SPLC ORDERED To TURN OVER Communications With Biden DOJ w/ James Klug | Timcast IRL
Tim Pool, James Klug, and guests dissect the SPLC's forced disclosure of communications with the Biden DOJ regarding wire fraud allegations against informants transporting Nazis. The group debates whether right-wing figures like Nick Fuentes operate as government operations or if lethal injection causes unnecessary suffering compared to firing squads. They analyze new self-defense laws in Texas and Tennessee, contrasting high-trust societies where written rules seem redundant with diverse populations requiring strict legal frameworks. The conversation expands to constitutional interpretations, declining social trust, and futuristic speculation on humanoid robots, zero-point energy, and the "Greater Earth" conspiracy theory before concluding with remote island demographics and corporate HR liabilities. [Automatically generated summary]
House panel has ordered the Southern Poverty Law Center to turn over their communications to the Biden DOJ as the conspiracy runs deeper.
And it's funny because we're seeing a lot of defense from these liberal groups and leftists saying they were just paying informants because they're ignoring the fact the indictment alleges they were providing money to an informant who provided transport for Nazis to some of these rallies like Unite the Right.
Let me just break it down for you very simply.
Conservatives would put together a peaceful rally, not for Nazis.
Liberal groups would then pay Nazis to show up.
Then these liberal groups and the media would say every conservative there was a Nazi.
That is the very fine people hoax.
And it's what they've been doing for a long time, and now they're getting exposed.
Interestingly, I've been talking about this all day.
It's kind of funny.
It's a conspiracy theory that Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens are in fact paid by the SPLC because on the same day, apparently, they both traveled to Italy at the same time.
And many people are pointing out that they, as well as many others, stopped talking the moment this indictment dropped, which is not correct.
It's not correct.
I don't think.
Nick and Candace are funded by the SPLC or anything like that.
But people are certainly wondering why this weird timing is happening.
I also think a lot of it is just meant to smear them both.
I think it's a lot easier just to accuse your enemies of being part of a secret cabal than to just acknowledge that maybe they have fans.
But that being said, Matt Walsh has called this out, saying he predicted we would find there are a lot of convenient right wing personalities that have been funded all along.
So we'll talk about that and a whole lot more.
Before we do, we've got a great sponsor.
It's a shout out.
To our very own Discord members, Kineo Wood, my friends.
Kineo Mountain Woodsmithing is a proud American owned company that designs and manufactures every single product right here in the USA.
No imports, no shortcuts, just honest, high quality craftsmanship you can trust.
Primarily a full service business to business manufacturer.
Whether you need help taking a product from concept to finish, they can handle the entire process custom design, precision manufacturing, retail packaging, warehousing, shipping.
If you want a reliable American partner that makes your life easier and keeps jobs here, Kineo Wood will do it.
They also run a retail website packed with their own original wood designs.
So, if you need something personal, you can get custom engraving on existing pieces or completely one of a kind creations built to your specs.
Because they believe hard earned money should stay in conservative American businesses and homes, not flow to corporate giants and leftist companies, Timcast members get an exclusive discount code.
It's Beanie5.
So, kind of looks like beanies, right?
That's K I N E O wood.com.
Shout out.
Check it out.
And I just want to give a quick shout out again.
This is our Discord member Friday shout out.
So, for our members, we are here to promote the work that you do in the Timcast Discord community.
If you have projects, companies, or things that you think are good, beneficial, American made, building culture, all of that stuff, we're going to be shouting you guys out.
So, shout out to the crew and the community and the hard work that you guys do.
And then buy some coffee.
Always buy some coffee over at CastBrew.com because it's delicious and it keeps you awake.
And it reads House panel orders Southern Poverty Law Center to turn over communications with the Biden DOJ.
This is massive.
In a letter to Brian Fair, SPLC interim president and chief executive, Jordan wrote that publicly available documents revealed how the DOJ partnered closely with the SPLC during the Biden Harris administration, including scheduling regular meetings, giving the SPLC early access to federal law enforcement data.
And allowing SPLC employees to train federal prosecutors.
The letter was also posted to social media.
The chairman's demand came two days after a grand jury in Alabama returned an 11 count indictment alleging the SPLC had committed wire fraud, made false statements to federally insured banks, and conspired to conceal money laundering.
I'm just going to go ahead and say I think the SPLC is a fed op.
I think it's.
So let me put it like this.
I don't think it's necessarily the government that does it.
I think there's an ideological faction of individuals with wealth and power that operate in the government and in the private sector.
It's not so much to say that the government directs these things, but they are one in the same.
I'm really happy to see this going on because how many people have you spoken to that voted for Donald Trump for like redemption or, you know, cracking down on these?
Corrupt groups that have been making conservatives' lives miserable, making their media miserable, everything like that.
And people are finally actually seeing that here.
There's a lot more to go, but this is a great start.
And according to a bunch of these posts, I don't know if they're true.
She flew to Italy.
Ian Carroll also said, going dark for a little bit after David Wilcox took his own life.
And I'm like, what?
What does that have to do with him?
So I don't actually think they're funded by the SPLC.
It is interesting timing, however.
I will stress Candace's husband is a British lord.
Her lawyers work in a building with federal agents, which is odd.
And her lawyer representing her, Is a preeminent Zionist who, when exposed by Laura Loomer, dropped himself from her case.
All I can really say is coincidences happen all the time.
It doesn't mean they're connected.
Nick might have gone to Rome for a fun trip, having a good time.
What if, though, what if?
You think there's a possibility that this private public conglomerate that has been running these ops could be paying right wing personalities, be it Nick, Candace, or anybody else?
But she had, I mean, she's obviously been a ladder climber her whole career.
There's no doubt about that.
But specifically, the way she integrated herself in the conservative commentariat and the power structure, she was structurally part of this whole operation.
So here's the thing the video with Nick was that he met gang leaders in Brazil and interviewed them, which is entirely easy and normal to do.
But attacking that work as if to imply he fabricates things to attack his current work.
Why would she be doing that?
Because she's an op, because she is meant to destabilize and destroy the right.
I actually look at it this way Trump weaponized the conspiratar right.
So, with like QAnon and all that, these people who believe in greater earth or flat earth or otherwise are flocking to Donald Trump to go for the deep state.
Candace is capturing those people and pushing them away from Trump.
I mean, Trump, you know, he rode the populist wave, he utilized populism.
This is the downside of populism, is what we're seeing now is that at a certain point, And Orban realized this and he lost his race for that matter is like you can utilize it as a political vehicle for so long, but at a certain point, you have to have the institutionalized, you do have to intellectualize sort of the whole concept.
And that, you know, there was a push for that to happen.
But yeah, this is naturally going to happen in populism when it's like, again, let's just sort of advocate for the common man, advocate for, you know, the most popular seeming opinions.
That maybe worked in the 20th century when in the 21st century, social media and everything gets derailed quite quickly, and you're seeing it now.
I mean, again, where even whatever, you know, criticism you want to level up the Trump administration, A lot of what I'm seeing is just emotion.
It's, um, there's not much, you know, there's not much analysis going on.
There's not much like, okay, he did well here, but he did there bad there.
I mean, because like, I mean, I myself, I mean, I've been opposed to the Iran war since day one.
I think it's a mistake.
I've even, you know, combed through some of these like self deportation numbers and I'm like, you know, I'm a little skeptical that we're actually pulling those things out.
But I'm also saying across the board, we're still making progress like dramatically.
And again, I just am not really expecting.
Perfection here.
I'm expecting him to do a better job than the previous president, certainly, but to do a better job than any of the other Republican candidates.
Because that's really how you would evaluate.
It's like, okay, if you're done with Trump, if you feel betrayed, et cetera, et cetera, that's whatever.
What's the more viable political vehicle that's currently being crowded out right now?
There is none.
He's the only show in town, as far as I'm concerned, at least for my political aims, my political goals.
And primarily for me, it's immigration.
And I'm like, well, I mean, he is pushing on immigration harder than anyone in the Republican Party has, probably since Nixon, if not since Eisenhower.
There's like levels to which you can even achieve when it comes to.
Mass deportations, for example.
Like, sure, could they be doing more in multiple places?
Sure, but at the same time, there's only enough immigration judges.
There's only enough, you know, areas where ICE detention facilities, all of that.
So there's only enough ICE agents.
So, what, 2025, when they're still adding to all of that deportation infrastructure, they broke interior removal records by four to five times Obama's average.
Because it is true that, like, you know, the supporters of President Trump, which include myself, by a long stretch, like, we are expecting transformational leadership.
And so to your point, I mean, it's like, Okay, we can do the whole, well, at least it's not Kamala thing.
But I would have been saying that if it was, you know, I don't know, Jeb Bush, like, it'd be like, well, at least it's not Hillary.
It's like, we do have the demand more.
We do need to expect more.
But at the same time, let's not freak out.
Let's not get emotional.
Let's realize, I mean, even Tucker, who's been like one of Trump's biggest attractors the last month, he said on a show, he's like, President Trump came into office and he started bumping up against interests that most presidents didn't even realize were there.
That's why presidents often are quite like, they realize how rigid the system is once they get in.
And there's not much you can do about that.
President Trump, When you see the stuff like we're doubling the refugee cap, but it's still only for white South Africans, that indicates to me where their mindset is at on immigration.
And I'm like, I am confident that they are thinking the same things that I'm thinking as far as what needs to be done.
And if you look at Stephen Miller, for example, and some of these other guys in the administration, the tactics that they're using, they're having to do so many workarounds because, again, there's just so much rigidity in the system.
The system has been built to facilitate mass migration.
It's been built by leftists to facilitate, like maybe, yeah, big corporations wanting to exploit cheap illegal labor, sure.
But also at the same time, leftists.
So that's why you have all these judges.
So, for example, in 2025, like last year, right?
You had the Trump administration trying to push out as many activists out of this system as possible, where in March, I believe they brought on like 43 or so new judges.
You better believe judges, you better believe they're all going to be conservative and are going to get the job done instead of battling every step of the way.
Well, look at like the SPLC, that video that came out where they were showing around his house.
This is the mindset of basically the entire political system for the last 60 years.
And that guy's.
Office, he had a handwritten running log of the white share of the population dropping.
As in, he was giddy.
He was celebrating watching the white population in the United States drop.
That is the mindset of basically the entire political system, every single apparatchik that's operated in the deep state, but even on the state that we can see, because presidents would say that out loud.
Bill Clinton was like thrilled that the white population is the majority or minority of the country.
And that's whatever.
Even if that's not your prerogative, you have to admit that that's bizarre.
You have to admit that that's weird.
You have to admit that that's like hateful and bigoted.
And those are the guys that have designed this entire system.
So, yeah, I am going to cut the Trump administration a lot of slack here.
Again, if four years go by and then it's, I mean, we're still nowhere close to even getting the Biden, you know, migrants out, then that's a conversation.
But we're a year and a half in.
Is there more that could be done?
Yes.
Is there some disappointing things that have happened?
Yes.
But if you look across the board, asylum has dropped way down.
ICE arrests are at all time highs.
Interior deportations are at all time highs.
The self deportation system or the environment is hostile right now.
So, again, there are people that are self deporting.
And that's going to increase again as it gets more and more of a sort of hostile environment towards illegal immigration.
I think that a system that can condemn people to death will condemn innocent people to death, and therein lies a big challenge.
The easiest way to argue it is when Kamala Harris walks up to you and says, Trust me, that guy deserves to die, will you say, Okay, Kamala?
Because she was a prosecutor.
These are the kind of people that are telling you to kill other people.
That being said, I do think there are crimes so egregious, these people are a danger to themselves, to everyone else around them.
Sometimes you are put in a situation where Death is the outcome.
What I mean by that is, when there is someone who is on the verge of killing, harming, or is a direct threat to another person, we recognize the legal right to defend yourself and others.
That's when I understand that sometimes people do forfeit their lives, so it's unfortunate.
That being said, the reason why I support this is that firing a lot of the games that we play in the death penalty, whatever your opinion is on it, lethal injection is fake.
If you read about lethal injection, you'll know that they say, oh, people just pass, they peacefully just die.
They inject you the paralytic agent so that you can't show pain and then you die an excruciating death.
This is a waste of time and money.
If you are going to have a death penalty, this is the way you do it.
I don't understand why anyone would argue this is inhumane to just be like, we are going to shoot you and you will die instantly.
These other methods, like the electric chair or whatever, are inhumane.
The firing squad is actually one of the most humane ways to carry on an execution, though I will stress, I'm not a fan of the death penalty.
The whole purpose was to sort of abdicate guilt, you know, because no matter what, the executioner, unless they're a psycho, it's going to be in the back of their head like I just killed a guy.
So the whole point of the firing squad is, yeah, plausible deniability.
Statistically, death by firing squad is near instantaneous, uh, as opposed to other methods like the lethal injection takes several minutes over a long period of time where you are consciously having the chemicals injected.
And the argument that I've read, I've read about it, is they do three chemicals.
The first paralyzes you, the next causes extreme and intense pain as the third one kills you.
And I think the key word you use is forfeit life because this is my same take on a lot of these states now are passing laws where you can protect your property with lethal force.
And everyone, you know, left wing people are like, You know, well, what you're killing someone for stuff, you value stuff over human life.
And it's like, no, that person is the one that's putting themselves in that situation.
That person is the one that is sort of sacrificing their life for my stuff.
So that says more about them than it does about me.
So, and that's kind of the same kind of take I have on executions is like, no, when they decided to commit this horrific act, whatever led to this charge, that was the moment where they forfeited their life.
That's the moment where the death penalty was issued.
But again, like the question over someone, so the issue of the death penalty is, Can they be rehabilitated?
And if they cannot be, then we have a problem because we can't release them back to the public where they'll kill again.
My issue is not with the idea that some people deserve to die.
It's unfortunate.
It's an unfortunate reality that if a guy pulls a gun on you and is about to kill you or a child, we don't want them to die.
But in that action, they have forfeited their lives because they're trying to kill other people.
The problem with the death penalty is when Kamala Harris walks up to me and points to a guy sitting in a chair and says, he should die and I'm going to do it right now.
Tell me I'm allowed.
And I'm going to be like, I don't know who that guy is.
And they're going to be like, trust me, he deserves to die.
I understand people say, There are instances where the evidence is overwhelming.
And that means there's going to be a percentage of people who are desperately pleading not to be murdered, and you're handing an axe to Kamala Harris to go kill somebody.
Now, again, that being said, back to the firing squad thing.
In extreme cases, some people survive for minutes after up to a minute after being shot.
These are rare examples, though, that also exist in other forms of execution, like the electric chair and lethal injection, where they can be botched.
However, typically with firing squads, they aim at the heart, you die instantly.
And as anybody knows, ask somebody who's been shot.
People who get shot don't immediately know they've been shot.
There's like people watch movies, and a certain person gets shot, and they go, and they fly backward.
Watch any of these body camera videos.
There will be shots, and the cop will be like searching himself.
And they'll be like, I don't know, I don't know, because you don't feel anything.
For firing squads, when people get shot, they don't feel anything, they just die instantly.
So I would say this ridiculous, modern, politically correct way that we approach these things like, we need to have a lethal injection.
No, no, no, no, get out of here, get out of here.
Hang them.
If you decided someone should die, make it instant, get it done with.
Is the point to maximize suffering so people can watch and go, I want to see him suffer?
Some people like that.
I'm not interested in any of that.
If someone, like, I'll put it this way if there's a guy holding a hatchet about to strike a child, we legally recognize everywhere you as a bystander can shoot and kill that person to save the life of that child.
They're not going to be wrong.
Jersey and New York might still put you in prison for it.
However, what you are not allowed to do anywhere is shoot his legs out, walk up to him as he's on the ground bleeding, and then start digging your heel into his wound and shooting him in the stomach several times so he lives through the pain.
That's not allowed.
We don't recognize that as justifiable.
So when I look at all these techniques they have for the death penalty, the ones that prolong or increase pain should not be allowed.
The scariest thing with death penalty for me is we have executed innocent people.
The response is, It's unfortunate.
We should prevent it from happening.
But it's the unfortunate consequence that sometimes mistakes happen.
So I just want you to imagine being that innocent person being walked to your death where people are screaming at you and calling you a murderer, and you did not do it.
And no matter what you say, no one will believe you, and you're about to die.
And then they say, Yeah, well, then you'll go to heaven because God will judge you.
And I'm like, That is not solace for the innocent people, of which there are many hundreds who have been executed.
So, again, I understand there is a big difference between watching a guy about to harm, abuse, or otherwise, you know, kill a child and stopping him from doing it and a guy you've never met that you are being instructed to walk to his death.
These are big, these are very different.
It's not easy.
It's not easy.
Nobody wants to defend, you know, child murderers and rapists, and nobody wants to release them back into society.
So, I understand all of those points.
My point is not to defend them.
It's to say you've got blue states, largely, and don't get me wrong, there's red states that have done this as well, where some crackpot official is just like, don't know, don't care.
He was convicted, so he dies now.
And I'm like, man, I ain't doing that.
Famously, I don't know who was it, France, who did this.
Maybe Japan doesn't do this, but there's a country where the electric chair and the lethal injection have three switches, where three people, like two of the buttons are fake.
One of the buttons is real, and they all press the button, and nobody knows who actually did it.
I wouldn't want to breed executioners as a society because there's like pig killers, pig farmers that, like, I saw this video.
This guy's like, I don't know.
I see pig, I kill it.
And he's like smashing baby pigs on the ground and like throw, they're just like meat sacks to him.
And you could train a human to treat other humans like that.
So I'm glad we get away from that.
But, um, and in regards to the death itself, as painless and quick as possible, like, you could, if you could instantly at light speed vaporize them, I would choose that.
And that's the thing, too, is like people, the people's perception of the death penalty is very 20th century.
Like the way it works now, again, we're able to mitigate a lot of these things.
Like that's a common fear I hear when people are talking about the death penalty is, well, what if we execute innocent people?
The last.
To the best of my knowledge, the last exonerated death row inmate was the 1950s.
It was like 1956 in Texas.
I can't remember his name.
And so it's like very, I mean, the amount of evidence that you have to present to get the death penalty is overwhelming, where it's like more than obvious this person, like you basically have to be on footage killing someone.
This is something that I battle with too are we becoming a more moral and just, moral and religious people or less?
And who is our system really designed for?
I mean, when it comes to what I see the left turning into nowadays, dude, I wouldn't trust them with literally anything.
I mean, look at their use of lawfare now as well, going after conservative groups, religious groups, protesters, going after Donald Trump, going after.
I mean, it's stuff that's just like, So absurd, and it's only being done right now because they just don't care at all.
They'll use the law for anything.
So, if it's like, oh, well, it has to be proven, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, way, way beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's you, Tate, they'll just make up a bunch of stuff.
Well, I mean, that's the problem with governing in general is like, if you're the Trump administration, you have to govern like you're going to be in power forever because this is the same.
And I'm not, you know, saying anything here.
I'm just saying this is the same argument people use with like the DHS funding and the big beautiful bills are like, well, what happens when a Democrat comes in charge and now they have the GDP of an EU country for DHS?
They're going to be able to weaponize that against right wingers.
That is true, but again, we just have to govern in a way that we wield power confidently.
And that's kind of my thing when we start second guessing, well, what happens if they come back into power?
It's like govern so well that we don't have to worry about that.
And so, the story I've told a million times when the police came to my house after I got tried breaking in, they explained to me.
If he broke in, you have to jump out the window.
You have to run away.
And I was like, it's cold out.
It's winter.
I'm like barefoot in my underwear.
And they're like, yes.
And I said, where would I go?
And the cop told me, I want you to imagine going before a judge after having killed a man.
And the judge asks you why you did it.
And your response is, I didn't want to be cold.
Do you think they're going to say that's reasonable or do you think they're going to put you in prison?
And he was like, the prosecutor is going to argue that you chose to kill a man instead of standing outside for 20 minutes.
You could have gone outside, called the cops, waited for them to arrive, then gone back in your house.
And I'm like, that's insane.
Like, I could jump out the window.
What if my family's here?
Does not matter.
Maryland.
In Maryland, you're allowed to defend yourself only after fleeing into your home and they try to break in.
West Virginia, if they present a threat on any part of your property, you can kill them.
Now, the important thing to understand is in West Virginia, you can't just shoot a random person walking around in your property because property is big, expansive.
And if someone's walking through your lands, you got to say, hey, you got to get out of here.
If they're threatening you, you don't got to wait to find out.
The reason why this is this way in West Virginia is that people own large acreages.
So if you got 50 acres and your house is in the middle and you're standing to the front of your property and a guy is on your property walking towards you, threatening you, the idea that you're going to run full speed to your house while a guy's got a gun and threatening you is ridiculous.
So let me clarify under Texas Penal Code 942, you're allowed to use.
Force, some may be deadly, but to recover your property, if you believe deadly force is necessary to prevent the person's commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief, right?
You are literally allowed to use force, not deadly, but you are allowed to use force that may be deadly if they're going to commit mischief.
Prevent the person who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with your property.
It says you have to believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means, like calling the police, or using non deadly force would expose you or someone else to substantial risk, death, or bodily injury.
This sounds like if they are walking by you on a street corner, they grab your cell phone and run, and you have the right to shoot and kill them and recover your phone.
If a person robs you at gunpoint and then tries to flee, they're saying you can kill him because that person armed threatened to kill you and may kill someone else.
Lethal force requires a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury or certain felonies involving a threat to people.
So that's Castle Doctrine and things like that.
The bill is narrow.
It applies to when you're at your lawful residence, you are not engaging in any crimes, and you reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent arson, burglary, robbery or aggravated robbery, aggravated cruelty to animals.
And there is an imminent danger to you or a third person of death.
Bodily injury or sexual abuse.
Now, I like that last one because if some diddler shows up, they're saying you can use lethal force to stop a diddler.
Now, joking aside, the point is Ian, because he refuses to accept standard arguments on statistics, and you make stupid caveats because you refuse to answer a basic question.
Well, like a good example is like in Iceland, when people go into the grocery store, the mothers leave their babies in their trolleys like outside, they just leave them there.
If they had to pass a law that said no stealing babies from in front of the grocery store, women would stop leaving their babies outside because they say, Well, there's a reason we had to pass this law that must mean that some people had to start getting their babies kidnapping is legal in Iceland.
No, but it's just it would never occur to them to develop a law that granular in this instance because, again, there's no instance of that occurring.
They just have very base laws like no murder because if someone murders, we need to use that.
But the United States has very granular laws like this.
Because now there's instances of this occurring, therefore the legal system is to react.
Everybody understood if you took someone else's stuff, you'd die.
In fact, 200 years ago, if a thief came to your house and stole something and you shot him in the back with a musket, none of the villagers or townspeople would blame you for it.
In fact, In the 80s, if a dude came into your neighborhood in New York and was pushing people around, he would get stomped out and not a single cop would intervene.
Therefore, there's going to be different culture or different crime patterns in different areas because of the new populations that have come into the country.
Same thing is true for putting a pie on your windowsill on a Tuesday in Boston or whatever, or skydiving on a Sunday in Florida, which is apocryphal, but blue laws nobody adheres to.
It is illegal in West Virginia to cohabitate with a woman.
No one's going to arrest you for it.
The point is, when we start writing these things down, it's because there is an impact between different cultures that disagree on what should be.
So we put up a notice saying, We've decided, therefore, because we exert authority through police and law enforcement, you all can't do the thing we don't want you to do anymore, which doesn't exist.
That law is meaningless as soon as a new group of people come in and have a different moral worldview with each other.
Laws being written down indicate that you need to inform.
People doing that thing to stop doing it.
You don't have to do that in a high trust society.
So, back to the main point you set up a town of 1,000 Seamus Coughlins.
Again, I stand by this and using Seamus as an example because Seamus does not fear man, he fears God.
And someone like him, Would think if I take that food, I'll be condemned for my eternal soul.
I'm not going to take that food.
I will ask and I will work.
So, yes, even in those circumstances, I do believe people can do crazy things, but.
What did we see with.
Well, I don't want to get too extreme with some of these examples of cannibalism and things like this, but no, I'll do it.
I'll use the Donner Party.
The women survived.
You know why?
Because the men chose to die instead of resorting to cannibalism.
Many men and women did.
Those that did chose to eat, but the men all died first.
They sacrificed their well being for the women.
Then there were people who refused to cannibalize and died, and then there were some people who did, but it was largely the females who survived for a variety of reasons.
Ultimately, the point is.
There are societies and individuals that would choose death over dishonor.
So, anyway, laws.
The written constitution, actually, is I don't think the constitution is a real thing.
And I think conservatives and liberals are wrong.
Liberals use the constitution for power as a manipulation tactic against conservatives.
And conservatives genuinely don't understand the constitution.
The best example being that when the constitution was ratified in 1789, states could ban firearms, the federal government could not.
That meant if you lived in Virginia, Virginia could take your guns away.
Although I do believe Virginia and other states also had their own laws protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, like the whole argument with that is that, again, if the Constitution begins to be perceived as restrictive, that indicates that we're not in the same country anymore.
So the Constitution, no one was ever running up against the Constitution.
It's very rare that people would run up against the Constitution.
The Constitution was an issue.
For people.
And if times had truly changed, then they would make adjustments, like slavery, for example.
But generally speaking, the Constitution wasn't felt, it didn't feel restrictive.
Where in the common era, the era that we live in now, the Constitution is constantly being debated over.
People are looking for workarounds.
People are frustrated by it, specifically in blue states.
That indicates that this is a different culture.
This is a different nation than the nation that initially sort of framed the Constitution.
The Constitution outlines the structure of the U.S. government.
The first articles literally just say Congress will do this job, the legislator will do this job, the judiciary does this job, and then you have the Bill of Rights after the fact, which is where they said, let's make sure the government can't do certain things.
The Constitution itself and its core literally just say, here's the nature of our government.
I guess what I'm saying is that that structure makes sense because of the specific people that framed it as.
And we've given that constitution to Liberia, for example, and they've had a drastically different outcome.
So, again, the constitution, all of our founding documents were a snapshot of a people at a time, indicating how they sort of agreed.
I mean, I do agree there was like stuff that had to be debated or structured, but generally speaking, this reflected the population that existed at the time.
This was a snapshot.
And the more you push against that, the more difficult it becomes to execute the execution.
I mean, obviously, something dynamics have changed, but generally speaking, the idea of the prenup was because there was a slight bit of distrust.
There was a slight bit of something could go wrong here.
Therefore, I need an extra mechanism that I can execute on if this goes south, where most couples would just enter a marriage and they wouldn't feel the need to put a prenup in there.
That means that there's something else at play that could potentially derail this marriage.
You'd imagine that obviously things have changed, but you know, with a lot of these laws, you'd imagine that mass importing tens of millions of third worlders will.
Just result in more and more and more laws because we didn't know that we had to make laws about stuff that we never had a problem with 10 years ago, 20 years ago.
I mean, Singapore gets away with it because they don't have completely disparate cultures.
But yeah, if you start bringing in other religions, people that come from countries with a very specific ideology, that's when you have problems on an extra level.
The United States, the only way, like, basically the question is do you want more diversity, which will mean more authoritarianism, or less diversity, which means more of a high culture?
But the cool thing was, because it had two, like a way in and a way out, I actually, like, during parties, I had multi access to my room from different parts.
So it was kind of like having a portal that no one else could go through but me.
I mean, I grew up in probably the most low trust society in the United States, which is Memphis.
And I vividly remember.
We all lived in like a leafy suburb.
So, you know, again, people were a little bit more comfortable leaving things out, et cetera, et cetera.
But I played basketball.
So we would go into like the city quite, quite a bit, you know, quite often.
And I remember one time we were playing this team, all the families, they like asked everyone to come to the middle of the court for like, I don't know, speech or something.
I don't remember what it was.
Everyone, like a lot of people left their phones and their purses and stuff on the bleachers, literally turned their back for 10 seconds.
And then they come back and it was all gone.
And it was like, that just shows that, yeah, like literally the trust of your society can vary by zip code.
That was the first, like in the United States, the First instances where we started seeing like crime syndicates pop up was like at the end of the 19th century, cocaine became really widespread.
So you literally had these crack fiends robbing pharmacies.
And that was like the first instance that really shocked the conscience of Americans as far as street level crime at like a high volume.
I think we need to bring the mafia back, you know?
They did a good job in a lot of the neighborhoods in like Philadelphia and just think about the values of the mob versus the crime and the gangs that we have today.
So it's like there was that 19 year old girl in New York who was surrounded by a bunch of young black kids and they stabbed her, killed her.
But like, I'd rather have a House of the Rising Sun style speakeasy run by the mob where people are like drinking and gambling than kids running around with knives stabbing people and stealing their stuff.
Because if we went to the 1920s and they're like, man, we really need the mafia back, they'd be like, well, how bad are you guys living in a super villain world?
So the AI generated robot is taking the W. He's taking care of the W. I'm saying if those hogs turned around and like jumped, I mean they could take him.
was yesterday i was using brock and i was probing it i was asking it a question about ebt and then it just said who's ebt you're like we're good we're good you don't know nothing yeah we're Yeah, we got those locks.
This would be a better remake of Terminator is like, you know, Sarah Connor's walking down the street, and then, like, you know, Arnold shows up, and then he, like, grabs a shotgun and she screams, and then a bunch of just, like, refugees, migrants, and homeless people grab him and start pulling parts off of him, and he's, like, being ripped apart, and they all run off with it.
I think we're simultaneously the most bored era, but also the least bored era, because part of the reason is like, when was the last time you were actually bored?
So, this guy, Robert Raymond, says, Damn, can you imagine being a human during the Paleolithic age, just eating salmon and berries and storytelling around campfires and stargazing?
No jobs, no traffic, no ads, no poverty, no capitalism caused traumas, just pure vibes.
And Phil said, Can you imagine your child and mate both dying in childbirth?
Can you imagine getting a cut and dying of infection?
Can you imagine breaking your leg and being eaten by a saber toothed cat?
Can you imagine being filled with parasites?
Can you imagine poverty being universal?
The funny thing is, when he's like eating salmons, who got the salmons for you?
Yeah, he probably got that from a video game because there are times in the game where you know you already hit the rocks, you built the house with nine clicks, and now you just get to sit and enjoy the digital fire.
The thing is, you could do this probably for 20 days a year now, easily, your average person, if they could manage it maybe 10 days a year on a vacation up into the mountains.
Back then, they might have experienced that, but they spent 99.9% of their time trying to survive and create the environment to be able.
And even then, you're looking around because animals can be in the dark.
They don't have lights, street lights, there are no streets.
Well, now they use gravity generators, is the easiest way to do it.
You have a high gear ratio and you have a rock tied to a string, and when you lift it up and you crank it, when you let it go, gravity pulls it down and it spins a very high gear ratio, which turns the light on.
It's that functional, as far as we're concerned, perpetual motion is entirely possible.
And what I mean by that is when you see these videos of like a wheel that keeps spinning, we all know there's a battery in there.
And then everyone argues perpetual motion is impossible while ignoring the fact that we don't live in a vacuum and that external energies will act upon whatever mechanism we produce.
Thus, people have produced things that look like perpetual motion, but it's actually just solar power.
For example, You can have wheels that solar heat, like the sun will heat the system, introducing energy to it, which causes an expansion, which can cause it steam pressure or can make it rotate.
Functionally, as far as we're concerned, we did not put energy into it.
We built a system that seems to just go, but it's actually just absorbing ambient energy.
So that's not a closed system.
It's not perpetual motion.
But as far as we're concerned, we're getting motion from putting nothing in.
And if we start moving towards gravity powered things or fusion powered things, we lose that power, that manipulative force that the American military machine has provided for 70 years.
So I'm changing the subject, I guess, because I was just thinking about something like, you know, Gen Z is just internet people.
But the things they're consuming online are just Indians.
So I was just imagining a future where it's like, it's true.
So we know about how they spam X with fake accounts.
We've got Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and Indians trying to make money off all these systems.
There's that story right now that's going around where an Indian guy made a fake AI woman who was MAGA and then started selling OnlyFans to get guys to pay.
So you've got all these Indian dudes that are just ripping off Gen Z because Gen Z is too stupid.
It just doesn't care.
And I was just imagining a future where it's like a bunch of white Gen Z dudes walking around talking like this.
Because, like, they're consuming nothing but comedia from Indians.
Well, Tim, to your point, I mean, we already kind of are seeing this with like, Third culture kids, as in kids that are raised in non Western countries but go to international schools.
They used to universally have British accents, the English accent specifically.
And now most of them have American accents.
You've already seen the shift.
And the reason for that is because those kids are consuming the only interaction they're getting with the English language is their parents, which is, you know, varies.
Yeah, that's why the common argument from like the AI proponents is look, we are agree that there are some worries about where AI is going, but the problem is China's putting their foot on the gas anyway.
So if not us, who's you might as well have the most benevolent in our eyes, the most benevolent power.
Because you can imagine that, like, no, greater earth is cool because it means there's more continents and places you've never been to, and there's things to explore.
Every time, you know, everyone always says that they're like, oh, we've only explored like seven percent of the water, but then when you get the video from what's going on down there, it's just like weird looking.
Yeah, if there's a guy down there, you know, or something, but it's just like, every time I see the videos, it's like, oh, people get crushed because of the pressure and then there's like goofy looking fish.
The 90 day fiancé guys are like the last true explorers where they're just going to the most remote locations just to have sex.
It's like there's something going on there where every time I watch that show, there's guys going deep into the Amazon just because they can't pull anywhere else.
The thing is, though, like when you hear that story in my mind, I'm imagining like two just ripped hairy guys and one guy puts on lipstick and goes, I'm the woman now.
The HMS Bounty, uh, the HMS Bounty, a bunch of maroon sailors landed on Pitcairn, so all of the descendants of like 12 men live on that island, and it's all incest.
There's a lot of inbreeding because they have no choice because there's only like 12 men on the whole island, so they all have, and it's still owned by the English, but it's rapidly depopulating.
Well, yeah, it was settled by these mutineers, the HMS Bounty.
And then what's fascinating now is they're running out of people because, as soon as people can, they leave the island because there's nothing going on there.
So the population is really old.
So the British have set up a scheme where you can move there and they'll pay you to move there.
Yeah, and like they ban people from visiting, but there's like the problem is there's islanders there that live there, so like they're just like in a they're frozen like the 80s.
If you go up a little bit, that Holy Ascension of Our Lord, Russian, that's the first Orthodox church in the entire United States, but it was built by the Russians and it's fast.
By the way, I know it's a little off topic, but I just saw a Rick and Morty clip where Morty's dad is a wooden guy and he sails down the river and gets eaten by beavers.
Still good writing.
That show is still really well written, minus Morty's voice, unfortunately, but it's still.
It says Tim, in regards to the point you made of bullets being almost instantaneous death as a firefighter and former paramedic, I've seen several cases of that not being the case.
Perhaps exception, not the rule, but one guy after killing his wife put the gun in his mouth and blew the back of his skull off.
And still lived for 17 minutes.
And also, my best friend had an accidental discharge of the.45 through his heart and still lived for 45 minutes before he passed.
I was there and witnessed it with my own eyes.
Indeed, the exception, not the rule.
In firing squads, they aim for your chest and you get blasted by like 15.308s at the same time.
It's like you could get a snapshot of their face right before it hits, and then that could be like on the what if they just fill your cell with carbon dioxide in the middle of the night?
Poison gas, they used to, but I think it takes a while.
People have so much information right now that they're just getting, and not even to address like this specific point right here, but just in general.
They have so much information.
They can go down a rabbit hole.
In literally anything.
So it's like, and then they don't really have anybody that's like an authority figure that is maybe well read on it or has a strong opinion about it to really push back.
So they can just go develop any opinion that they want, really.
Some of it has to do with that, obviously, and probably most of it.
And then there's also a massive area where you're having to watch these stupid HR videos that are forced to be there from left wing groups that want to indoctrinate people in the corporate world as well.
The funny thing is, Young journalists desperately want to do hostile environment training for fun.
They want to say they've done it, have the accolade on their resumes or whatever.
But many hostile environment training, guys, you want a business to make money?
Start a hostile environment training company and you will just have contracts for days.
You'll make 60 grand a weekend.
Because a lot of these young people want to do it, legitimate companies won't take them.
They say, unless you can prove you need it for some reason, we won't allow you to enroll.
It's a waste of our time.
The reason why ABC University made me do it, I had.
At this point, what, three, four years of experience in hostile environments.
And they were like, we still think you should do it anyway.
And I'm like, sure, whatever.
It'll be fun.
It's because of the insurance companies.
Imagine what would happen if Disney sent a 27 year old into a riot in Turkey and they got shot in the head.
They have to pay out $20 million.
They give them hostile environment training, and the insurance company says, this individual was trained and properly equipped.
So that's why they make you do it.
You only get access to it usually when a big company sends you to do it.
Otherwise, they don't let you in.
If you guys started a hostile environment training company, you'd have contracts for days.
Just put up a flyer outside of like Vice HQ or whatever, and you'll have 50 requests, and all the rich kids will be like, I really want to do it.
Just get like five vets with basic combat training to give them a weekend of combat training courses and some LARPing, and they're going to pay you out the ass.
But yeah, it's all everything we do here that we don't want to do, it's because we're required to by law.
So, like, it's funny, people will chat, be like, Did you know that Tibcast has NDAs?
We're required to.
We don't want to do it, we have to do it.
It's law.
So, the way it works is here's another good example.
The moment any company accepts a solicitation, they can be sued.
Every single time.
So, what happens is when we first started the company, we were like, Hey, if you guys want to see some ideas, like send us your ideas.
And then our lawyer was like, Stop, delete it, take it down.
Because what happens is, let's say Ian writes a song and he uses A minor FCG, the structure of a song.
And then you get 100,000 submissions.
Ian publishes his song.
And then one of those 100,000 goes, That's my song.
He sues you.
He then says, I can prove they had my song.
I submitted it to them.
They received the email.
We can then say we never listened to it.
It's a coincidence using standard four chords, and it's not even the same song.
Nope, doesn't matter.
You're going to court.
He can prove you had access to it.
So that's why, for legal reasons, you can't submit your music, creative work, or ideas to any company.
Wouldn't it be great if people could, and then a record exec saw an email and said, I'll just take a look at submissions real quick.
Hey, this is pretty good.
I'm going to sign this undiscovered talent.
And then they're like, wow, I got lucky.
Nope, doesn't exist.
You can't do it.
You go to Hollywood, you have to be, you have to have an agent who comes in and says, I can approve this one submission.
All legal bullshit.
And 100%, it's all insurance companies.
And what likely is, is that their errors and omissions, their insurance company for all of their copyright stuff, errors and omissions or otherwise, says, if you accept submissions, we will not insure you.
And then if you don't have insurance, you're not going to be able to get on any platform or on the radio.
So, yeah, I was just going to say really quick, I guess what I was saying, the training, maybe I didn't mean training so much as, um, Making these corporations adopt kind of an ideological framework or ideological, like, let's say, it's not, it's, it's, so the Civil Rights Act created wokeness.
When the moment they said, you cannot discriminate on the basis of these things, you immediately opened the door for legal precedent to sue for those things.
So now you will continually get more and more of it.
The company then says, we don't want to get sued, so we have to tell people that white people are bad.
That's the legal precedent set today.
It's not that the guy at the Fortune 500 company is woke and wants to do it.
Then someone sues and says, that proves they're racist because shouldn't there be one black person, one woman?
So then they go, okay, we don't want to get sued, put a woman on.
Then what happens is I end up working in an office where they bring a woman on the team because they're scared of getting sued for being sexist and the woman's a fucking retard.
And then I'm like, why is this person here?
And then she goes, how come no one will listen to me?
It's because I'm a woman.
I'm like, no, it's because you're dumb, lack the talent, and you shouldn't be in this situation.
I'm not saying all women are dumb.
I'm not saying women shouldn't have jobs.
I'm saying, This particular woman was hired to be a token to avoid lawsuits, and now she's complaining, threatening a lawsuit.
The whole thing is stupid.
Let's grab this question right here.
We got Dasknotcool.
Dasknotcool says, Question for James.
From all your street interviews lately, what's the most common moment where someone's entire position collapses when you just ask them to explain it?
Explain it simply or give a specific example.
Do you see that happening more often now than a couple of years ago?
And off the top of my head, honestly, it probably has to do with immigration, mass migration, talking about, you know, if you have them unpack a basically A position that they hold.
I guess I could give several examples, but we'll do one of their favorite ones is like due process, and they really don't know what within due process is missing.
And so they think that illegal immigrants are entitled to basically due process that somebody would get if they committed a crime in the United States for a criminal case.
But the act of immigration is a civil process, it's an administrative process, and they don't understand any of that stuff.
So basically, having them break down exactly what they're getting at when it comes to What due process is missing for illegal immigrants?
That's probably one of the biggest ones that we run into.
But, like, what specifically?
I don't really have anything off the top of my head.
I would have to think about it for a sec, but good question.
Vash says, Ian, when y'all were talking about some sex airport island in the Antarctic about eight minutes ago, you said it was all water before the flood.
I know we were largely goofing off, having a good time looking at Google Earth, but I think we need it.
I think people are burned out on the same stories over and over again.
It's a slow news day and it's slow because everyone's tired.
You know, you've got like the Iran stuff, you've got the SPLC stuff, and we talked a bit about it.
But I'm sitting here like this morning, I did a live stream because I'm just like, dude, I am not going to make the fifth segment about people fleeing New York City.
Like, we keep getting more and more.
I get it.
Something happened.
I'm not going to say the same thing again.
I'd rather make a video where I just fingerboard or something.