraphs.
But the other thing, you know, I do actually, so I have a banker friend who I met up with for drinks in New York recently and runs this kind of big portfolio for a fund.
And we were talking about our diet of AI.
And he explained that for his work evaluating companies for potential investment, he uses Claude OpenAI, Claude ChatGPT, and Grok.
And the person's a liberal, a good friend of mine since high school.
And I said, oh, that's interesting.
You're using Grok.
You almost expect from a certain political background.
And what he said is, well, he explained why they use at that bank at that fund, those different things.
And he said, well, Grok is the best for scooping up word of mouth and things that like the social media chatter, because oftentimes there are things that are not like ChatGPT is very good at just retrieving all of the different securities filings, their perspectives and mining that.
But there's also lots of different internal things about a company or rumors that are not necessarily true, but that are interesting for a potential investor to consider as a liability or as an opportunity.
And so it's so like sweeping the word on.
I thought it was very interesting that for a high-end, you know, a huge fund with lots of capital on the line that Grok provides a service specifically because it allows the mining of the chatter on X that is not really able to be easily mined by Claude or ChatGPT because they don't have the proprietary,
they don't have like the, I don't know if it's the API access or whatever it is that allows them to do the mass sweeping.
Well, it should be interesting, but let's jump to this next story.
We got this from NBC News, NASA to spend $20 billion to build a base on the moon.
Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
And what I really love about this is that it once and for all definitively proves we can go to the moon and that everybody who ever doubted this was completely wrong.
And the moon is also real and there's no moon base there already, nor are there Nazis on the other side of it.
And it's actually really easy to get there.
And we've always been there, in fact, and we're going back because it's not hard to do and it'll be really easy.
NASA is canceling plans to deploy a space station in lunar orbit and will instead use its components to construct a $20 billion base on the moon's surface over the next seven years.
Its new chief Jared Isaacman said on Tuesday, Isaacman, who was sworn in at the agency in December, made the announcement at the opening of a long day, a day-long event at NASA's Washington headquarters.
It should not really surprise anyone that we are pausing Gateway in its current form and focusing on infrastructure that supports sustained operations on lunar surface.
The Lunar Gateway Station, largely already built with contractors, Northrop Grumman and Vantor, formerly Maxar, was meant to be a space station parked in a lunar orbit.
Repurposing the craft for a lunar surface base is not simple.
Despite some of the very real hardware and schedule challenges, we can repurpose equipment and international partner commitments to support surface and other program objectives.
Now, the truth is, my friends, we've never been to the moon and we can't go there because the firmament is in the way.
And Elon Musk is actually not trying to create satellites.
The purpose of SpaceX is to create powerful weapons that will break through the firmament so we can escape and release the upper oceans.
I'm kidding, by the way.
But I do love the conspiracy theories about flat Earth and that how they believe NASA is like a satanic, demonic organization that's lying about the shape of the Earth to keep people confused, to cover up.
In fact, the weirdest thing to me is that I think it's actually fairly rudimentary.
Like put a gig, put it, like make a rocket, blast people into space without, you know, you know, I think the real theory that is more interesting to me is the space graveyard.
Is the story that they landed the lunar module, they got out, they danced around, and then they got back in and the module took off and then attaches back to a ship in orbit and then the module just fires back.
And so people are like, how did we shield for radiation?
I'm like, there's a bunch of ways you can do it.
There's water shielding, which is there was a, there was a diver got sucked into a radio, a nuclear power plant intake valve and was swimming in the pool.
Fine, because that's what we use water to shield for radiation.
Well, you're going to have a lot of military contractors making a lot of money.
And I think part of the reason to spend $20 billion on it is that you're going to have a lot of R ⁇ D that comes out of this regardless of whether you end up with a moon base.
I mean, the ICBM technology was, you know, had just an incredible amount of breakthroughs because you're basically taking, I mean, the space program grew out of the ICBM.
I mean, basically, it's just a glorified ICBM with humans inside.
Well, this is probably the best arguments for the moon landing, the we did not moon landing conspiracy theory is that you want to build ICBMs.
You go to the public and say, we need to spend at the time the equivalent of $200 billion on rockets.
They go, what for?
We want to put 12 nuclear warheads in the tip of each one, launch it into the stratosphere, and then rain down hellfire, wiping out every major city in Eastern Europe that threatens us.
And people are going to go, oh, my God, no.
You go, we're going to go to space and go to the moon.
And they're like, oh, that sounds fun.
So they give you all the money.
You build gigantic rockets and they go, yay.
And what you're really doing is creating multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles or MERVs, which can launch into the stratosphere and then deploy eight to 12 warheads, one of which could wipe out the entire Eastern U.S. seaboard.
I mean, if you think about this, you know, Bill Clinton had this funny thing in his biography about this that anyone, anyone can look up.
But, you know, there are successive presidents since Bill Clinton have pledged to go back to the moon.
Barack Obama had the famous Constellation program inherited from the Bush era where the goal was to use this sort of Orion-adjacent Orion constellation program.
It was going to have a manned space flight at some point during the Obama administration.
James Van Hoften, who was an International Space Station NASA astronaut, then retired and joined the National Academy of Sciences, penned a series of long memos to the incoming Obama administration cautioning him not to attempt to go back to the moon, having just been on the International Space Station and serving for long periods there.
They felt it was completely unsafe and anyone who attempted the program would end in disaster.
Any of the astronauts on board with the current technology and state of the program would die and that we don't actually even have good scientific data on the exposure that astronauts would have on the way there because at that time in 2008, there were only approximately 12 American scientists that were all in their 70s who even studied human biology, space radiation issues due to a number of reasons.
But he basically said we need to completely swap out this manned space flight program for a completely unmanned one and replace the humans with basic electrospectrometer devices to do this mass measurement so that we could actually know what we're up against on the way there.
And he cited in particular that there's something called the North Atlantic anomaly, which is the point at which the Van Allen belts start early because of the tilt of the Earth's axis.
It's basically over Brazil.
It's this point where, you know, typically the belt started around 300 miles above the Earth's surface.
It starts about like 50 to 100 miles earlier over this particular section of the Earth.
And they said we get shooting stars through our eyes every time we pass through the North Atlantic anomaly.
The shuttle itself, the space station itself, has malfunctions during that period.
So we need to shut off certain electronics.
It's an unsafe period simply in low Earth orbit.
And that's at the very, very, very tip of what is effectively a 65,000 mile traverse through that as it gets more and more intense.
And it turned out that the readouts from that, which were a giant FOIA fight between the independent research community and the government data collected, showed that the data, the radiation levels were like 3,000 times higher than what I think the IA, the IA, IE9, not the IEA,
that the models had predicted and that this has caused this DASH to try to solve this catch-22 issue that the giant paperweight program, you know, we spent, I think, $15 billion on this, you know, the NASA version of the dragon type thing, which never went anywhere after 15 years in development.
So the biggest dud in human development history.
But basically, this led towards trying to develop types of mold that would, sort of Tim's point, the idea is so that you don't, every time you add weight to the hull, to protect the astronauts from radiation, you have to add more combustion power to the rockets to overcome the weight of the hull.
But the more combustion you add to the rockets, the more destabilizing it is to the hull.
So you need more weight added to stabilize the hull.
And the idea is: well, if you can solve that by having effectively a radiation-eating mold that coached the interior of the craft, you would not need to deal with these huge high-combustion engines that require an insane amount of coolant and shielding and all this.
They're easier to control.
They have less malfunction.
But that's something that the Department of Energy has been working on for like 15 years now.
And this actually flared up in 1968 when the Russians did the Zond 5 mission, which is what spurred us to pursue Apollo 8, which was the first traverse around the, you know, this was basically Christmas 1968 before the 1969 Apollo 11 missions where they orbited the moon but didn't land on it.
And they read passages of Genesis and the Bible.
And it was a big American healing moment after the assassinations that were destabilizing the country in 1968.
But at that time, the Soviets previously circumnavigated the moon with turtles on board.
And so I think the thought process was, well, it's kind of safe to do it because turtles can, but turtles are what are known as extremophiles, radiation extremophiles.
They have a very unique tolerance off the charts, like a thousand orders of magnitude more than humans in terms of radiation tolerance.
And in fact, there are some weird healing properties actually that radiation gives to turtles.
And so there's sort of a unique, there's certain biological things like some of these mold-type organisms and turtles that have a very different experience with radiation than humans do.
There's another thing that I think is worth adding to this without getting into the substance of what happened in the Apollo program, which is NASA was always a spy agency.
It was a civilian agency, it was a military and intelligence agency with a civilian front.
It always was from day one, just like the Department of Defense was originally the Department of War, and the renaming of it by the Trump administration sort of is not some new title.
It's the title it had from the first meeting of Congress in 1979 until 1948 when the UN Declaration on Human Rights forbade territorial acquisition by military force.
So if you wanted to take over a country, you had to argue it's a defense mission to forward protect ourselves rather than a military occupation in pursuit of war.
But NASA, the Trump administration, just the last thing.
The Trump administration, and I think it was August 2025, formally classified NASA as a national security and intelligence organization rather than as a civilian organization.
So when you look at $20 billion in the context of these space wars happening right now because of satellite wars and the idea that war is now moving into space because of that, that it's kind of like how the NFL is sports entertainment and not a real sport.
Yeah, it's a big thing because everyone says the NFL.
I don't think football is real.
I really don't.
Like, I watched a bunch of these conspiracy videos on football being fake, and I'm convinced it's fake.
Like, I don't know enough about football to tell you the name of the players, but there's one that happened like in 2022 where a Ravens player could have tackled or like someone could have tackled the Ravens player and they like jumped towards him, but then turn running away to make sure he made it and got the touchdown.
Like we know about the rigging scandals at the NBA too, but I don't know if it's true or not.
Let's look at this next story and get crazy with it.
We've got this tweet about this guy named Chris Bledsoe.
So his story apparently is that he was abducted by aliens in 2007, but they gave him a vision.
When he came back to Earth, he knew we must hear of this vision.
And then he describes that in April of 2026, and I believe this is from like 12 years ago, is what they say, that Israel and Iran would be in a missile exchange, and then orbs would rise from the oceans.
Thing she told me was when you see Iran and Israel exchanging missiles and I saw it the way she tells me is a vision of I see it like a living picture screen.
I can see the rockets flying.
Then, all of a sudden, orbs appeared out of the ocean everywhere.
I told the government, that's if you, if this happens, the orbs are going to appear and wake people up and stop it.
So there's a bit more, and this guy's actually appeared on a bunch of other podcasts.
I believe he was on Sean Ryan's show as well more recently.
I don't know the exact time of this, but there is some interesting stuff going on.
A comet was recently discovered, and it's going to slam into the sun on April 4th.
So this is a sun-grazing comet that could be visible to the naked eye during the day, but it's going to enter the corona of the sun and may be destroyed for all of us to see.
There's also been a series of meteor strikes that people have noticed, and I think there were five in the last week.
So people are starting to, I'll put it like this.
There are a lot of people who believe the end of times are going to come, and there's been a million and one predictions and they've never come true.
So naturally, people are pulling up things like this and saying this proves it, especially with Netanyahu saying that he would, that the Messianic era will come, but not by next Thursday.
People believe that this war is about bringing on the prophecy and the Messianic era.
And I will stress this, that we talked about this last week.
We had a couple of amateur eschatologists on the show on the Culture War podcast a few years ago.
And they said, if Donald Trump, they said Trump may be the Antichrist.
It may be Elon Musk.
We're not sure.
But one of them, if they're the Antichrist, will get some kind of injury to the right side of their face or head, and their arm will be injured as well.
And so, as the story goes, the Antichrist suffers what appears to be a fatal injury, but is miraculously healed, a false resurrection.
And eventually his arm becomes withered for some reason.
And now, guess what everyone is saying?
Donald Trump took a bullet to the side of the head, seemingly a fatal strike, collapses, but rises up with blood on his face, an injury to the right side of his head, that he miraculously healed from a few weeks later where the left said it's impossible.
He couldn't have been shot.
His ear is totally healed.
And Trump's hand right now has a growing bruise that he keeps trying to cover up and is getting bigger.
And people are saying that is the withering.
So there are all of these things happening where people are taking the red yarn and tying the little tacks together to say this is the end of times.
And that's where this video kicks in where people are like, April of 2026, Iran and Israel firing missiles, the orbs.
At the same time, Donald Trump said he's going to release the alien files and the government registered aliens.gov.
When we had Kash Patel on the show, I was like, we need aircraft that can go underwater like submarines and then can take off out of the oceans and go into space.
And he just, this is before he was in the government working and he just looked at me and smiled.
I'm like, I think we have that craft now.
And I wonder if what's going to happen is Israel, right now the U.S. is trying to keep the reins on Israel and they're trying to end this Iran thing and contain it.
If it goes to ballistics between Iran and Israel and they take it into their own hands, that the U.S. will unleash their orb fleet of plasma, superheated plasma balls that they can file around the planet and teleport sound through and move at light speed and just dominate the space with sound and light and command people to stop and things like that and speak to them in their tongue and all that crap.
Norway residents got front row seats to a bizarre light show, a giant spiral with a green-blue beam of light.
They said it's just, it's a rocket going forward and it was spinning, creating a trail of smoke, and that smoke slowly started to dissipate and spread out.
And what's actually happening is they're coming through the wormhole where the light in the center is, and the vehicles at the tip of the blue smoke because the smoke is the propulsion system as it comes through.
Yeah, if we, so if we really go balls deep into the talking plasma era and we turn our weapons into light-based weapons or plasma-based weapons, and there are aliens that are communicating with us from long-range frequency, they might be able to hack our weapons systems and turn them against us.
But you can take two lasers, point them at each other, and the point at which they intersect can cause vibrations in the air and generate sound.
So they can take two lasers in three-dimensional space and move a dot next to your ear, and you will hear as though someone is standing next to you.
They can move beyond this by combining multiple lasers in a grid.
You can make images.
So the lasers refract on each other when they hit each other, and you can make a hologram floating.
This is actually fairly rudimentary, to be completely honest.
This is like 20-year-old tech, where you just have laser pointers on like actuators or whatever, and you can move a stick, and when they hit each other, they make a square in space.
Or aliens, but Ian's theory is that these UFOs we're seeing are actually a light trick where on the ground they have powerful lasers pointing up, creating a the reason they're orbs is because it's the easiest shape to make.
You only need two lasers to create a giant refraction point and then it can move as if it's on, you know, like without friction.
So in theory, could we just paint the skies of North Korea with like a propaganda light show and like voice of America talk over just by having like satellites beam lasers to create these talking plasma events over the sky?
And it's made by the joint, not only the weapons directory.
So, what they've done is basically created a laser that can shoot out to a certain distance, and they can pipe in sound, sound waves through it, and actually make human voice sounds and commands.
Now, where this becomes useful is around an area where you want to keep a perimeter secure.
So, essentially, you can shoot out this laser, you can then talk to the people on the edge of the perimeter rather than sending troops out there and tell them to get away, or you're going to shoot, or get away, or they're going to use other means to deter them.
And that same laser can be used to actually target the individual and create heat through pinpricks, like microscopic pinpricks in their skin, even beneath clothing.
It's extremely uncomfortable, and people move out of the way almost immediately.
At the same time, the exact same laser is also being used.
It can basically with a power source, it can constantly be one of my favorite, one of my favorite things is no, the discombobulator is probably ultra-low frequency tech.
The conspiracy theorists have talked about ULF technology back in Iraq.
There was an old conspiracy, urban, like whatever to call it, that while in Iraq, our researchers deployed a ULF generator, ultra-low frequency, and experimented it on small villages.
I don't know if this is true or not, but they claimed that you put this thing on the ground and it pulses frequencies that are ultra-low vibrations that cause people to vomit.
And they put it on the ground, and then all the people in the small village keeled over and started throwing up and getting real sick.
That might be the discombobulator.
But I do want to add one of my favorite pieces of abandoned technology is something called the laser-induced plasma channel.
You know what this is?
It's a lightning gun.
Pikatini Air Force Base developed this weapon.
They were trying to figure out there is some dude sitting at a table and they're talking about like what should we work on.
And some guy goes, You know, I always wondered, like, you know, I'm sitting here and I want to strike that guy with lightning.
Why can't I do it?
And they said, We'll figure that out.
So, what you do is you superheat the air with an infrared, with a high-powered infrared laser, creating a plasma channel.
The superheated of the air makes a point, it makes it a path that electricity can travel through.
So, they get this gigantic electrode, supercharge it.
What happens?
It strikes the ground.
It's trying to, you know, the nearest point.
When you fire for a split second, an infrared laser straight, the path of least resistance becomes the superheated air channel, the plasma channel.
Then, when the electrode charges, it's simultaneous, it strikes whatever point it's pointed at with electricity.
They found it to be unpredictable and unwieldy, so they eventually abandoned it.
Here's the famous photo from Picatinny that I don't think there's a video of.
Let me see if I can.
This is the photo that they published when they were experimenting with it.
There are videos of the laser-induced plasma channel, but they're tiny ones.
And what people do is they'll make like you take two electrodes and a laser, and it just makes like what looks like a static orb shock jump in between.
So, if you if you have enough juice, that's the problem.
It takes a ton of energy.
The reason why we're never gonna have laser weapons, the easiest reason, I want to shout out Venture Brothers.
And it's a parody of like superhero and Johnny Quest.
And there's this really funny scene where the main character is this like government scientist who makes a bunch of crazy stuff, but it's kind of, it's very meant to be like realistic and dysfunctional.
And so he's selling off a whole, he's doing a yard sale.
And one of the supervillain has a henchman who's a nerd.
And he shows up and he sees, he's like, is this what I think it is?
And it's a lightsaber and he presses the button and goes, and then he's like, oh, and he wants it.
And then he's like, how much for this?
And then the scientist goes, oh, I don't know.
I made it for the military, but they said we don't sword fight anymore, which is an amazing point with all the people who think lightsabers would be a great weapon because the military would be like, we don't sword fight anymore.
What do I need this for?
So a lot of people think we'll get to the era of like plasma rifles or laser guns, which is never going to happen because the amount of energy you need to make a directed energy weapon is massive.
And the amount of energy you need to fling a small piece of lead at a person is very, very tiny.
So when you're actually talking about you want a guy to carry a gigantic backpack with batteries on it so he can blast you with an infrared laser, which will burn your skin, or you can take this tiny little bit of powder.
But listen, the point, ultimately, even with fusion packs, we're talking about a tiny little bit of stored energy in the black in the smokeless powder.
Tiny little bit.
You don't got to carry that much.
And I can send a chunk of, you know, fully like a full metal jacket or, you know, whatever kind of round you want flying at 3,500 feet per second.
White House registers new alienrelated.gov domains as DOD tackles Trump's disclosure directive.
So this is alienandaliens.gov.
And it's coming at a time Trump said he was going to release files on UFOs.
Now, our understanding is that the websites are for self-reporting for individuals who witness UFO or UAP phenomena to submit that story so they can track it.
Guys, there was a story that I covered about a UFO somewhere in like Florida or whatever.
And you knew that the news organization desperately wanted to pretend it was true because in the story they say like, witness says they saw UFO strange occurrences.
A man was a pilot for the Air Force and he saw these strange vehicles flying through the air.
At the very bottom of the story, it was like the event took place 70 miles from the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Research Lab for the Navy.
And I'm like, you knew that the whole time, and you wanted to frame it as though it was aliens, when the whole time you knew it was advanced U.S. military technology.
It's called Telegram from Operation PB Success Headquarters in Florida to CIA stations in Guatemala, January 30th, 1954.
And there's a key line in this CIA cable.
The context is we were the CIA had a plot to overthrow the government, and the government found out about it and was beginning to saturate the state-owned radio stations with revelations of this CIA plot.
And the CIA cable has this key line, if possible, fabricate big human interest story like flying saucers in remote area to take away play from the revelations of this, you know, potentially busted CIA plot.
And so I thought that was, yeah, here it is on state.gov, history.state.gov, official U.S. government website.
I can text you this link if you want to put it on screen.
Well, this is it if you want to just like search those terms right there.
Telegram from Operation PB Success.
And this is so this is effectively in the height of a years-long effort to topple a foreign government.
The CIA presses to fabricate a story about aliens to take away play from the potentially complications in an in-process military intelligence operation.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here.
I just think it's very funny that like if you like if you run a control F for flying saucers, like you'll, you'll see, or I'm sorry, for this is, it should be, nope, hold a sec.
And you'll see it says paper must be red and light, you know, with Razzle Dazzle preceding the Organization of American States.
So basically, what they're saying is, and if you read the context of this, you know, basically directive for the CIA's media assets to make a big stink about these crazy human interest stories, it's specifically to take away airplay and distract the population from other revelations in the news.
I was only asking about the timing of the aliens.gov registration just because I think these things are funny.
There is a curious thing happening.
I know Tim Burchett has been making noise about this.
That evidently there are these five disappeared scientists, I think three of whom testified to Congress, who were on this.
But have you ever seen the movie?
There's a documentary called Mirage Men.
I think it came out in 2014 based on this book.
And it's a fascinating story about the kind of psyops that are deployed by the military to try to fabricate stories of aliens in order to do the same thing that the CIA cable said to take away play from what is genuine military technology.
So it tells the story effectively.
In particular, it follows this scientist who was a military contractor who was very successful, very, very, you know, well-to-do, long-time military government contractor who owned basically a residential estate with acres of land that abutted against a U.S. military base, I believe, in New Mexico or Nevada.
And because the person worked on this complex military equipment and had all these measuring devices and the like, his measuring devices would pick up on what was happening inadvertently on the Air Force base.
And as there were various new kind of technologies for drones and for flying military aircraft that were being developed, he began to notice this, pick up on it, and begin to tell people in the local press about what he was finding.
At that point, Air Force counterintelligence, the CIA, and the NSA basically created a, descended on him and created basically a Truman show around his whole life.
So they bought all the land around him so that they could survey 24-7, everything he was doing and picking up on.
They broke into his home.
They replaced his hard drive and had it like read out like decipherable messages with these alien noises and then introduced these people who were to be his like colleagues and like co-contractors, not knowing they were undercover feds to convince him.
People claim that the government is doing exactly as you describe, that the people they're working with are actually undercover and it's for some spying operation or manipulation.
But the justification is national security, that basically if this guy tells the press, then the Russians are going to know, the Chinese are going to know, they're going to be on to what we're doing.
Americans will get killed, but we can't prosecute him for this.
We can't kill him for this.
So all we can do is try to basically nudge within the bounds of whatever we can do, pushing our predicate of national security, a kind of operational security operation to limit the disclosure, basically public disclosure of a non-public classified project.
So this was 2024, and internet went wild because you've got these crazy videos.
Look at all of these cops.
And they said it was because kids were setting off fireworks or something, right?
Ten people claimed to have seen three unusually tall, nine to 10 foot tall, thin figures exiting a clothing store from the mall during a large police response.
Widespread speculation about aliens.
Now, the thing is, people were like, bro, when have they ever deployed?
I'm going to say it right now.
You really think they're deploying that many police because some teenagers let off fireworks?
Bro, I'm watching videos of like 300 teenagers smashing cars and rampaging through department stores, stealing stuff, and they don't get arrested and they don't go to jail.
That's why everybody was like, this is weird.
Because they're like, oh, it's a bunch of teenagers running through a mall of fireworks.
I'm like, BS, dude.
I'm not saying aliens happen, but I'm like, that story don't make no sense.
The scale of the police response became part of the wider narrative about alleged sightings that some claims asserting the size of law enforcement could not be explained solely.
It's not even a joke, dude.
Are you kidding me?
What do you think would happen if you were at the mall and you reported a handful of teenagers with fireworks?
So look, January 1st, initial calls to local authorities reported a disturbance in the mall involving teenagers fighting.
Multiple individuals began posting accounts on social media describing three tall, slender figures exiting a clothing store.
Reported heights ranged between nine and ten feet.
Witnesses described the creatures having elongated limbs and humanoid silhouette.
Some described unusual skin tones.
According to several witness statements, news of the figures rapidly spread throughout the mall, leading to panic as shoppers tried to exit.
The Miami Police Department publicly stated the primary incident involved teenagers causing a disturbance and that there was no evidence supporting an extraterrestrial encounter.
Now, fine, that may be.
But again, if there was a shooting, you'd not have that many police.
They ask them, I'm like, oh, yeah, you saw the leprechaun.
And we need that for it.
Because I would expect that these multiple witnesses, I would like to see their personal testimony, you know, where what local news reporters they talk to.
Like, did they, no one recorded their testimony or went on?
No, there is something about like if something did go down there, there was some shady, like there was a cartel thing.
There was a like a busted CIA operation with a shootout with the, you know, like elements of the Guadalajara, Guadalajara cartel that or Colombian cartel that was acting in the space and some shit went down and they don't want it to get public.
Like I could see a world in which what we're talking about is whether or not there are aliens and it's easy to simply dismiss the whole thing because, okay, there's no proof that there's, but you're not actually asking, well, what actually, what actually did, like, you're not talking about what other witnesses may have said.
All we know is these witnesses seem to be crazy because they're claiming aliens.
So if they told you some other thing, you're inclined to discount them because you're sort of pre-loaded to believe that these witnesses are not credible because some of them have talked about aliens or something.
Well, as I told Joe Rogan, The reason the globalists want a one-world governing authority is that we can't join the Galactic Federation until the planet is governed by one unifying body.
Because if the aliens came and went to Russia, then the U.S. would lose their minds.
If the aliens came to the U.S. and Russia would lose their minds.
Which one?
You know what I mean?
So, and then Joe said, I don't think there's a Galactic Federation.
My concern here, I want to ask you about this, Mike, is corporatocracy versus communism.
You know, you've got the Chinese model, which is they own the corporations or the corporateocratic model where the corporations become governments themselves, so powerful.
I mean, I'll look, this is one of these things where, I mean, the main thing that I think is interesting from this capitalism-communism debate is that there is an incredible amount of capitalist profiteering from communist policies that I think is underappreciated by a large part of the conservative movement.
Like, if you think about things like climate finance, clean energy, public health, vaccine products and the like, how many of these markets are made by government-imposed mandates, government subsidies and the like.
Like, it's actually very Capitalist in the sense of the acquiring of private capital for a company like Pfizer to push sort of government control over the industry because the government can mandate that we take we buy their products effectively, that we are forced to do that.
Same thing with like a lot of the clean energy and climate finance stuff.
These are multi-trillion dollar markets, public health, energy.
And what you have are these like hedge fund and private equity folks like George Soros, where you've got hundreds of millions of dollars of investments.
Like I think about this a lot.
The Biden administration basically overthrew the Bolsonaro government in Brazil because of which was which was a U.S.-aligned government, the Bolsonaro one, very friendly with the United States, a huge amount of trade and investment, longtime friendly relations.
But the Lula government that the Biden CIA and State Department and USAID and U.S. military all supported in this 2022 event that they pulled off, that government was this like left-wing sort of communist, socialist communist type government, highly aligned with China, pledged on the campaign trail to join Brazil up with the China Belt and Road.
Why would the Biden State Department basically pick a winner in a foreign country's election that would divest from the United States and pick our rival for its trade deals, for its satellite, for its agriculture, for its infrastructure development?
And what you look at us, okay, well, that was a Democrat administration.
The number one donor to the Democrat Party in that election cycle was George Soros, who invested two and a half times more than any other DNC donor.
At the time, he had a large stake.
It was his largest running ever consecutive equity because he mostly takes short-term positions, but he had something like a 19-year, like a very long-running equity investment in a company called Atacoagra, which is this big, like it's a company that in Brazil makes clean ethanol-based fuels.
And because it's not competitive with diesel in the market, the only way to actually get that product to take off is to have a government mandate that in Brazil, you have to use this type of fuel and you can't use these sort of more hydrocarbon-based fuel alternatives.
And basically, day one, Lula enacts this ethanol fuel mandate directly profiting.
So you have this like left-wing guy who a lot of people say, you know, Soros is a socialist communist, but he runs a capitalist hedge fund and private equity fund.
And you have the party that he has gotten into office through $100 million in election cycle donations.
And therefore, he gets say over the personnel at the State Department and White House and CIA to enact these policies.
And they immediately turn around and implement a kind of communist socialist energy policy.
But the whole thing is profiting his capitalist business.
And so you have this kind of inversion of communism and capitalism that plays out.
That's just an example in the ethanol business.
But again, if you think about things like vaccines or public health or any number of these type of businesses.
Well, but there's some important context here because the interviewer said, you realize that by saying that on record in your statement, that the defense counsel in the Tyler Robinson case can cite that in his defense if he pleads not guilty and say that actually it wasn't me who did it.
It may have been some other thing and the FBI didn't do that.
And we know that because this individual made this public statement.
And the interviewer said, so because you said that, you know that you could be called as a witness by the defense counsel to testify under oath that that is true.
And he said, yeah, I recognize that I would not welcome that, but I recognize that I would do that.
I would bet large sums of money that that just got Tyler Robinson found not guilty.
Because I'm going to put it like this.
Yo, if I was on the jury of any criminal case and the defense said, we're going to call this person to testify, subpoena him, and say, when you attempted to investigate potential ulterior stories or other suspects, were you barred from doing so?
Yes, I was.
I'm on the jury and I hear that.
I'm going to be like, what?
So the job is to investigate all avenues.
I'm sorry.
While if I'm on the jury and there's a guy sitting there and they're like, there's no direct video of him doing it, but he was, there is video of a person who looks kind of like him and there's all this evidence.
Well, you could argue that ODNI is not a law enforcement authority, that the for whatever reasons relating to, and again, I'm not invested or particularly up on the nuances of the Tyler Robinson case,
but I could see a world in which the explanation they offer is that because of the time sensitivity and focus on the existing leads, expanding this and the delays that would cause in the process and the compelling nature of the evidence that they're going to be able to do.
Well, okay, but then that would then get to weighing the evidence as to the strength of the because, for example, if he had said, listen, the FBI barred us from investigating whether aliens did it.
And he testifies under oath, the FBI barred me from other people.
No, but hold on.
But you'd have to show the strength of the evidence of the leads that compelled him to basically ask for that broadened investigation and for the FBI to validate and pursue leads.
Well, that to me is the key question hanging over the whole thing, which is that many people are dissatisfied with the so-called official explanation, but the little attention that I've paid to it in terms of the evidence presented of a coherent alternative story doesn't matter.
You don't know the load of the bullet could be old, who knows?
But he was like, from the sound of it, that's what I thought.
And I've talked to a bunch of security experts, and almost all the regular people that I've talked to about it who are like weapons specialists or experts or who are literal snipers or at least have training from the military are like, yeah, it's possible.
It seems kind of weird, but I've seen weird things.
You've had SEALs who are like, I got shot up and like a bullet was lodged in my back and it went from the front, went around my back.
But the point is, these shows have created doubt.
And so that means if any one of these jurors has been exposed to this, they're going to be saying in their mind, this is impossible.
They're lying to me because I know, because I heard that podcast, they are making this story so ubiquitous that you will not be able to present evidence in court to change their mind because the jury will be tainted.
And they're going to ask people, they're going to get jurors.
And I'm telling you guys, go on threads and look at some of this insane stuff.
George Takai is posting about Erica Kirk.
It's psychosis.
George Takai, eagle-eyed internet users notice an odd change to the bookshelf in the background of Erica Kirk's video compared to her late husband Charlie Kirk's same background.
Combine Candace's show and Ian Carroll and the rest of these individuals with what regular people think about Erica Kirk.
Add to the fact that when they go on the stand, the defense is going to ask the FBI, they're going to say, here are several social media posts of individuals expressing foreknowledge of the events that day and the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
We have social media posts from individuals who said, Charlie, it's going to happen tomorrow.
We covered this right when it happened.
Regardless of the evidence of Tyler Robinson, they're going to ask, was it possible these other individuals who expressed foreknowledge and were called out by major media across the board were involved or the individual in question.
And they might say the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming, as you'll see, and they'll say, but what about the possibility of other involvement from individuals which the FBI barred Joe Kent from investigating?
But the other part is, if you remember the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a prosecutor by the name of Merrick Garland, who was the prosecutor in the case.
And there was the famous question of how do you know McVeigh did it?
There are all these other people involved.
In fact, the day one coverage was for the first three weeks, there was a manhunt, a very public manhunt to identify this John Doe number two.
And how do you know it was Timothy McVeigh?
There's all this shadiness about the sudden FBI changed its story and said, actually, there was no John Doe number two.
He never existed.
This is after basically three weeks of a nationwide manhu hunt, complete with a sketch of what this person was supposed to have looked like.
And at trial, there's an exchange in the transcript from the McVeigh trial where the line of questioning is effectively to the prosecutors.
I'm sorry, I think it's McVeigh or one of the witnesses talks about John Doe number two.
And Merrick Garland replies something to the effect of it doesn't matter if John Doe number two, John Doe number three, or John Doe number 100 existed.
Effectively, you are on trial and we know you did this.
And to this day, in fact, there's still ongoing fights because all of the video cameras from the Alfred P. Murrow building, the footage was destroyed, even though they were remotely stored.
But I brought this into evidence because there's an exact example of a similar case study where this dispute played out in court, where the argument was the federal government did not investigate.
The issue that we're talking about is that you've got millions upon millions of people watching all of these shows that are not going to just accept a narrative from the television.
Most people back in the day were watching a handful of networks and just accepted the results of whatever the news was.
But now you've got people who are tuned into these conspiracy channels.
And if what you're saying transpires, that Joe Kent, his statement is introduced and they say to the jury, they were not allowed, the counterterrorism wanted to investigate other actors.
There is evidence of other actors and foreknowledge that was never investigated, putting gaping holes in this criminal prosecution.
And if the jury ignores that as doubt and convicts him anyway, then all of these podcasters with millions of followers are going to make money and blast it out.
And it is going to create a massive network of millions of people who are like, oh my God, the government did it.
First, I think it's what I'll grant you is that there was a difference in the demonization scale of Timothy McVeigh versus Tyler Robinson.
There is a full court government, media, civil society campaign around Timothy McVeigh being the guy, you know, public TV biographies of him maybe being a Nazi and having these, And it was a name on the tip of everyone's tongue that has not been done with Tyler Robinson.
So you have to get the alleged assassin with sympathy.
And if everything I've, what I've said has already gone massively viral to the tunes of tens of millions, that Joe Kent said we wanted to investigate a foreign Nexus and we were denied.
And when you add to that, we know there are social media posts from individuals who had foreknowledge, or at least appears they had foreknowledge.
I got to be honest, I don't know how we got to see what the evidence in the trial is going to be, but that is tremendous doubt where it's like, if Joe Kent said the reason why I wanted to investigate a foreign Nexus is because of these seven social media posts where individuals were expressing they knew it was going to happen the next day.
But this gets me back to why I introduced the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, because the reason the court denied defense the ability to see the CIA satellite and data around Timothy McVay is because it dealt with a potential foreign nexus and it was deemed to basically potentially get into areas of national security, which begged the court because there were many other people.
My point is the jury is going to be asked, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt with these factors included that this is the man who did it?
And I'm not telling people what to believe or what is true.
I'm saying if they ultimately decide that these factors do not bring up any doubt in their minds based on the evidence, then you've got millions of viewers of these shows that view Erica Kirk as the villain who are going to say that they're going to claim Tyler Robinson was innocent.
They're going to claim that Israel did it, and this proves it.
Because they're going to make the argument that any reasonable juror would not conclude this, that they would say there's of course doubt.
Who are these people that knew?
The reports of the vehicles pulling up Tyler Robinson's house in the week before it happened shows other people were involved.
The fact that there was a Discord and communications, other people were involved.
And the fact the FBI denied the ability of the counterterrorism director to investigate it is going to say to them, this proves the conspiracy.
And if a jury convicts even knowing that, they're not going to believe it.
My point ultimately is with the Druski stuff and Erica Kirk.
And to shift a little bit to where this is going, the end result of this is the shuttering of YouTube, X, Instagram, et cetera, TikTok, all of these things will be tightly controlled.
We are looking at a new order in social media because there is a question now being asked.
With all of the shows that appear on YouTube that are attacking Erica Kirk and lying about her to mass scale and Turning Point USA, there's one guy who lied and said that Turning Point was paying a parking lot for social media services when in fact he was in a shopping center with a UPS store and mailboxes.
Turning points and Erica have already sent out season desist letters to many of these people, but they've not yet gone to YouTube.
So a new question has emerged.
Section 230, which is under attack right now, and there was a hearing on it, protects YouTube for what these third parties say.
The origin of Section 230 has to do with the Wolf of Wall Street.
There was a website on finance.
Someone commented something defamatory.
A complaint was made about the website to which they said, hey, we didn't write that.
And the argument was, it's published on your website.
That's your responsibility.
So they created Section 230 to say two things.
You are not liable for what someone else, for user-generated content on your platform, and you will still not be liable if you decide to remove things that are objectionable.
That's it.
A new question has emerged.
Are you the publisher of the content personally when you are offering money to someone to publish it?
That is, YouTube has a contract with Candace Owens.
They say to Candace, whatever content you make, we'll make money together.
That is entirely different from the original intent of Section 230.
And so now, with this court case where YouTube is liable for what they promote, the question is, when YouTube cuts a deal with someone, does this now change the narrative?
Well, the argument that they'll probably have is: is YouTube paying user to create the content or is user creating the content and then being paid as a result?
And after the fact, they find that I was paying you to split, that I had a contract with you that I would provide the means to rob a bank to you in exchange for money.
Hey, no, I didn't pay him to rob the bank.
I paid him to generate, I gave him resources that he could use in any way possible to make money, but he agreed to share the money with me however he made it.
So the contract is you say things which potentially could be defamatory, but I'm going to sell ads against it and we're going to make money together.
So the equivalent analogy would be here, Ian, I'm going to let you use my car knowing that you do commit crimes and very well are likely to.
In fact, I've watched you rob banks already, but you've got to give me half no matter what.
If YouTube is aware of what Candace Owens is saying is defamatory, but continues to do rev splits with her, that puts them in a liable position, in my opinion, beyond Section 230.
Because the way you describe it, it sounds like if Ian is a part-time bank robber and you give him a general loan and he uses the resources of that loan to but the issue with YouTube is that a third party pays YouTube and YouTube then gives a portion to Candace.
Yeah, I'm like, I'm going to let you use my car for the work that you do, knowing full well that you're a bank robber and you're going to use the car to rob banks.
There's a fine line in how they define it, but targeted harassment.
And this absolutely qualifies.
And I will tell you from experience on the shows that we've had polled because people had said something as silly as like, man, I can't stand that guy.
I wish somebody would go there and teach him a lesson, but I'm maybe a little bit more egregious.
But something like, oh, won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
And then YouTube's like, you can't do that.
YouTube once came in and deleted all of the chat and locked it because of something someone in the chat wrote that was about like not liking politicians or it was something it was a letter that Thomas Jefferson had written that I'm not going to state because they'll take the showdown for it.
So ultimately the point is this.
YouTube is aware of what she's saying.
They know she's being sued for it.
And they know that she still says it all the time.
And they are like, no, no, no, that's fine.
You and I will profit together off of these things we know you're being sued for.
The argument now is there's a big difference between you can say whatever you want and we know what you're saying is defamatory.
You're being sued for it, but we're going to make money together anyway.
Like we're going to generate revenue for you for doing it.
Okay, so if someone, if a liberal in the United States made a video series about how Donald Trump is a woman, would YouTube then is the same line of argument applies?
What I'm saying is, is even defamation per se, that still has to be determined by a court.
I think there are issues around a social media platform stepping in after something has been determined by a court of law to serve as this kind of pre-court of law before it's been legally found.
And that process, for there to be any liability on YouTube's end, I mean, you have to basically argue that they have to basically make an assessment.
They have to make a legal assessment of a person's entire posting history.
Do you believe that YouTube has not considered what Candace is doing?
Believe, like I, I would argue that internally at Youtube it is 100.
It is.
It is a one-of-one chance that Youtube execs came together over text and in a meeting to discuss what she was saying and potential legal liability, because she's saying it when the Macrones filed a suit and got involved.
At what point is the question going to be brought up that Youtube is facilitating widespread defamation per se against Erica Kirk, for which they are knowingly generating revenue off of it, and will they be liable?
Because again, section 230 was about if I make a website and you comment there's no monetary exchange, I didn't ask you to do it, I didn't offer you money.
I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if the psy op from the deep state was, we need to eliminate 230 to end the populist media base.
How do we do it?
Well, 230's got to go so that Youtube becomes a gatekept company and anybody who wants to start a channel has to get approval of government id to be on the platform.
Like who gets to make movies for Amazon, who gets to make movies for Netflix.
They're all private.
They choose, they gatekeep.
I believe that's what the Machine State wanted for a long time.
They don't like that.
There's channels like this that exist, and so i'm not saying it's definitive, i'm not saying it's a great chance, i'm just saying what an interesting thought.
One way you get rid of it is to do a massive campaign accusing the widow of a man who was assassinated of being a demon, of being a robot, of being evil.
The most insane things like wearing leather pants and people are getting rpms into 20, which is greater than news, greater than finance or rivals finance, when I I would be willing to bet.
Following this court case, where Youtube is liable for what they choose to promote, the next step becomes, look at the tens of thousands of Erica Kirk videos lying about her and accusing her of being a demon, of being evil.
Even Joe Rogan is now doing it.
If so, god forbid, if something happens to Erica or Charlie's or her kids, there will be an instant congressional hearing and they will say Youtube, why were you allowing this?
Nay, why were you profiting off of it knowingly, with high rpms, allowing this to happen?
And it's the argument the deep state would use to say, won't someone think of the children, just like when they said we need to get rid of uh, because it was um SISA, when they were like we, because of the children, we have to ban and lock down and get access to your computers and files if they really want to and i'm not saying I know what's going on if they really want to eliminate independent media and gatekeep these, these channels, and make sure the only people who are allowed to have podcasts are the chosen few, this is the perfect path to doing it.
Obviously she had what everyone presumes to be an arbitration meeting with Candace when they met and she did send a cease and desist, apparently to a bunch of people, including Candace the, the.
So the first question follow my point is this, following this, this ruling in New Mexico and in Los Angeles, That YouTube is responsible for what it chooses to promote.
Because now the next step of the argument is obvious.
If YouTube is responsible and liable for promoting certain content that's harmful, how does that interact with defamation when they're choosing to promote these Erica Kirk videos they know to be false or defamatory?
The question becomes in a lawsuit, if you get past a motion to dismiss, which I think you will, the question is going to be, after discovery, has YouTube ever had a conversation internally about the plethora of Erica Kirk content accusing her of being all sorts of evil things, including a robot, a demon, in on the murder of her own husband, which is defamation per se, criminal act.
And YouTube will say, yes, we've had those conversations.
And did you find, did you, that they could be defamatory?
And they're going to say, we did have those concerns, yes.
And you still chose to promote it.
Yes, we did.
Our algorithm just does this.
Well, as we've already concluded, precedent set in KGV, I'm sorry, KGMV, Google, and Meta.
You are responsible for what you promote is an open and shut case.
Then YouTube's going to say we have no choice but to stop allowing people to promote any produce any content they want.
Well, yeah, but I just wanted to say a quick thing, which has been haunting me all day since this thing came out to kind of piggyback on what Tim was saying.
There's another line because Tim is sort of concerned with the kind of defamation lawfare obliterating Section 230 protections because of this.
It's made possible potentially by this lawsuit.
I see this and I look at its potential for killing the sovereignty of the platforms for control over their own algorithm.
And that is, you know, because they're basically arguing that the algorithm is addictive and that, you know, I would not be surprised to see a push to have sort of third-party vetted.
There was a big push starting in 2021 for something they called middleware.
This was a newsguard, which I assume came after you.
They claimed that because we wrote a story about a speech Trump gave and didn't fact check the speech he gave, that we were fake news.
And we had a perfect score beyond that.
It's fake.
And NewsGuard rates New York Times perfect, 10 out of 10, based on the fact that it's the New York Times alone.
But I hate to stop you because we only have a few minutes left.
I got to do an ad read and we got to rate some super chats, but we'll pick this back up in the uncensored portion of the show.
So don't forget, before we go to the super chats, my friends, we've got a great sponsor.
It is Rumble Wallets.
Censorship's coming back.
That's my whole rant.
And I think the Democrats are likely going to win the midterms.
Subpoenas are going to go flying.
Censorship will come back with a vengeance.
And with that comes debanking, which was massive in the censorship era, which was only a few years ago.
We just barely escaped from.
But again, I think it's coming back.
So you want to check out the Rumble wallet app.
It's wallet.rumble.com or click the link in the description below.
It's a non-custodial wallet, meaning they can't ban you from it.
It's yours.
It's your address.
They can't take it from you.
You can transfer Bitcoin, Tether, and Tether Gold.
Tether Gold is actual gold on the blockchain.
So if you want to transfer Tether, Bitcoin, something of value to a friend, maybe you owe money, maybe you want to tip your favorite Rumble creator, RumbleWallet, wallet.rumble.com.
And the best part is, again, Rumble cannot remove you from this.
So in the event, in the future, if Democrats win or whoever wants to bring censorship back and they go to Rumble and say, Ian, you shouldn't be giving, you know, trading with a lot over here for that bagel, then, because you know he loves bagels.
Ian can be like, oh, no, but then Rumble's going to say, well, we can't do anything about it.
We can't stop him from any trade.
So, check out wallet.rumble.com, pick it up.
Shout out to Rumble, but let's grab some of your Rumble rants and super chats.
I know we only have a few minutes, but the teas on your mustache.
The allegation that they make is that at the last second, Elon said that he was balking on the $44 billion purchase price type thing in a bid to try to drive down the, because the stock price rose dramatically, making the deal more expensive on the anticipation of Elon buying it.
This is like a common thing.
And so, by him suggesting, this is the allegation that it wouldn't be bought, that actually it would drive down the price and therefore the purchase price would be lower.
We got Justin Lopez says, as an episode one viewer, I appreciate the fast intros.
Great adjustment.
May I suggest that you still the full intros from time to time, perhaps one day a week, or when there is a guest who would draw a different audience in case there are new viewers?
Indeed.
Indeed, indeed.
But we also do the outros as well.
I think for the guests, it makes sense.
For recurring co-hosts, people like Elad, who's here periodically, it makes sense.
For Libby, it makes sense.
But for Tate or Ian or me or Carter, at a certain point, it's like, this is the crew you know.
I got something to say, you know, because I was just talking about boxcar burgers.
My wife and I, we have to do some work.
It's administrative stuff.
And we still have the West Virginia properties, of course.
I'm in the Maryland properties.
And so rarely do we actually go into that area of Maryland anymore.
Because if we're going to D.C., we just go south.
We go through like Winchester.
And so we were over there and we decided, I was like, why don't we eat somewhere we haven't eaten in a long time since we left the Maryland property, which is not really that far away.
It's like 20, 30-minute drive.
And I was like, oh, boxcar burgers.
And we used to order from them all the time.
And so at the castle, it's only like a 10-minute drive.
We'd get a bunch of burgers and fries for everybody.
We loved it.
They got really great burgers.
It's like local beef from local farms.
Ate there, and we loved it.
And I was like, man, it was a lot of fun when we were at the castle, you know?
There's fruits everywhere.
Chicken City was right next to the door, so you could always see the chickens.
Now it's far away.
We didn't really have the skate park, but we're not like skateboarding is dead.
So I was just like, it kind of feels like the fun is gone, you know?
Like, we used to have a lot of fun at the castle, and everybody was around.
And my wife said, I don't think the reason it feels less fun has anything to do with the people.
She's like, something else changed.
And I said, you're completely correct.
Something changed.
Because what happened was there's a liquor store in Brunswick that I forgot what it's called.
I think this is called like Brunswick Liquors or something, but this dude has everything.
When I was in Austin, I went down to 6th Street and hung out and went to the mothership, the comedy mothership, Rogan's Club, and just spent time with comedians.
And like, I know I don't just want to stick my head in the sand and just make funny during global potential World War III because it's like, I don't want to ignore it.
But at the same time, I don't want to think about it.
I don't want to deal with it.
I don't want to cheer for it.
And I don't want to tell the government to stop because I feel like they'll kill me.
So I got to improve the morale of the community.
And so I'm drawn to the arts, but it was very refreshing to be focusing on making people laugh and having.
I was just going to say that I feel like those things are related, though.
The drop in the fun and the Charlie.
This is certainly the case for me.
When Charlie was murdered, it permanently changed the sense of fun for me of the movement and the vibe around it.
There was, until Charlie was murdered, we had had a million close calls.
We had been through all this shit together over, I mean, I was like a 2015 Trump guy and, you know, through all of the bullshit and like all of the professional sacrifices and all of the prosecutions and all of the impeachments and all of the obstruction and all of the operations and sabotage and then two assassination attempts,
including one on live TV where he takes a bullet to the face.
When that happened, I bought the t-shirt.
I bought three of these t-shirts that said, you missed, bitch.
And it was, you know, Trump's face and it was the, you know, the target missing.
There was this sense that it was all fun.
And no matter what they did, even if it sucked at the time, we're all going to make it, fam.
You know, we're all going to, we're going, we're all going to make it.
And watching Charlie, kind of the most lovable, diplomatic, like good-natured, brand safe, be viscerally murdered in the most like live leak, the most vivid live leak style.
I mean, I just kept watching the video and watching the video and the different angles of it.
And I've never seen a murder in 4K HD like that of anyone, let alone Charlie was the first person to ever reach out to me when I first.
Well, you have more of a target on you because of the journalism and coverage that you've done on these anti-fotype groups who have developed this personal animus to you.
And I can see from your perspective, having been shot at and having all these groups putting a target on your head, that that would be your experience.
I brought that up because for mine, I don't feel a sense of that, but I do feel that it was the Charlie Kirk moment on the heels of the Elon fallout and the high of that.
And then a couple other things that were happening at that time, combined with just that visceral murder that changed the comedy.
It felt like we were living in a kind of comedy movie with drama in it, like a dramedy.
And then at that moment, it became a different movie.
And so my point ultimately on the November thing is if Democrats get a strong majority in the House, and if by some stretch, it's not possible they got a majority, if they got a 60-seat majority in the Senate, which is not possible, but like we'd be fucked.
And that's an understatement.
And people, you know, I get asked like, well, what could they really do?
Well, they can override a veto at that point.
And then you're going to have made in the United States nationwide.
You're going to have guns banned nationwide.
They will do things Republicans are too fucking pathetic to do.
So, you know, in my opinion, I think, you know, voters have like a short-term memory.
Anything that isn't within four months of November, they're going to forget.
But between, you know, potentially Trump stopping the ending the war in Iran by summer, potentially, our 250th anniversary celebration that I'm sure Trump is going to go all out for.
And, you know, in September having a memorial, a remembrance of Charlie Kirk, you know, not bringing people back into the fray, into the fold.
You think after all that, people we won't be able to hold the line in November?
Because I feel like between now and then, Democrats are probably going to do something stupid, more riots, more something crazy.
And all that together, don't you think that's going to be enough to hold the line at least through the election?
And the main issue is not Republicans turning Democrat.
It's Republicans not voting because of a protest vote against the actions to send some signal that they don't co-sign some of the things.
So I think it's going to be a turnout issue, which is you are just going to have a lot of the people who voted in the 2024 election not voting because they feel dejected or depressed about the truth.
So Senate-wise, based on polling, Democrats would have to win every swing state and Ohio, which is red, in order to get 50-50, which would still be a Republican-controlled Senate because of JD Vance.
They would have to win Nebraska or Iowa if they actually want a majority.
So I don't think we're going to see a majority Texas.
That's not going to happen.
If they won every light red state, they'd end up with 55.
If they somehow got Florida, they'd end up with 56.
They'd have to win deep red states to get a 60-seat majority.
So Honduran farmers are not going to get entry-level jobs at insurance companies.
And AI is maybe AI will do it, but your future will then be an aging population of Americans.
They'll slowly start dying off.
And then in 100 years, this country will be fragmented, broken apart, and there will be little pockets of little pocket communities all over the place.
Women will be fertile well into their late 40s, and people will be living until they're 130.
So we'll see the next generation, but we'll just see a wider generation gaps of 30 or 40 years instead of trying to fill the gaps with immigration, right?
I don't know if you remember because all this stuff lately about the Kirk posting and Candace Owens and all this stuff about all these social media commentators talking back and forth reminded me of this episode from back then of involving Ann Coulter.
I don't know if you remember that episode where I didn't really watch the show.
If you ever get a chance to look at it, there's this one scene where Ann Coulter is featured in the show.
And all it comes down to saying is sometimes people are just looking for someone to have a nemesis against, someone to just go on TV, go online, and just have an argument just to attract views, get clicks, make money.
And with all due respect to Kyla, because we appreciate her coming on, there was the point where she was like, you know, the tariffs are bad and Trump is enriching his son with crypto.
Don't you think it's bad?
And I said, yes.
And then she kept arguing.
I said, I don't understand why you're arguing with me.
I just agreed with you.
And then she just stuttered.
And I'm like, I don't understand what there's like, yes, it's bad.
And she's like, but you don't think, I'm like, no, I just agreed with you.
Like a decade ago back, everybody was arguing whether it was blue or gold or whatever it was because they were looking at it was depending on their phone, they were seeing a shadow or they were seeing it brightly colored, which would change what you thought of it.
It's kind of multi-part, so just kind of bear with me.
Like, I know in Judaism, there's like pro and anti-Zionist factions, and the same thing in Christianity.
Would you consider yourself a Zionist or in the anti-Zionist camp?
And do you think all this talk about prophecy and whatnot is just something that gets us used to convince pro-Zionists, Christians, Jews that they're on the right track or possibly to deceive them at the very least to create political capital for people in power to achieve their foreign policy goals that would otherwise be very unpopular?
You know, there's Zionist and anti-Zionist camps within Judaism, but there's also kind of almost denominational differences in attention to it.
Like, okay, so, you know, there's Orthodox, conservative, and Reform Judaism, you know, sort of synagogues and practices that, you know, have varying levels of, I guess, tie-in to, you know, Israel-specific type concerns.
I grew up in a Reform synagogue.
You know, I went to Hebrew school, bar mitzvah, you know, been to Israel a couple times.
But my parents were very, you know, they raised us to think of ourselves as Americans and to assimilate, you know, in to,
I mean, to put America first, to put it bluntly, it was one of these things where it would be great if Israel thrives and is successful, but it is a foreign country and we are Americans and we're assimilated as Americans.
And I've never really, I don't know, focused on like the welfare of Israel qua Israel as like a focus of, you know, it's one of these things where, you know, when Israel succeeds, I wish Israel well.
You know, where there's overstep in places, I hope there's accountability.
You know, I think it's probably the relationship a lot of people have.
Uh, you know, I'm part Italian, I have a certain affinity for Italy, even though I've never even been.
It's just one of these things where it's like, you know, you watch Goodfellas and you're like, oh, those are like, that's a part of my people's, you know, and I imagine that the Irish and Indians and people feel that way too.
But I am also aware that of, you know, how do I say this without saying too much personal detail?
Just, you know, that there's like I grew up also, you know, in the context of, you know, a Shabbat club and a personal network and a you know, friend and family network.
And you're aware of the dynamics of you know the relationship with Israel.
Um, and and it is something that you know, I, I, when I see what's playing out, I, I, I feel attuned to the dynamics without being particularly personally invested.
It would just be so much easier if Israel just wiped out all of Gaza and the West Bank so we could just stop talking about it for once, you know, just don and over with.
I guess I feel like it's one of these things where it's there's a very complicated history here.
And I feel like there's this, like, the purpose of the question is to kind of put you in the box of like, you know, are you on this side or that side?
And it's like, I'm an American who focuses on the welfare of America.
I feel like I'm pretty frank in the way that I talk about these issues.
And I don't feel like certainly, I guess, the network that I grew up in, and when I think about the identity that I, you know, have somewhere in my heart, it was a kind of soft Zionist background in the sense that you don't have a like, it's just not a word that might be.
I don't, I don't feel scared about it, but I'm aware that, for example, like this is something that is very much a like fixation and people will like clip you and things like this.
Well, I wouldn't answer it that way because it's not like I don't care at all.
It's not like I don't want it to do well when it's doing good things.
It's just a question when you say, in the way the question is asked sometimes, it's like, you know, co-signing everything, or like, if I were to just give a hard yes, it sounds like it's co-signing everything that's played out.
And it also sounds like I'm placing it at the center of my identity in a certain way, if that makes sense.
Like I am, I am Jewish.
That is a part of my identity.
It is something that, you know, has been a part of my life for 40 years.
Zionism and like the welfare of the nation state of Israel is like I wish Israel well.
It's not something that's like, I just don't think about it.
And it's actually interesting.
that I don't think I've actually ever been asked that, which is also another reason that I'm like taking my time.
I'm a little bit shocked that you, like, still have this long-winded answer kind of not going one way or another about it, especially because, I mean, you're involved in politics.
You've obviously been to Israel a couple of times.
Well, as a Jew, too, I don't mean to put you on the spot about it if you don't want to comment and I understand.
Well, I'm happy to comment, but this is my comment, and I'm sort of working it out in real time, if you will, because I've just never – I've literally never been asked.
But the other part of it is – In your 40 years of being a Jew who's visited Israel and worked in politics, you're telling me you've never been asked on if you – You've never been?
anything or shout anything out well i guess maybe that was a little too uh more really more i just wanted to i was curious more like if the prophecy stuff is propaganda to prey on pros on this um i i right I think that's an extremely complicated question that most people don't even think about.
But I just answered from my perspective, which is like, literally, I learned about that stuff through YouTube videos in my 30s, not Hebrew school or Shabbat club in my teens.
Like, that's just the denomination for me is just, it's not really a focus.
Zionism, is that just basically like, I support the way that the liberal economic order in Israel in the British Media for Palestine, or I don't support that and I want them to be taken?
And I just, it's just, I'm really appreciative and grateful that you guys have created this space for all of us to like hang out together and get to know you.
We got our favorite Bolton Borough on the line, so we got to ask him some questions.
I'm actually going to change my question because I was going to ask a question about deportation.
That's kind of like not very interesting.
I'm just going to ask Tim, since you've been talking about how sort of like the fun is gone, sort of like the joy is gone from not only the movement, but also, you know, kind of your own camp.
And, you know, you seem pretty disappointed in that.
Is there any kind of things that you're doing right now that you would you would advise people to do as far as like, you know, daily practices or, you know, anything you're doing as far as your business goes to try to bring some of that back?
Because I think for a lot of people, they're, they're in the same camp.
Like, I feel that way in certain places where it just there's a lot of that joy and that interest in the future that's gone from young men like myself because of the state of the world and our nation right now.
I think one thing is like if you watch, like if you notice in the episode today, we avoided Iran war as a topic and we talked lightly on electoral politics, but we kind of just wanted to have fun with it and talk about the weird stuff, you know?
I was going to say, I know you guys kind of can't because of the jobs you have in the political space, but I got off X, and I got to say, like, my mental health got so much better because the whole monitoring situation thing is a fun thought.
And, you know, it's like, oh, I want to know what's going on at Venezuela or Iran.
And that thirst for knowledge isn't always a healthy thing.
I mean, we look for wisdom first.
And I mean, I'm a Christian, so I believe we find that in the word and also from who grown our relationship with the Lord and does silent times.
But I think a lot of times with the demoralization, I absolutely agree.
It's with Candace Owens as a large factor in that.
But I think one of the big issues that we have is that almost everything that we elected Trump to do, he hasn't done or at least he hasn't committed to.
So math deportations, you know, not really being done or at the very least being walked back.
And, you know, we elected him to end wars and to not start any new wars, which I suppose if it's the Middle East, it could be classified as an old war.
So, I mean, technically, he didn't start any new wars, but it's just demoralizing to people because we hoped that the system would work this time, and it just didn't.
There's a million and one theories to try and understand what's going on.
And with the Israel posting and the Kirk posting, it's really hard to understand whether they intentionally want to destroy the movement, which they I think they largely did, or if it's just that men have given up, the space is dying, and there's no more money to run a business.
And so people are just screeching whatever they can to get clicks, and Erica Kirk gets clicks.
See, Allison's bought CBS, and their viewership is going down.
Well, he says that the average anti-Semite would turn even the harshest anti-Semite into a phylo-Semite because what he's saying is that the lower IQ anti-Semitism is just absolutely ridiculous.
And it just demoralizes people.
It makes people want to go away from it.
And obviously, Ernst Junger is a he was fought in World War I on the German side.
So obviously he's not the fondest man of Jews.
But essentially, the thing is that a lot of anti-Semites, they just, especially the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, like retarded people who, like you've talked about, Tim, where they make literally everything about the Jews.
You talk about, if you said something about, you know, oh, we were drinking, you know, this expensive whiskey, they'd be like, oh, did you know they make whiskey in Israel?
This says approximately 90% of the Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a small remnant of a few thousand families who survived a devastating pogrom in the mid-1600s.
Yeah, that sounds like a created the genetic pool with recessive mutations where they were breeding, you know, amongst in breeding, whatever you want, but just to stay alive.
But I'm just going to shout out my Instagram, Shadowbox Design.
Just hit me up on there for anybody who needs any designs, client work.
I do logos, shirt designs, things like that.
And then Watchmen Clothing Co. is my shirt business.
If anybody wants to go buy a shirt, design stuff sort of in the tactical space, but still stick into Christian designs.
So my most recent one is all restraints are temporary.
Got a bunch of breaching tools on the back of the shirt with a, as well as an open grave, because that's what our Lord and Savior exited, the King of the Jews.
But I just want to thank you guys for having me on.
And I want to just encourage everybody to, you know, just get in the word, get in prayer if you can.
If, you know, if you're not religious, just meditate on good things.
You know, the Bible says to think on good things and to not ruminate on the negative.
You know, it's kind of funny everything you talked about in the beginning of the call-in show, because my question kind of pertains to Charlie Kirk and all that.
So my question is a question mostly for Tim, but the whole panel.
On Saturday night, I'm going to debate a bunch of liberals at a bar in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Do you have any advice you can give me?
A friend is releasing her second book, and the crowd is going to be mostly liberally, very vocally politically inclined people that I've been asked to debate.
Honestly, it's just to be fun, but I'm certainly going to bring up like May 31st that they bring up J6 and all that.
And I'm going to add a little bit more to my question.
You know, lock these J6er rioters up, but the May 29th rioters, man, they got to go too.
And then, when they're like, what's that?
You just go, when they write it when the liberals were writing at the White House, and they'll be like, what do you, I don't know what that is that didn't happen.
You'll be like, I just assumed it was common knowledge.
There's photos of the fire at the White House in St. John's Church.
It was a big deal.
You're not familiar?
Like, I already agreed with you on the Jay 6 thing.
People are, no, they'll start using rhetorics on like white supremacism and fascism and ask them to get very specific very quickly and bring up specific examples.
They'll use a lot of coded language and to try to cut through that.
If you find that your emotions are getting riled for some reason, or if the audience gets involved and starts to be the fifth man and join the other side, maintain eye contact with your primary debate opponent on stage and keep listening to them through the noise because that will give them respect and then they'll respect you and all that fucking noise will quit will go away.
Yeah, in general, if you know that you're up against a rigged crowd and the rules of the joust are rigged against you, settle for lowered expectations and a few things to nudge on.
Like, you know, rather than aiming for a kind of home run where you can sort of, you know, get exposed to the rules being like seriously abused, you know, plant basically the seeds in the audience to open them up to your perspective.
I think what Tim said is very true: that you want to start with your points of agreement and try to meet people where they are.
But and use it kind of come from the perspective of trying to educate rather than to persuade.
And with your palms open, that you're even though you recognize that many of them may see you as coming from an enemy camp or something, that you're kind of here to help Just let them know about a few things they might not have known about, not to change their mind about the whole thing if that option isn't really available under those circumstances.
Yeah, well, I hope that answered your question, good sir.
Was there anything you wanted to shout out?
unidentified
Uh, honestly, no, that should about do it.
Uh, I mean, shout out, y'all were talking about earlier all the space stuff, and I wanted to shout out the TV show The Expanse.
That uh, when we were talking about the space stuff, um, they did the stuff without all the shields and stuff, and all kinetic stuff, all physics stuff.
Y'all should watch The Expanse.
Uh, right on, and that should about do her.
Oh, y'all have a terrific night, and uh, yo, long live Charlie Kirk, man.
Like, the man was a fucking legend, and I really appreciate you guys talking about him earlier today and early on the after-show.
And that kind of led into everything I was asking about.
Man, they're gonna smoke DMT and take monoatomic golden space, and it will superconduct the radiation.
This is how the humans are going to be able to exist in deep space, maybe without the DMT because you already have DMT flowing through you, you know, right on naturally.
Yeah, that gold will help your neurons superconduct.