Bullet In KIRK ASSASSINATION Does NOT MATCH Says Court Filing | Timcast IRL
Visit http://truegoldrepublic.com/tim or call 800-628-GOLD
SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/
Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/joinShow more Hosts:
Tim @Timcast (everywhere)
Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/
Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/
Producer:
Carter @carterbanks (X) | @trashhouserecords (YT)
Guest:
Jeremy Ryan Slate @JeremyRyanSlate (X)
Podcast available on all podcast platforms!
Bullet In KIRK ASSASSINATION Does NOT MATCH Says Court Filing | Timcast IRL
For advertising inquiries please email [email protected] Show less
In a new court filing from the defense in the Charlie Kirk assassination case, the defense argues that the ATF was unable to identify the round used to kill Charlie Kirk to the rifle.
We're also learning from this filing who the prosecution intends to call in this preliminary hearing, which includes the parents of Tyler Robinson.
Of course, many people already, as this story is breaking, are claiming this proves it.
Well, it doesn't really prove anything.
It's a claim made by the defense.
So we're going to analyze this, break down what it really means.
But of course, because of the massive popularity of the Charlie Kirk assassination conspiracy theories, I would argue, and many do, Tyler Robinson is likely to be found not guilty because of the massive amount of attention given to alternate theories, especially with statements now from Joe Kent.
I think they are going to use all of this.
And they've stated they will use the filings from the ATF to make their case and try to create reasonable doubt.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
And then on to the big news, my friends: the Bulls, they just booted a player for speaking out against these pride events because he follows Christ.
They're basically saying you fired, which is absolutely nuts.
Many people are saying woke is coming back.
Now, it may be dead for now, but it could be sleeping and not dead.
Democrats are saying they need a straight white man for 2028 if they're going to win straight white men.
But if they do, speculation is that woke will come back with a vengeance behind the scenes.
So I want to talk about that and a whole lot more before we do get a great sponsor for you guys.
It is True Gold Republic.
My friends, having sound money and financial independence is important.
Hard assets are extremely important.
That's why you should check out True Gold Republic.
Look at the world right now.
Active war.
NATO's under pressure.
The dollar is being weaponized.
We got $36 trillion in debt and rising.
We've printed so much money since 2020.
Your savings are worth less every single year by design.
Gold can't be printed.
It can't be sanctioned.
It can't be developed by a press release.
Central banks are buying it at record levels right now.
The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print.
That should say that that tells you everything.
Insert True Gold Republic, real physical gold and silver, not paper, not ETFs, metal you can hold.
Check out their independence bundle, a physical gold starter kit, one-on-one with their experts and bonus precious metals on top.
The chaos is not coming, my friends.
It is here, and y'all know it.
Go to truegoldrepublic.com slash Tim to claim your independence bundle or call 1-800-628-GOLD.
That's truegoldrepublic.com slash Tim.
And my friends, you got to go to castbrew.com.
We got a big March sale.
Luck of the Sheamus is 20% off.
We also have aluminum bottle pool water.
If you ever wanted to drink pool water, something is wrong with you.
But if you want to drink pool branded water, because it's funny, you can pick up these bottles at castbrew.com, as well as our Cast Brew Vault Black Cold Brew Concentrate.
You get these little bottles, splash in a cup, add a little bit of water and cream.
Bang, you got some delicious coffee.
Don't forget to smash that like button, my friends.
Share the show with every single person you have ever met right now.
Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.
It's heavier than normal jacket, but it's not like one of those bands you used to wear when golfing so that your joints don't hurt or something like that.
Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims.
The bullet that killed Charlie Kirk did not match the rifle, according to a new court filing.
Defense attorneys are arguing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, quote, was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson.
The defense team may now offer the ATF firearms analysts testimony as exculpatory evidence.
They said in motion filed on Friday to push the preliminary hearing back at least six months.
It also notes that DNA reports, excuse me, filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and ATF, will take time for the defense team to analyze because reports indicated that several different DNA were found on some of the evidence.
Quote, as some, I'm sorry, as these cases indicate, determining the number of contributors to a DNA mixture and determining whether the FBI and the ATF reliably applied validated and correct scientific procedures is a complicated process, which requires the assistance of various types of experts, including forensic biologists, geneticists, system engineers, and statisticians, all of whom must review and evaluate several different categories.
Robinson's attorneys added that they have received about 20,000 electronic audio files, videos, and written documents that prosecutors have presented as evidence in the case.
So right away, my friends, I'm going to go ahead and ask, is it normal, and it might be, for the suspected assassin of a prominent public figure to have the masses submitting evidence to assist the alleged assassin?
There are times where, you know, like people that are murderers have, especially like if there's a male murderer that women, like for some reason, decide they want to throw themselves at him.
But I've never heard a situation where there are people actually submitting evidence to help someone who is accused of murder in this type of fashion.
I'm sure that there's been some, but this kind of magnitude, I don't think that I've ever heard of it in my lifetime.
So I'm just pointing out that with the massive amount of attention brought to the Charlie Kirk case and doubt sewn about, that's what I was trying to say, from the prominent podcasters, namely, of course, Candace Owens, there is a massive audience that believes this man is innocent.
So of course, they would submit what they view as evidence to assist the defense in this matter.
I believe the popularity of these conspiracy theories is going to create so much doubt in the public.
That alone is enough to get Tyler Robinson acquitted.
But you add on top this statement that they were unable to identify the bullet to the gun.
Now, that may be typical, but you combine that with the public evidence, like the story and the narration and the perspective, you are easily going to get jurors who are like, reasonable doubt.
By the time this goes to a trial, I don't see how they're going to find any human being who honestly is going to say, I have no idea about this.
And then what I fear is that you're going to get people who are going to be motivated by ideology who will lie in court and say, I'm totally unfamiliar.
And then as soon as they get in, they'll be playing Candace or whoever else and they'll be saying, like, I'm going to vote not guilty no matter what.
Yeah, I mean, look, it still is a narrow segment of the population that pays very close attention to this stuff, but it is also worth, you know, considering the fact that this is such a high-profile thing and there's so many people that are on, you know, on X or that, you know, I'm sure this stuff goes on Facebook.
I don't have a Facebook account, but I'm sure that this stuff is happening on Facebook.
These discussions are happening.
So just to come up with an actual, you know, a jury that's not been tainted already, I don't know that they're going to be able to do that.
And that's terrible because I tend to agree with you, Tim.
I think that the guy's going to walk because they can't actually get a non-biased jury.
Longer to take longer to get the jury, which means more people are going to be tainted ahead of time.
And then, I mean, as far as this defense guy, he's probably like, let's just make this case go 10 years and make sure Tyler can rest comfortably in a jail and not have to organize.
Also, one of the reports, Fox News, we have here talks about the prosecution's intention.
They say the filing made by defense attorneys on Friday states that prosecutors intend to call Robinson's parents and his roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, testify at the preliminary hearing.
Robinson's defense team is also asking the judge for a minimum of a six-month delay for the preliminary hearing, which is currently scheduled for May 18th.
In the filing, they said that they did not, they were not given adequate time to analyze much of the forensic evidence that is going to be presented by the prosecution.
Again, whatever your thoughts are on this, it is massively lined up for an acquittal for whatever reason that may be.
Well, the bigger question I would have as well is the concern I've had, I believe he's the guy that pulled the trigger, but I do think there's more associated with him.
And if he gets acquitted, we don't find out about that.
Yeah, YouTube has explicit rules against conspiracy theories, like explicitly phrased conspiracy theories, things that go, you know, they only allow authoritative news sources when you search.
But when it comes to this story, this one's a special, special example that they'll allow anybody to just say whatever they want.
And it's kind of nuts.
The amount of content accusing Erica Kirk of being some freaky demon, monster, robot, reptile, whatever it may be is weird.
I have met that woman several times.
She's been here, like completely normal and unassuming.
It was funny because, I mean, you know, just to kind of be a little candid here, when we went to Turning Point after Charlie was assassinated, you know, Jack was like, we're setting up the show and he was like, hey, Erica, do you want to, you want to, I don't know if you want to meet up with her and just say hi or anything.
And I was like, yeah, sure.
And then, you know, we walked over and then she was playing with the kids.
I would say it's more about being composed because at the same time, if she cries, then people are going to say that's a put-on, right?
So you have to at the same time be who you are at all times.
And I think in a situation like that, especially after somebody passes under those conditions, people want to feel safe and they want to feel like the organization is strong, not like it's something that's not going to last.
And so Erica's in a position where she has to walk that line with Gigi and with the organization and with the government who's probably getting her on testimony and stuff.
It's like, and it's just, oh, God.
I don't know, man.
We got a guy.
We got this guy in custody who's very much likely the shooter of that rifle.
And I think the reason is that you've got a mass formation psychosis.
I am not saying I know that Robinson did it.
I am not saying that it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm saying that so far in the public, we have seen a preponderance of evidence.
The idea that the FBI, the family, the news media are all in on one big massive assassination plan, while these things are possible, it's just substantially less likely.
So I would argue that probability dictates this is likely the guy.
I do believe that the evidence we've seen in the public also dictates there are others involved and they are covering that up, or at the very least, not trying to investigate.
But again, that being said, based on the social media stories, one thing you must understand is that perception is reality.
And so long as Candace and others in that space argue that Robinson is innocent and that a foreign nexus did it, you will get people who will be called for jury duty.
And we've seen this with the left.
They'll either be marched in with people screaming at them.
And so they'll just vote however they're told to vote, or they'll march in and say, I have no idea who Candace is, Wink.
And then when it comes time to vote, they're going to go, I know he didn't do it.
And then they're going to comment on Candace on the channel and be like, I did this for you or some other nonsense.
Ideology matters more.
Perception matters more than what is presented.
If you've already tainted the well and told everybody that this is not a real story, that the evidence is fake, then the prosecution is going to be like, here's the gun.
And you're going to be thinking in your mind, that's not real.
Maybe it's too little, too late that what I'm about to say about, because I already kind of mentioned that Gigi, you know, their kid, that daughter, Charlie and Erica's daughter, she doesn't know what's going on or didn't seem to, but she can feel what everyone around her is feeling.
And that's how she's living right now.
So for Erica to intentionally not espouse grief is understandable.
She doesn't want to send her child into a desperate depression, confused depression.
So she's trying to be normal.
That doesn't mean that she did it or was in on it.
The defense is also trying to have it not be public.
I think it should be public.
We should see it.
And then I can just say to anybody who thinks it was untoward or a conspiracy, let's just agree to see what the evidence is presented and whether or not it sways our opinions in the matter.
Because I would say this, if in court the defense says, and it's on TV, you did not match the bolt to the gun, and the ATF guy goes, we couldn't.
And when they say why, they'll be like, it didn't seem to match.
Then I'm going to be like, whoa, that's huge.
But if unable to just means the bullet was damaged, so it's not possible.
Then I go, well, I mean, that's not good, but it doesn't prove anything.
I think the bigger part of it, too, is people have been through in the last couple of years, especially post-pandemic, is they've seen they've been messed with in so many different ways.
They don't want to believe a lot of things.
Conspiracies almost become mainstream and people don't want to believe things.
And that's actually a very dangerous position to be in.
I look at history.
It's one of the main things I look at.
And there's enough strange things that happen in history that are true that you don't need to really kind of go down a lot of these rabbit holes.
There is a massive Christian revival going on, that's for sure.
So this dude has the mildest of criticisms.
He did not disparage anybody.
He didn't use any slurs.
And he gets waved because of this.
They say the news came after Ivy posted a series of videos ranting about religion.
Ranting?
Really?
That was like one of the most measured statements I've ever heard.
Honestly, if I saw a video from a communist who calmly was just like, I have deep concerns about how capitalist structures will accommodate people when AI and industrialization takes place.
And that's why I believe, I wouldn't call that ranting.
I would be like, well, that's an argument.
This is a guy who's expressing his views on Christianity and pride.
And this is what waiving is they fired him, right?
Spanberger just basically she was running as I'm a very centrist Democrat, I'm middle of the road, et cetera, et cetera.
And as soon as she gets into office, all of the left-wing policies that the far left-wing policies all come flooding in and she's signing bills that are passed by the Democrat House or by the Democrat legislature.
I mean, look, the left doesn't think that you should be allowed to homeschool your kids, right?
They think that your children are their property.
And I mean, I've got a, you know, I've got a five-month-old, and I have absolutely no intention of sending him to state schools at all, period.
That's just not happening.
I'm not giving my kid to a public school so they can indoctrinate him and try to make him into what they consider to be a good citizen.
That ain't happening.
The left is going to do everything they can to either limit your ability to educate your kids at home or to downright take away your right to educate your kids at home.
And I mean, there's a lot of parents' groups that are very against this.
But if you do not, if you're, if, if parents are not vigilant, the left will take that right away from you.
And they will say, you have to give your kid up.
And they will say, if you don't, and well, they'll say if you don't, then you have a, then this is, then you are doing, you are, you know, we're going to call child protective services because it's not about whether or not you want to give your kid up.
It's that you're harming your kid by not giving your child to the state to educate them.
They are liberals who are going to come here and say, well, look, I mean, Spanberger's crazy.
We don't want what she's doing.
But we are voting Democrat.
And then they bring their problems with it.
You know, I'll quote T'Challa from Black Panther, a great icon of black culture, when he said, you can't let these people in because they'll bring their problems with them.
Well, we have the kind of the opposite problem in New Jersey, where New Jersey and New York is kind of the tri-state area for me.
And the pandemic policies were so harsh, people just moved to Florida, which just means for the most part, we've lost all of our red voters.
They even redistricted our congressional district, which used to be one of the reddest in the state.
And we've had a Josh Gottheimer's been our congressman for, I think, three terms now because we don't have representation, even though it's the reddest area in the state.
Yeah, I mean, it's a similar thing happens in, or had been happening in New Hampshire.
The Free State Project, the right-wing, right-wingers of the Free State Project are very aggressively anti-left, and they've been doing a lot to scare the, for lack of a better term, scare the left-wingers in New Hampshire.
They're very pro-liberty, and they're very much right-wingers.
It's not the same kind of libertarian that a lot of people think of when they think of libertarian.
It's very, like I said, it's very right-wing libertarian in New Hampshire.
And the legislation, the legislature in the state is all Republicans because the free staters have been running as Republicans.
Yeah, I mean, look, the biggest reason why I stay in New Hampshire is because of the fact that my family's in Massachusetts and Bain in Massachusetts and it's an hour away from me.
Otherwise, you know, I don't see a significant rise in the state.
West Virginia is going to turn to a giant data center anyway, so not sure that it matters.
The governor keeps announcing all these big data center projects all over the state, which will bring a ton of money into the state, which is good.
Considering the state is sparsely populated as it is, that might actually be pretty great.
No one really cares.
The problem with data centers is they're big eyesores that consume a lot of resources, drive up prices in urban areas.
To come to West Virginia, put a data center in the middle of like rural West Virginia where very few people live.
Sure, it might be disrupting to the people who live there.
So, you know, to them, I sympathize.
The big picture for the people of West Virginia is they're going to get billions of dollars in state funding for infrastructure improvements and things like that.
And you're largely not going to see the data centers.
The way that it looks now, a lot of the companies that are trying to build data centers are also building, they want to build the power generation along with the data centers.
And the argument for that, the pro argument for the people that are, you know, oh, they're going to raise our cost of electricity is going to go up and blah, blah, blah.
If these companies do build data centers with a power generation station there, the amount of power that a new data center will take is so, so much more than a city will be.
Say, for instance, it's 1,500 megawatts to run the data center.
Your average city runs at about 80 megawatts.
So you're talking about 5% of the power.
So the company that generates the power will likely give the power to the town for dirt, dirt cheap because they're already generating it.
And the amount of power that's left over for the needs of the town is basically a rounding error.
But it still is better for the companies that actually want to generate the power to build the power plant for its own use because the power is right there.
There's no transmission issues.
And then again, overproduction or whatever, because they need a specific load for the data center.
Whatever's left over going to the town, making the power for the town cost nothing.
That will make people far more amicable to the idea of having a data center in that town.
Right now, people are really, really against the data centers because they have these ideas that it's going to drive their electricity costs up.
But that doesn't do anything positive for the people that want to build the data center, right?
Like if they come into town and they piss off the town, like that does nothing good.
All it does is make the people that are in town hate the data center.
And so they're going to want to be like, hey, how can we make this a positive thing for the town and for us?
And if they build a power generation station with the data center and they're just like, look, we'll give you free power, give you power, whatever, a cent for whatever, you know, where you're paying 10 cents or 15 cents now.
And they're just like, we'll give it to you basically for free.
That'll do a lot to move the needle when it comes to people saying, oh, we don't want a data center here.
Like we used to have the steel towns, the rubber boom in the 50s and Firestone in Ohio.
That's where I'm from, actually, Akron.
You know, the gold rush, where these towns pop up around an AI data center, a big power plant, all jobs, and then a technology will shift and it will require like 10 million times less electricity to run these things.
Everybody will move out because they can work locally elsewhere.
Some Democrats' 2028 strategy, a straight white Christian man.
It's about time.
They are purging the far left.
They are dumping money against them.
They are trying to moderate.
And they outright have said their 2028 candidate needs to be a straight white Christian man.
That's why they're promoting James Tellerico in Texas.
I believe the play is this: woke is bad for the brand.
They know it.
They still want it, but you can't sell people something they don't want to eat.
You got to steal power, then force it on them.
So, likely, what's going to happen is you got Joe Rogan ragging on Trump and MAGA saying there's a lot of MAGA dorks.
Some are genuine patriots, but they got to deal with these dorks.
The Trump supporters do not, not all of them, but many of them do not want to hear that Trump is losing support over the Iran war in the Epstein files.
But it is true.
Democrats are going to try to capture these guys who are pissed off and moving away from Donald Trump.
And we talked to him.
We got people in our Discord who are saying that they're pissed off over the Iran war.
Democrats are going to try and capture them.
Now, I'll say this: I ain't voting for the likes of Adam Schiff, nor am I going to vote in any way to help that guy get power.
So I don't know who the Democrats think they're going to run, but if the Democrats do purge a majority of the far left and we start seeing more like Tulsi Gabbard types running, they're moderate, anti-woke Democrats, you will actually start seeing.
I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Rogan endorses the Democrat in 2028.
I wouldn't be surprised if I do it because this will be surprised by that.
The war machine just doesn't have party affiliation.
Right now, it's got control of the Republican Party.
The liberal economic order, the technocracy has control of the Republican Party.
Four years ago, they had control of the Democratic Party instead.
So I just want some consciousness.
Like, I don't want people naming airports after themselves and putting their signatures on the dollar bills and getting us into wars that they told us they weren't going to get us into.
We were, you know, I remember in 2024, we were all sitting around this table just talking about how we just needed a president who would start a war with Iran.
And it's funny because this creates a weird conundrum for Democrats where I can't remember which Democrat went on.
I think it was like Meet the Press, and he was like, Trump can't do that.
It's illegal.
And so now they've created this position where they have to argue that Trump can't use executive authority to alleviate a problem everyone's pissed about.
Like, I feel like it was the moral fracturing of the Senate that led towards their fear of Caesar and then their inevitable ultimatum to Caesar of give up your property or and Caesar's like, you leave me no other choice.
I wonder if all of this is just emergent and predictable.
That all societies will go through these ebbs and flows naturally for a variety of reasons.
Meaning, we talk about immigration, inflation, and all of these things, political corruption, but these are just inevitabilities based on, you know, it's one plus one equals two.
One domino falls over.
No matter how advanced a society is, these things will start happening.
Well, all of these things do somewhat relate to it.
We've not gotten to a point where like red-tailed deer as a planet, but certainly there's been tons of resource wars, if not all of them.
And I will say the funniest thing is how many people the East India Trading Company killed because they wanted black peppercorn on their steak, which I get.
Well, I think the biggest thing is hailing the currency because people often talk about Constantine being the guy that brought Christianity into Rome as a legal religion.
It's what he did in 313.
But the thing that he does that he doesn't get a lot of credit for is in 314, he mints less than 100 gold coins.
And every year until he dies in 336, he's going to mint gold coins.
And if you look at the Eastern Roman Empire, it's going to go until about the year one from around 330.
So he gradually, over a 20-year period, puts them on a gold standard.
And from that year, 300 until about 10, I think it's 1054, it goes to that point without inflation.
So he actually, one of the main reasons that the Eastern Roman Empire survives, besides the fact that Constantinople is so hard to attack, is they have a currency they can stand on.
And if you look at why the West fails in the 270s, Aurelian mints a new silver coin that's much more pure than all the silver coins, even though they've been debasing, but people didn't trust the money anymore.
So Constantine brought back gold, forced taxes to be paid in gold, and that forces gold into circulation.
Because in the third century, Roman emperors are basically raising an army, declaring themselves emperor, fighting each other, and the strongest becomes the next emperor.
I hope that if he were to appoint someone or try to appoint someone, that the deep state would step in, like the Roman Praetorian Guard, you know, the security state and stop the psychopath from.
The problem is, let's say there's an election in 2028, and people already don't trust elections.
That's my point.
So Trump comes out and says, we got a lot of fraud in California.
Look at this.
And then they show a bunch of data and they do Michael Indell times 20.
And then they say, you know, Kash Patel comes out, or if he's still FBI director, and says, we have seized these voting machines to analyze the data because we have evidence of foreign intrusion and potential fraud.
So these can't be counted towards the totals, which calls California into question.
And then the vote then goes to a delegation instead of a popular vote.
The delegations are then based on Congress and they vote in the Republic.
And the Democrats then say, no, it's not possible.
We've speculated on these things before, mind you.
But my point ultimately is, if we ever come to that point, if the deep state did come out and try and stop Trump, it would enshrine him as king for life.
Imagine Donald Trump saying, look, I don't really know entirely what's going on.
Our FBI says they found evidence of fraud.
And then the CIA takes a shot at the king and misses.
Trump will then rise before the Senate and say, the attempt at my life has left me scarred.
And then our founding fathers wanted it to be a combination of republicanism, monarchy, and other forms of government to make something better than the Council of Elders.
Any significant votes, because if they give the power to the president, they can say, well, you know, the president has the authority.
I didn't vote for that.
You know, we can't do anything about it.
And that's really what they want.
They want to be able to be in Congress and get all the benefits of being in Congress without actually having any of the responsibilities.
That's why they gave the president the power to, you know, the whole military author, the authorization for use of force when it came to the war on terror, because they didn't want to have to actually say yes or no.
I'm waiting a little bit so that we get into it before I actually say you will never have two men stand side by side locking arms when one says chop off a child's genitals and the other is a Christian.
You might hate the person you're allied with, but my point is Congress cannot function when the moral worldviews of the two political ideologies are so distinct from each other.
Now, if the Democrats, as their play, is to start excising the whack-aloon lefties and you end up with Tulsi Gabbard versus Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Versus JD Vance, we're good.
Because they're going to be like, ah, those guys are great.
They're my friends, but we disagree on certain policies and we're going to get along.
But you have to excise the fringe psycho element of the left.
The whack-aloon, tax-the-rich, chop-off kids' balls faction.
That can't exist.
There will be no cohesion between a regular American who wants to just go to work and the people who are like children should get sex changes.
And I just want to congress, like, as American people, I don't, you know, technology is such that we don't have to rely on sending someone to Washington, D.C. to hope that they do it for you anymore.
You can just kind of interface through the internet through technology.
That was an actual quote from the Founding Fathers.
So when you elect a representative, you are choosing someone whose job it is to facilitate.
It was not so that the collective wishes of the community be manifested democratically.
They did not want democracy.
The 17th Amendment was a, what was, was, I'm sorry, the reason people say to repeal the 17th Amendment is because initially when it came to the appointment of senators, the idea was that you would elect a state senator or a state rep who would then vote among a group of people, a better man, who would go to Congress to represent the state.
And not to say that they're smarter than you, but most people in Congress, most of the time when people get frustrated with people in Congress, it's not because they think they're actually dumb, which there are some people in Congress that actually I think that are, you know, when Corey Bush was in Congress, I think she was, I don't think Corey Bush is particularly intelligent.
There are people marching down the street with no kings signs and they will tell you that Donald Trump is a stupid person who was there accidentally.
And they will say that Elon Musk is a trust fund kid whose dad owned an emerald mine, emerald mine, and that's why he's rich and powerful by chance and he's actually really dumb.
And if you ask them, do you genuinely believe, having not studied any of the work that these men have done, having not built anything comparable to them, or even understanding the basic mechanisms of an LLC at S Corp or C Corp, that you are smarter than they are?
And they will go, of course.
That is the plight of man.
And that is why Democrats as a party have existed the way they have for so long.
Because with all due respect, they're not wrong about Dunning Krueger.
The fact that they have, what was it, like 3 million estimated across the country at these No Kings protests, these people genuinely believe they're smarter than the world's richest man who has brought, what is it now, three companies over a trillion dollar net worth?
And they're like, I'm smarter than him.
It's like the dude is landing rockets.
He is bringing rockets to space and then landing them on platforms in the ocean.
It's that Elon goes to three guys and he says, you know, one of the biggest problems with rockets is we have to keep reusing all of it.
It's very expensive.
It's hundreds of millions of dollars.
So the idea is how do we implement a landing system for reusable rockets?
And then one guy goes, well, I think we should make it out of moon cheese.
And he goes, that's a bad idea.
The point is, he brings 10 engineers before him and he says, what's your plan?
And the guy goes, A, B, C, D.
He goes, those plans are bad.
You make it work.
Then he gives that guy money and that guy makes it work.
It's not that he is going to actually write the code, build the materials.
It's that he's going to listen to all the ideas and in his brain is connecting the dots saying, your idea will not work for these reasons.
Your idea is too expensive.
That actually might work.
Let's try that one.
And then it does.
And he does it over and over and over again because the simple thing about being smart is being it's it's recollection and being able being able to utilize that recollection to connect dots to make future predictions and Elon has that in spades.
It's the difference between strategic thinking and tactical thinking.
Tactical thinking, you're trying to solve just one situation, whereas strategic, you're looking at doing something more long-term and that has more moving parts to it.
I know we, let's see, we got a couple of stories pulled up.
And let's jump to, you know, we talked a lot about the Roman Empire already.
We were going to talk about DeSantis naming the airport after Trump, but it kind of played into what we've already discussed with Trump ruling by decree and all that stuff.
So let's do this.
Let's do this.
We've got this post from at Jason, and we got a story from the New York Post.
The New York Post reports AI dangerously close to solving tests that only the brightest minds on earth, human expertise still, earth could, human expertise still matters.
At Jason says, the truth is we've already reached artificial general intelligence.
We just haven't implemented it broadly.
Millions of jobs are being lost as we speak.
Entire careers are being retired.
The rich and powerful investors and founders who implemented AGI will get bizarrely rich beyond what makes sense.
It will break people's brains on both sides.
It's going to suck a lot of our friends and family, for a lot of our friends and suck for a lot of friends and family who aren't obsessed with their careers because things are moving so fast, they won't have even left the starting gate by the time the awards are handed out.
We're going to have to solve for a lot of second and third order effects, some of which will suck, job loss, and some of which will be awesome.
AI will create free, cheap energy, free education, cheaper and better food homes that build themselves and medicine that makes you as healthy as a 30-year-old when you're 100.
Change is hard, but humans are the most adaptable species nature has ever created.
So exactly what Owen Schroer described seeing, I saw something similar when I was driving in West Virginia.
I bring this up because I'm wondering if these sightings that people are reportedly seeing, like the drones and stuff, are actually just a function of advanced technology.
We have already reached.
It's not out of the question that someone's flying a drone over a farm.
So that's why I'm like, I say UFO, but I'm just being kind of shocking.
But I wonder if there's just degrees of technology that have advanced so far.
Regular people aren't catching up to this.
My point.
Andy was telling me, my boy Andy works here, that late at night, he'll see, actually, I think it was Andy saying this, you'll see lights in the sky, just like you'll see UFOs flying around like crazy.
No one cares.
Why?
Well, it's drones probably.
They're just drones flying around at night.
What do I care?
However, there are a lot of people who this advancement in drones has come so quickly, they see these things in the sky and they freak out.
And you get reportings of UFOs.
So, as it relates to the artificial intelligence stuff, I think it's very likely that we are substantially more advanced in AI than anyone knows, but the implementation is happening only in key areas.
For instance, there's a big story right now where they've got AI cow herding.
The cows all wear collars, and the farmer looks at his phone and he draws a circle as the grazing area, and the cows all get like a brah, bram, brahm that makes the cows start moving to the appropriate area to graze.
He no longer needs dogs to do anything.
These kinds of things are happening rapidly, but a plumber doesn't know this.
So, one day he sees a cow with a collar on going and it's talking, and then he sees the cow walking down the street, and he goes, What is that thing on that cow?
Is this alien?
And the device is going, and then the cow's moving, and he's like, So, my point is technology is advancing faster than human culture can adapt to it.
They say that AI has jagged edges because there's a lot of capabilities that artificial intelligence has, but that doesn't mean that there's an adoption of it.
So, there's a lot of things that your AI could do, but it hasn't really filtered out into the population yet.
So, the adoption of AI is actually lagging compared to what the capabilities of most of AI are.
Right now, the way that young people can actually become, at least for the next, you know, probably decade, five years, 10 years, can become extraordinary, well, extraordinarily wealthy is learn a trade.
Like if you're an electrician and you get a job, speaking of Optimus Pro.
Well, I think, I mean, I do think that that'll be eventually, but the thing about artificial general intelligence is that if we are at this point, let me put it like this.
You guys know about time dilation, obviously, right?
Old sci-fi trope.
The idea was that if we created a spaceship to go to Alpha Centauri, loaded up a bunch of humans on it, and then said it's going to take 100 years to get there.
They're going to accelerate as fast as possible.
At the halfway mark, start decelerating.
By the time they're halfway there, another spaceship full of colonists will fly past them because technology will have advanced so much due to time dilation back on Earth that they will be going slow.
And you'll fly past them and go, wow, the old colony shit.
That's what's happening now with Optimus bots.
AI is, by the time we get to AGI in full implementation, it's going to be like you wasted all your time designing Optimus.
I'm going to give you a schematic for a perfect human android and go, here's how to build it.
It was a Spotify link and it was like, oh, this is pretty good, but it looks like an AI band.
Like, I can't even imagine what this is going to do to the music industry because it's, you know, you can tell if you listen, but you know, eventually it's going to be even better.
The issue is if you are a music producer and you break down a song, you'll notice where things are AI, but the average person will absolutely not absolutely not notice.
I've got a bunch of so first, first and foremost, all instrumental music is over.
So I knew a guy who used to sit in his room all day writing songs that were instrumental and he would upload them to various music databases.
Then he would get paid per month per how many songs he had in the database.
So he would just start cranking out songs.
And there were orchestral compositions.
They were like dance beats because people would license the songs for their media projects.
That job is gone.
So we've like we've done a few projects, need music, pop up in Suno, type in ambient, eerie horror soundtrack.
I think you might have some hipster dump type stuff like vinyl records, but I think young people, there's a funny thing I saw.
This comedian, Elon Musk retweeted this.
There's a comedian who was like, everybody is scared of automatic cars.
Don't be scared.
Let me explain.
When you go to the grocery store, the door opens and you've never thought twice.
But would you rather there be two guys standing there, grabbing the door and opening it and closing it every time you're walking through with your family?
Nah, we're okay.
And then Elon pointed, I think it was Elon who pointed this out, or he retweeted someone who did.
Elevators used to be manual.
You would go in and a guy would pull a lever to make it go up or down.
So is it just the idea that we get further away from the change and the next generation doesn't care because they haven't experienced it the other way?
You'll notice that when it comes to like privacy issues, right?
Like people, my generation and older, they actually care about privacy.
They're like, oh, I don't know if I want this.
I don't want.
When Xbox 360 first came out, like when they first did the update, it was like, it was a big deal that it was always connected to the internet and it had a camera that could watch you.
And I was like, I'm not getting that.
I don't want that, blah, And then I got an iPhone.
It's like, you know, I mean, it's over.
You know, it's over.
And so young people, people that are in their 20s and younger, they don't have the same concept of privacy that older generations do because they live in a world where there are cameras all the time, where they're constantly taking pictures and loading them to the internet and stuff.
The idea of privacy just has gone away.
So it's not a situation where people are going to be like, oh, you know, I don't want to lose my privacy.
It's like they're not really going to have the same attachment to privacy that older generations that have.
It broke last month, but there's a lot moving right now.
New York and Washington are taking on loot boxes and video games.
Letitia James, the Democrat AG from New York, has filed a lawsuit against Valve for hosting illegal gambling.
We've got this from her website from the end of February, basically saying that Counter-Strike 2, Team Fortress 2, and Dota 2 enable gambling by enticing users to pay for the chance to win a rare virtual item of significant monetary value.
In Valve's most popular game, the process resembles a slot machine with an animated spinning wheel that eventually rests on a selected item.
The randomly selected virtual items have no in-game functionality, but can be sold online for money, with one of them reportedly being sold for more than $1 million.
I believe New York and Washington are going to win.
Valve is going to lose.
The end result will be that loot boxes and anything comparable is gambling.
And the reason why is that casinos are opening everywhere.
New York just announced three new gaming licenses.
A hard rock, they've got, what is it?
They're doing a Bally's in the Bronx, a Hard Rock somewhere.
They've already got resorts world.
They're going to have, I think, four casinos in New York City.
Now, these casinos are probably going, these big corporations, to Letitia James, to Washington, saying, we will open these casinos and you will make bank off of your tax share from gambling only if you eliminate any competition.
The reason I think Letitia James is going after loot boxes, it's not a coincidence that it's happening around the exact same time New York just issued three gaming licenses to major casino operators.
So what they're arguing is, let me put it like this.
The first slot machines, the reason why they have cherries, lemons, and bar is because gambling was illegal.
You'd put a coin in, you'd pull the lever, it would go bar, bar, bar, and a bar of gum would fall down, a vending machine.
You would then take that bar of gun next door to a different business that purchases gum.
You'd hand them the gum, they'd hand you cash.
So that's how you were legally allowed to gamble.
It was a workaround.
Loot boxes, they're arguing, do the exact same thing as the OG slot machines.
You pay some kind of money or value that allows you to then use virtual currency or to actually spin the slot to get your rare item, which can then be sold for money to somebody.
Well, the difference here is that there's no organization that's encouraging to buy your product back from you at a profit.
So there is no like quid pro quo where you're going to go next door and sell the loot box back.
And they need to prove that these items are of actual value.
Just because some rando from China will give you $1,000 for a red hat and a video game doesn't mean that the red hat and the video game has any actual value.
Magic the Gathering knows there is a secondary market that drives the value of their cards for purchase, which is why they have what's called the reserve list.
They have never been properly adjudicated because the arguments in the 90s over Pokemon booster packs as gambling were thrown out not on the merits, but on standing, arguing that the people who exchanged money for a booster pack received a physical product.
Therefore, there's no formal gambling loss.
However, Hasbro, I believe the owners of Magic the Gathering have something called the reserve list.
These are cards they will never reprint.
And this is because there is a secondary market and these cards retain their value.
The secondary market makes their booster packs valuable and people will buy them, which guarantees the sale of booster packs.
If there is no secondary market, cards are worthless.
Print a million of them.
People can buy whatever they want.
In fact, Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, could just offer up on their website direct sales for 50 cents.
I would like the rare card because I want to build the best deck.
Okay, you can purchase all cards for 50 cents, right?
Where you're hoping you will get the card that you need, and you have to buy more and more and more in the chance you might get a card that you need.
No pro player of any of these trading card games buys boosters to get the cards they need for their decks.
They buy singles directly from a card shop on the secondary market.
And the secondary market exists because Magic has created a reserve list to guarantee the price of these cards so that people will buy at random chance and then try and resell them to a shop for the secondary market.
They know exactly what they're doing.
Loot boxes are going to be found to be gambling.
The ancillary effect will be precedent.
We'll get booster packs banned as well.
And I think this is largely because casinos want to control all wagering.
The difference with baseball cards, secondary market is limited because there's no function to the baseball cards.
They're a collector's item for being collector's items.
The issue with Magic the Gathering is that players need specific cards which are in limited print, which drives up demand, guaranteeing secondary market value.
And because standard play requires you to use the best cards and they limit the production of the best cards, meaning everybody knows this is about magic.
I can't speak for Pokemon or other card games.
The new deck comes out for standard and you want to win, $600 on the spot to buy all the cards you need.
If you don't have $600, congratulations, you are not winning tournaments.
Now, how do you get those cards?
Well, it's $600 for direct purchase.
You're not going to spend a grand on random chance packs.
So there are people who will buy boxes of boosters the moment they come out, crack them all open, hoping that they will get a slightly EV plus on their return.
And this will set the value of rarer cards that are in limited print, specifically because they know the function of the game requires people to buy that.
If any person bet or play at any such gaming table, bank, or device, as is mentioned in the first section, or if at any hotel, tavern, or other public place or place of public resort, he play any game except bowls, chess, or batgaming drafts or a licensed game, or bet on the sides of those who play at any game, whether the game be permitted or licensed or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than five or more $100, blah, blah, blah.
The point is, there is no formal licensing of TCGs in West Virginia.
Games that are licensed are games like three-card poker at a casino, and the casino gets a license to play via Shufflemaster or otherwise.
Pokemon, Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Lorcana, these other games, they are not licensed games.
The law predates the existence of these games.
I do not think they should be illegal, but the point is this.
If they go for loot boxes, which they are, they are going to attack this whole space.
And I think it's fair to say, let me put it like this.
I'm going to ask you guys a question in the comments.
Tell me if I'm wrong.
If there was a vending machine and you could walk up to it and it said, buy a Pokemon mystery box for $20, in it, you will find a card potentially worth $10 or up to $200.
You are not trying to get a random card to play in a deck.
It's not the purpose of it.
The collector value is the purpose.
And they sell this.
Guys, I'm sorry.
This is gambling.
Like, there is no skill involved.
It is strictly a purchase, money wagered for a chance to get a high-value prize.
It literally says between 10 and 200 bucks on the back.
Children go to the mall at Apple Valley and they gamble on this stuff.
Booster packs is gambling.
Wagering money to play a card game is gambling.
All of it is gambling under the law.
They've just operated under a gray area.
Here's my point.
Letitia James is going for these loot boxes.
Washington State is going for these loot boxes.
And I guess Washington is going after Kal Shi as well.
The reason why is because casinos are buying out land everywhere.
Miriam Adelson, one of Trump's largest donors, has been trying to get a Sans company casino, I believe it's Sans, in Texas.
I don't remember what she owns, Venetian or something.
And Texas has been blocking her.
Now, the Lodge Card Club got shut down.
And the conspiracy theory from a lot of people, and I'm not saying I believe it because I like Ken Paxton.
So the TABC shuts down the Lodge.
Ken Paxton, then a week later, flies to meet with Trump.
And now the reporting is that Trump may endorse Ken Paxton.
The conspiracy theory among poker players in Texas is that Miriam Adelson went to Trump and said, get me my casinos in Texas.
Trump said, Ken Paxton is a friend.
He'll do me a favor.
Ken Paxton goes to meet with Trump and Trump says, shut down these card rooms and get these casinos in.
Because when the casinos come and they are coming, these card rooms are competitors and we don't want it.
That's the conspiracy that I don't know necessarily is true.
But after the lodge got shut down, which is the largest card club in the world, the speculation right away was that Ken Paxton was meeting with Trump, needed the endorsement and said, what do you want from me?
And Trump said, Miriam Adelson wants casinos in Texas and wants these card rooms out of the picture so that gaming is controlled by them.
Loot boxes from Letitia James, exact same play.
Again, I'm not saying I know it's true, but I don't think it's a coincidence that they're trying to list things as gambling, which would put them solely under the control of the casinos.
Imagine this.
You want a loot box for Dota?
You got to go through Caesars first.
How do you get your new random chance skins?
Valve signs a license deal with Rivers Casino and then says the Rivers logo appears and 10% of all of the loot box spins go to Rivers because they own the permits.
I'm not saying I know it's going to happen, but it's not a coincidence that all of these states are now filing these gambling charges against a bunch of players at the same time.
Casinos are popping up everywhere.
And within two and a half hours driving of right here, there are nine casinos.
It was Richard Garfield was trying to make a board game that was targeting young adults, largely based on like the DD fandom and things of that nature.
But they couldn't afford a full board.
They wanted a board with cards.
So they said, just do the cards.
And it was the first trading card game ever made and explicitly included a gambling element.
There are even cards that allow you to swap your ante mid-game, which was a crazy trick.
You'd be like, I'm going to ante up a very rare card, a mocks, and they'd put up a mox.
Then mid-game, you'd draw a card and says, I'm swapping the anti-at for this dummy card.
And they'd be like, you son of a, and now even if they win, they get junk, but if you win, you get their rare, expensive card, which at the time was still only 10 bucks or whatever.
So I've gone to war with a bunch of 14-year-olds by claiming that Pokemon is gambling.
It's not that I actually believe Pokemon is gambling, but it's that under the law, Pokemon is gambling.
It just operates in a gray area.
To determine whether or not something is gambling, there's something called a predominant factor test in most states.
This has never been applied to loot boxes nor Pokemon Magic Lorcana or any other card game.
It has never been tested.
I believe with the expansion of these casinos, card rooms are going to start asking the question: if we own the rights to all card games where in a tournament you make a wager of cash, why don't we own this?
So what's going to get weird is that the first question I have for everybody who doubts this is, do you think the multi-billion dollar multinational corporations, being told they can win this court case, would they give up a multi-billion dollar card industry like Pokemon if they could lay claim to it?
The other question is, if, according to the law, any game, West Virginia says you can't even play a game.
In Texas, it says wager money on a game of chance for a chance to win prizes.
Do you believe that the casinos will not try and get the predominant factor test placed on these games?
I believe the answer is absolutely they will.
What's going to happen is they are going to make the argument, these children have a card game.
They are putting money forward, playing a card game of chance.
They've not determined how much chance.
It's just chance to win cash prizes.
We have the exclusive permit in this state for that function.
And if the state allows that function to exist outside a casino, the court, the casinos could lose future cases.
This is exactly what I've been working on with various AGs and discussing with them about.
If Pokemon Yu-Gi-Oh! Magic allow tournaments where children will put money up front, play a card game, and then win cash, this is threatening the exclusivity that casinos have over other card games like Hold'em, Pot Limit Omaha, et cetera.
The casinos absolutely will try to take this or at least get it banned.
I wonder how long that is before that happens in professional sports because you even watch a baseball game now and they're giving you betting lines and things throughout an entire game.
If you want to make a sports bet, it's either through their casino app or in a casino.
They don't allow a random person to open a sports book down the street.
Would a casino allow a guy to open a cafe that allows sports betting?
Absolutely not.
So the question then is, will casino.
So the thing is, when card games started expanding across the country, casinos were not anywhere.
They were on reservations and in Vegas and Atlantic City.
Now that states are saying you can open a casino in the city and state proper, regulated by the state, are they going to just say you can wager on card games, card games, any card game outside of our facility?
It's like, well, it's 52-card poker, but it's not poker.
But you want to make poker hands with your hand of 12 or 10 and you get rares and wilds that can change the so there are some cards and then poker cards.
And if you can't control the cards the other player has, that is legally gambling.
It's a question they ask when it comes to the predominant factor test.
So the issue is: if I invent a new card game and we start playing it and it's an entry fee, how will casinos control for gambling if I can just keep creating new card games with new names and new variables so that I can keep wagering money on a game of skill?
The casinos are going to say no to this.
And they are dumping tons of money to win this war.
So I think we're going to, I think a nuclear bomb is about to drop.
I think the closure of the lodge in Texas has just set a bunch of high net worth people on edge.
And as soon as this goes into courts, it's going to spark off a Tinderbox involving video games like Dota, games like Pokemon, and the mass expansion of casinos across the country.
So anyway, the point of back to the card games, what's coming after the loot boxes is they're probably going.
So here's why I think they're going to win.
With the Pokemon booster pack thing in the 90s, the courts argued the individuals, actually, this article talks about it.
They say in the 90s and 2000s, many plaintiffs sued trading card manufacturers under RICO laws.
All of the cases were dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs could not prove an injury.
They had received the benefit of the bargain.
By receiving physical cards in exchange for the money they paid, they did not suffer a gambling loss.
These cases did not rule on the merits of whether trading card packs fall under the definition of gambling.
So it's not been adjudicated.
However, Letitia James, as a representative of state law and criminality, is arguing they are violating state law or facilitating the violation of criminal law.
And so if they got rid of booster packs completely and they only sold singles, they could still make rare singles that you would have to spend 80 bucks on to win a tournament.
Imagine if on the website, rares were $10, uncommons were $3, and commons were $1.
And if you wanted to build the best deck possible, you still had to spend a little bit extra money, but that wouldn't work because then you're basically, again, making pay to win and only the rich people can afford the stronger decks.
This is why in Magic right now, everyone's playing with proxies.
For those that know what that means, it means they take a random, they'll print a card out.
They will print an uncertified version of the card to use to play with because they want to play with strong decks, but they don't have $20,000 to buy the ultra-rare cards.
And so I do kind of agree, but Charlie's children's names are like every 17th post on X. If you Google Charlie Kirk and family, they list the names of their children.
It's not particularly like Charlie posted photos with their names and everything.
Fiakono says, Tim, if the bullet is too deformed from impact, they would be unable to match it to any gun.
It doesn't mean it's not from the same gun, just they can't positively confirm it.
It happens a lot.
Indeed, that's the point.
Shotgun Rebel says Japanese X algorithm kicks ass.
I completely agree.
And as an American who is 5% Japanese, born and raised here, I volunteer as ambassador on X to bring the Japanese, and I'm kidding, by the way, way more Japanese people than me who are American as well.
But everyone's having a good time.
All the Japanese, like apparently, Japan, the Japanese are adopting X like crazy.
And the algorithm is auto-translating Japanese posts into English for American people in the algorithm when the content aligns and everyone's laughing and having a lot of fun.
Well, the trope I made during the last election, that if the Praetorian Prefects, the guy that was in charge of the Praetorian Guard, and they would kind of do whatever he wanted, and Obama, with the way that they were deciding, you know, who the next president was going to be just by naming her, to me, seemed like he was trying to control the powers of state like a Praetorian Prefect.
So I think in a lot of ways, you could say that there is something deciding who is president and who gets to live.
Christian UNC says with the next Mass Effect in production by BioWare, do you think they will try to go back to its roots that made everyone fall in love with it or go woke?
And could it happen with the TV series too?
Woke, for sure.
The fact that Jonathan Frakes and William Shatner defended Starfleet Academy shows you that even your heroes will spit in your face.
I mean, the argument that they're not going to, like, the evidence is basically the past 10 years, right?
Like, every property has had, you know, woke basically touch it and ruin it, whether it be Star Wars, the Marvel stuff was good for a few years, and then it all became Star Wars.
Yeah, they ruined it.
There's only a handful of good Star Wars properties that were, or storylines that came out in the past.
If they created a new Star Trek on the new Enterprise with a new cast that were relatively reasonable, pragmatic individuals, it was following, maybe you couldn't do 80 years after the Dominion War.
You could do such incredible things with that storyline.
The story was opened up so massively after Deep Space Nine, and they burned it all to the ground because they, you know, I think it's largely our fault because we need to step up more and take command of these things.
But the truth is, the woke psychopath cultists, whatever, infiltrated intentionally to destroy these cultural icons.
So I would love to write a Star Trek series that is maybe 80 years after the next generation.
And the Alpha Quadrant is largely united under a loose federation.
The Federation has an active alliance, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians, and they are now advancing technology into the Gamma and Delta and other quadrants of the galaxy, which introduces old foes and new foes.
But you could see the advancement from the original series to the next generation, the next generation, Voyager and Deep Space Nine into the next era.
Instead, they just keep prequel, prequel, prequel, and then weird woke garbage.
And then we're a thousand years in the future and everyone's gay or something.
If the argument is you are paying money for a chance to be with a woman who will hook up with you, you are implying that the hooking up has cash equivalent value and that you are making a wager on something that you will get something of equal value or greater value.
Michael Jones says, speaking of brands, Tim, how does it feel to have the Tim Cast car featured in NASCAR 25?
Talk about Epic.
We actually have the game up there.
Shout out to Cody Dennison.
Absolutely incredible.
It's really, really cool.
Yeah.
Shout out.
He's done a few races, but full disclosure, we have not sponsored Cody again for this year.
And this has to do more with, I don't know, reallocating budgets and marketing and things like that.
And I suppose when we're looking at setting up satellite studios, truth be told, Cody's fantastic, big fan, good friend, and we're happy to have sponsored him for the past couple of years.
But now we're allocating budget towards building satellite studios.
So we're looking at other places.
And that means no sponsorship this time around.
But it was fun while it lasted.
And we might do something small.
But, you know, that means for the past two years, because of the game, we got featured in the game, which is incredible.
So best of luck to Cody.
We are trying to figure out how to get other people to invest to team up with us so that we can pool money and then do a sponsorship.
Remember when I was talking about how we would have, you'd like be in your middle of nowhere and you'd wake up in the middle of the night and there'd be like a guy in a flannel shirt with his, tucked into his jeans, with suspenders on and a handlebar mustache stealing one of your chickens?
I was like, that's when you know it's getting bad.
Yeah, I mean, well, we were driving in rural West Virginia, and I saw exactly this man mowing the lawn of a dilapidated old house.
And I looked at my wife and I was like, it's happening.
The hipsters from the city have no choice but to move to the rural areas.
It says, I'm fleeing Washington State for West Virginia.
Looking to bring good money and voting practices to West Virginia to keep it red.
Maybe you remember me offering to design a display case for that Civil War flag.
Indeed.
We never got the Civil War flag, though, because someone offered to allow us to hold this massive Civil War flag, and we were like, dude, we cannot be responsible for an original flag like that.
King Salami says your skateboard's chance to get numbered is gambling.
That's the point.
That's the argument.
My argument is it is not actually gambling the whole time.
That's been the point I'm making.
When I tweeted out Pokemon's Gambling, I'm saying if all of these things, including chance, make it gambling, then literally all of these things are gambling.
That's why I think they should be allowed because they're not.
Yeah, with the skateboards, you're guaranteed a skateboard at the value of a skateboard.
Five of them are limited gold.
There's no secondary market to sell those skateboards on.
There's no demand for those skateboards as value.
It's just a special version you might get.
All of the boards are basically designed as art pieces, with some being slightly better than others.
But each and every one of them is valued at the exact same price.
Unless there's a secondary market where someone determines that those one of fives are worth so much more money, which doesn't exist and there's no demand for, then no matter what, you are getting a skateboard that is valued as a skateboard.
The thing that Ian's pointing out, which is good, which is interesting, is that when you spend five bucks on a booster pack, you get cards that are worth zero.
You could open that pack and get cards that are worth zero.
And you're just like, it's literally throwing the garbage.
The secondary market argument is dangerous because if some random guy wants to create a secondary market for a product that I've been delivering, and now all of a sudden I'm treated like a gambling salesman because some guy wants me out of business and created a secondary market.
We were just talking right as we're switching over to the uncensored.
We have this job list thing for this video producer so we can make stuff like this.
I would, I want to make a commercial for chess, the trading, the trading piece game, where it's like there's a guy who's just got a whole thing of queens and one king in the middle.
And it's just a guy cracks open a booster pack of chess pieces and he's like, ah, just pawns again.
And then they go to a tournament and he's like, well, my family couldn't afford any of the really good pieces, but I wanted to play.
Was in Rome, this is where I was like, I don't want to be contrived and ask you about everything in Rome, but did gambling spike when the empire started flailing?
And the thing that's interesting is so chariot teams like chariot racing were actually colors.
They had reds, blues, greens, different colors.
And people would gamble heavily on these races to the point that the way Roman society worked, it was what's known as a client system, meaning you owed somebody either your position or they owned your debt or whatever it might be.
So you would do whatever that guy asked.
You'd show up at his house every day, say, hey, what can I do for your boss?
And gambling was very similar to the people owning the gambling rackets.
If you owed him a whole bunch of money, he owned you.
And I think that's where gambling was a really big deal because people were obsessed with it to the point that they would be willing to give up their own autonomy just to be gambling.
Well, the patron system, the client system, are a similar word, but Romans are client.
Like I was, you know, the client of this senator, and I owe my job to getting this job because of this senator.
And gambling would be very similar where people that own gambling houses, if you got to the certain point where you had so much debt, they would say, well, I won't make you pay on the debt, but you have to go kill that guy for me.
And that would be very similar, how you could own somebody through gambling.
But that's how it also in the United States, slavery started because I believe it was initially an indentured servant who could not pay back the debt accrued.
So the court ruled, well, then he is indentured forever.
We know that you're the co-founder of Command Your Brand, and I was wondering what advice you would have to someone who's wanting to grow their audience on YouTube or just social media in general.
Because I'm a small creator and it feels like the algorithm just only favors these larger creatives.
Well, I'm definitely not as big of a YouTube expert as Tim, so I can't really say, you know, you guys have been on YouTube a lot longer than I have, a lot bigger than I have.
But I would say, in terms of being a creator, the thing that I found for me when what I was doing changed is when I really came with my unique way to talk about something.
So, for example, years ago, I would just talk about Rome, whatever people want to talk about.
And now I have a real formulation of what I talk about, calling it the Roman pattern.
And in that, the way it was shown and portrayed, I always made sure that the visuals were highly thematic.
The music we're using is highly thematic.
People know what the brand feels like.
And I think that's what it comes down to is getting clear about what you're talking about, how you're talking about it, and how it looks on all of your social channels.
I'm definitely not the biggest guy out there, but for me, that has worked really well to make sure it's a clear, coherent, concise message.
And really having a framework of how I deliver it is really, really important too.
So people come with us if they want to go on other shows.
So typically we're working with somebody if they have a new book coming out or they have, you know, we're typically working with a CEO and founder of a company that they're no longer required in the day-to-day productions.
We're trying to help them get their message out and kind of become more of the cultural conversation.
So typically somebody just books a call with us and then we have a conversation and see if it's a fit for both sides.
Now, my question to you is, which branch of leftist extremism do you think is going to take over here in the near future if they win the next election?
But do you think the Islamists are going to take over or the communists or do you think we will see some kind of great purge in this country through it?
Look, if the option is Islamists or progressive leftists, the progressive leftists lose to the Islamists because they don't have any means to defend themselves against the Islamists.
The Islamists will use the arguments that the progressive left make, and then they'll go ahead and turn around and say, okay, we're not doing any of that anymore because we're in power now.
They're doing it currently in the UK.
They did it in Iran.
They tried to do it in France.
I wrote a big long piece about the Red-Green Alliance on my Patreon.
If you want to go ahead and read that, there's a bunch of information there.
But like the progressive left always loses to the Islamists.
The progressive left is the perfect useful idiot for the Islamists.
The Islamists understand the left, the way the left works, and they have no problem with using them.
The left has no ability to defend against the Islamists at all.
That'll be the Islamist in the U.S., Islamism will take longer because they have to actually get, they have to entrench themselves far deeper than they are.
There's a very, very, on the, on the national scale, there's a very few of them.
You see pockets beginning to actually get some influence, but still, overall, there are very few Muslims compared to Christians and stuff like that.
But if you want to see what can happen, look at what's going on in the UK now.
Look what's going on in France now.
And really, the best example is to look at the look at the look at Iran in 1979, the revolution there.
There were a lot of progressives that were against the Shah that were not Islamists.
But if you want, that's the best example that I can recommend.
What happened in Iran that'll happen basically anywhere the left allies with the Islamists?
You see it happening in all the people that are pro-Gaza, all the progressives that are pro-Gaza, that are saying that the Israelis are committing a genocide, et cetera.
The people in Gaza will use them, right?
But then when you talk about gay people in Gaza, that ain't happening.
They're just like, that shit doesn't fucking happen here.
They're like, nope.
And just fucking toss you off a building or something.
There is no defense that the left has against the Islamists.
I think Mamdani is an interesting test case in that, too, to kind of observe New York, see the direction New York goes, and you're going to see how it's going to work here in the U.S.
Yeah, I don't think that Momdani is going to, I don't think that New York is in danger of falling to Islamism right now because I don't think that there are enough, again, it's still compared to other religions and stuff, it's still very, very, it's still a very small minority.
But they will do what they can to push their agenda.
I mean, in the UK, there are MPs that are not Muslims that are saying things like, we need fewer dogs in the UK.
If at all, when do you think we will see a reconquista in America with regards to we are watching all this stuff happen in Europe and how devastating it is and life-changing, I would say?
Well, I mean, I think that, look, as long as if the left gets into a position of authority, right, they get into the White House and they control the they control Congress, they're going to do the same things they were doing during the during the Bush administration, I'm sorry, during the Biden administration.
That's not in question.
You see it in California.
You see it in Virginia right now.
That's just going to be the status quo.
And that's going to be the status quo for the left moving forward.
They may run someone like Gavin Newsome.
They may run a white Christian man and say, look, this guy is acceptable to white America and you can vote for this guy, et cetera, et cetera.
As soon as he gets into power, it's going to be all the woke stuff.
They learned from the fact that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris both lost.
They're going to say we should not run a woman.
Look at Joe Biden one.
He was a white Christian man.
We should run a white Christian man.
And then once we get a white Christian man in the White House, he'll rubber stamp all the progressive.
Where I'm hoping we can do a Heritage Day where we can talk about the families and all the men who built this country and try to reconnect with our American room.
So I'm glad there's no women on the panel tonight.
I'm so nerd out about my favorite historical subject, which is ancient Rome.
So this is going to be mostly for Mr. Slate, probably Ian, but anyone else, feel free to give your take.
So Mr. Slate, what's your take on the Marian reforms for the military and then the Gracchi reforms for society?
And then more importantly, in the nationwide efforts to form a mighty faggot, do you see any modern equivalents or parallels that need to be implemented today in these domains?
So the Marian reforms is the one I actually hit on a lot.
So Marius, for people that aren't familiar, is the famous reformer of the Roman military.
And the office of consul, Rome had two at a time because they didn't want to have one man that was holding an office that was kind of like president.
They wanted to split power.
He holds the office of consul 10 times or seven times.
You're supposed to hold it once every 10 years.
He didn't live to be 70 years old.
So he obviously broke the rules of office in order to do that.
He creates the gold standard eagle that's typically used as the symbol of the Roman legions after this.
And I also see the reforms he made of the military.
One of the biggest things he did is he changed Rome from being a citizen soldiery basically fighting for their own farms and land to a highly professionalized class of soldier.
And I do see that as, in a way, one of the things that's going to drive the fall of the Republic much faster because now people don't have loyalty to their Roman Republic.
They start to have loyalty to a commander.
And that's going to be one of the things that not just drives the fall of the Republic, but later on, it's also going to be one of the things that drives the fall of the empire.
So I see those reforms as actually extremely pivotal, in a lot of ways being a poison pill for not just the Roman Republic, but later the Roman Empire.
In terms of the reforms of the Gracchi, the major one that I look at, because they were looking at landish redistribution, but they were also looking at the grain dole.
And the grain dole was the idea that, I guess to back it up, Tiberius Gracchus is fighting in the Punic Wars.
After they're over, he's on his way back and he sees that people are living on land that's public land.
They're farming it for rich people that have decided they just own this public land and they're not able to feed their families.
So he decides that they're going to form the grain dole, that basically every citizen would get a certain amount of grain to eat in order to feed their family.
Now that thing is going to be something that, as you get closer to the third century, is one of the things that pushes the inflation even harder because Romans are dealing with climate change.
From about 200 BC to 200 AD, it's something called the Roman climate optimum, meaning they had perfect weather and they could grow food in much higher quantities than they would have typically been able to.
When that changes in 250, it's going to make grain prices double, triple, quadruple.
So now Rome has this new price that they have to pay to feed all these people.
So it's going to be a real issue, especially in the third century.
So I think those are actually two really pivotal things that don't actually mean as much when they happen as they are going to for later Rome be part of kind of the structure falling apart.
Question: Metaphorically, you know, they say history rhymes.
So, like the Marian reforms, Gaius Marius improves the military, centralizes command authority.
If we were to see something like that in the modern age, would that be, I'm wondering, giving over military command authority to the AI, autonomous AI, and we start to trust the AI as our new commander, which leads to the downfall, then hyper-accelerated downfall of our empire.
I don't know if it would happen exactly like that, but I think looking at it in people having more of a personal relationship with the person that's leading them rather than looking at the good of the nation as a whole.
And I think you could look at that more of even in political parties where people care more about their political party than how's the country doing.
Well, I think one of the biggest ones, honestly, is looking at money and politics.
One of the things I talk about a lot that doesn't often get talked about.
Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, he gets that position because there's actually a man behind him.
His name is Jakob Fuga, and he's a cloth merchant that manages to make a lot of money because he realizes he can make more money trading money than actually just trading cloth.
And he becomes, there's a book out there.
I think it's called The Richest Man in the World, and it's about Jakob Fuga.
And what Fuga does for Charles V is there's seven prince electors that decide who's going to be the next Holy Roman Emperor.
So he bribes all seven of them and gets Charles V elected.
And throughout his entire career, Charles V will make a lot of strange decisions which don't make sense to people.
But if you understand those decisions he's making are to benefit Jakob Fuga, then history makes a whole lot more sense to you.
So I think one of the biggest things we have to look at is money in politics.
You know, super PACs are a big part of this.
Political donations are a big part of this.
And so I think if we look at money in politics, that's something we could learn a really big lesson from.
Yeah, a job that people really don't want, but they're looking out for the best interests and they serve for a certain period of time and they go back to work.
Elon Musk said that we're headed towards a post-money economy where it's going to be about how much electricity can you generate and how much of a payload can you move.
And I feel like currency is electricity is current.
Currency will evolve to have a new meaning.
But I think the deep, the banking cartels.
Phil's got a big old sound when I do these loose associations.
Well, I guess it's not as crazy as it sounds, though, because it's also the idea of like value for value, right?
You know, it's like it's kind of an Ayn Rand idea.
You know, like if you're actually giving value for value that's being produced, then it has a, it, it actually is something rather than the idea of money just for existence, whatever it might be.
I imagine when Elon said that, or when people say that out loud, that the people at the World Economic Forum that are trying to create the technocracy and their method of control is money, that they hear that and they're like, oh, fuck, because it's true.
That is, we're about to lose control of the system if they don't have, if the money isn't enough and everyone's got their own power packs.
I was going to shout something out, y'all talked about earlier, but I don't remember.
All right.
But anyways, so my question is: where do you go to find a good spouse?
We're in this stupid church and digital age where nobody goes outside.
Michael Knowles said something once, like, you know, go to the place where you find the caliber of person you're looking for and like church, obviously.
I'm not saying you should meet women at the gym, but I'm saying that you should go to the gym, you know, three, four times a week if you can.
Like if it's something that you have, look, man, if you don't have a girlfriend, you can fucking go to the gym three, four times a week, right?
What else the fuck are you going to do?
But yeah, honestly, like, you know, go to the gym, get in the best shape that you can get in, and find something that you really like and learn to excel at it.
My advice is if you're using dating apps, which you probably are going to have to, try and talk as little as possible via text and chats and try and get the person to meet you in person.
Like trying to do it alone, find someone alone is very challenging.
But having someone to talk to about it when you're stressed out, even just once in a while, and then someone to be there with you, like they call it a wingman, you know, out in public so that the women can see that you're not crazy.
You're a friendship quality.
And then just relax and your friend will strike up a conversation with somebody you'll end up meeting and falling in love with.
But seriously, you need to, it's like, sure, if you can, you know, if you can schmooze women and go and you've got the gift of gab and you're being funny is probably like fucking the most valuable thing.
Like if you're actually a funny dude, that shit will fucking work.
I personally am not all that funny.
So thank God I'm in a fucking band.
But like, but yeah, like be funny and like be competent.