Tim Pool and guests dissect the Trump DOJ's indictment of James Comey, framing it as "maximum warfare" against state enemies while contrasting it with fabricated charges against Trump's lawyers. They analyze the Israel-Iran conflict, dismissing Tucker Carlson's shock as dishonest given prior funding from Miriam Adelson, and debate dismantling USAID to stop Democrat funding. The conversation explores the rise of a white identitarian movement led by Nick Fuentes, critiques Animal Farm for its anti-capitalist themes, and details political strategies like "embrace and amplify" to counter negative attacks in the upcoming midterms. [Automatically generated summary]
James Comey has been indicted again, this time over his post on Instagram in which he said 86 47, which, depending on who you ask, means different things.
Typically, it just means to strike something from an order or off a menu.
So we 86 the bowl of chili, something like that.
However, the origins could be eight miles out and six feet under, implying a mafia hit or to kill someone.
For this reason, they've indicted Comey for threatening the president.
Now, I think one of the issues that Comey has is he deleted it after the fact, saying he did not realize.
Which implies the insinuation may be at least somewhat true.
However, I must stress, prominent liberals and conservatives have both used this against Trump and Joe Biden.
So previously, people have said 8646.
The Krasensteins following this at 8647.
Many activists were posting 8647.
That's probably why Comey posted it.
So there's a big debate over whether or not this actually makes sense.
And I suppose I can only say one thing to quote the great Hakeem Jeffries, maximum warfare.
That's it.
I mean, the Democrats want to play ball.
They want to try and put Trump in prison.
Don't be surprised when they play ball witches.
But we'll have this conversation, go over this issue.
There's a lot more to go through.
It's pretty crazy.
The FCC is now challenging ABC's broadcast licenses.
Jimmy Kimmel made a joke that Melania looked like she had a glow of an expectant widow just before this assassination attempt.
And oh boy, we got a lot more to talk about.
A new poll shows that the Republicans are actually tied with Democrats in the generic ballot for the midterms.
Which I don't believe for two seconds, but we're going to take a look at this poll and see what it actually means.
It may be that once people on the right start checking back into politics, once they start feeling like they haven't been listened to enough and problems are arising, you might actually see Republicans get a big boost.
The important thing to understand there is that while I don't think it's correct, it may just be a blip, Democrats have historically low favorability for this time in an election cycle.
Typically, they should be enjoying around 10 to 15 points, but they're only at around five in one of the latest polls.
So maybe.
There's some hope for Republicans.
We'll get into all that.
Before we do, we got a great sponsor for you, my friends.
It is Chef IQ.
This thing's really great.
This is Chef IQ, a little thermostat, thermometers.
You stick them in your meat, and it tells you when they're done through Bluetooth.
You got to check it out Chef IQ, IQ Sense, wireless smart thermometer that takes all the guesswork out of cooking.
I didn't have to read through a bunch of exposition.
Often, what we see with news articles is they'll say, like, Donald Trump, who is the 45th and 40th.
I don't need to read that.
I just need to give me the bullet points.
So now.
I've been cranking out these infographics on news just in two seconds because it's honestly for me, but I think people probably would like it in news that way.
It's crazy how fast AI is taking over all of this stuff.
And here's the secret it's way better than they're letting on.
The technology is substantially more advanced, but they're trickling it out.
We had a great conversation, Cliff and Josh, on the pre show, the Discord members show, Timcast members on Discord come in and check it out an hour before the show.
Here's the news from CNN exclusive former FBI Director James Comey indicted over alleged threat against Trump.
They say the charges approved by a grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey allegedly took the photo, include making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.
Comey responded to the indictment Tuesday in a video posted to a Subsec account saying, I'm still innocent.
I'm still not afraid.
And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.
So let's go.
The new case represents a reinvigorated effort to satisfy Trump's demands to investigate his own foes, including Comey, who he sees as a key leader in the perceived effort to weaponize the justice system against him.
It comes less than a month after the president dismissed Pam Bondi.
I just got to say, with the SPLC indictment, I don't know if this is Todd Blanch just taking a sledgehammer to the system in a way Pam Bondi was not, but it certainly feels like he's coming out, you know, swinging.
And, you know, there's another story we'll get into in a bit that is the FCC challenging ABC's broadcast licenses.
And initially, my reaction to this and to the ABC thing is do we really need to pull their broadcast license over a stupid joke?
Comey said something dumb.
Is this really Warren thing a criminal indictment?
Well, here's the issue.
To quote Hakeem Jeffries, maximum warfare.
That is what they said.
They tried putting Trump in prison on fake charges.
And there's a very difficult question you all must ask yourselves, honestly.
Will you do whatever it takes to stop people who are coming after you?
So, the issue is this if they're willing to create fake rape charges, fake fraud charges, if they're willing to present fake trumped up charges, 37 felonies, which never happened.
I want to clarify this real quick on the falsification of business records.
The allegation heard in court was that Trump never instructed his lawyer to falsify records.
Cohen just Assumed that's what Trump wanted, and that is the basis for Trump's criminal activity.
If that is the basis for criminally charging Trump and convicting him, why would I defend any of these people?
I mean, the Biden DOJ was bringing in Trump lawyers over like jaywalking charges.
So, I mean, Blanche is off to an insane start.
I mean, he's having a generational month here.
Again, it kind of makes you ask, like, what was Bond even really up to?
I mean, this is a question a lot of people had in the really across the entire conservative space was, Like Orrin McIntyre is making this point over and over again.
It's like, hey, we need to see some high profile arrests.
Like, it's great that some stuff's getting done behind the scenes, but you got to, again, you got to reward the base with these sorts of things because these people, since the day Trump came down the escalator, it's been like, we're going to lock her up, et cetera, et cetera.
Blanche comes out, boom, Comey charge, SPLC indictment.
He's got a menu of charges for these Somali daycare fraudsters.
We saw an associate of Fauci is now, you know, the DOJ is breathing down his neck.
So, again, Blanche is just racking up some victories.
One, yeah, you're going back at Bonnie and like, what were you doing this whole time?
But B, more, I think it's more to Blanche's credit.
I think he's just, this is, we finally got the right guy for the gig here.
Well, I think also an issue that we're witnessing now, and I think Tim just made a great point on this, is the way to defend against the left is to use their own weaponry against them.
There's a number of commentators who've made the fantastic point that, generally speaking, those who claim to be maximum empathizers, oh, I'm an empath, I have empathy, what they're really doing is not empathizing, what they're doing is projecting.
You're just like me, and therefore, if you had done those things, then it would be for these reasons because that's why I would do it.
So, every accusation then becomes a confession.
And the reason that maximum lawfare in return works is atomic diplomacy, mutually assured destruction.
That's what we saw with the Soviet versus US Cold War conflict the way to prevent World War III is you have nukes, we have more nukes.
They bang the drums, yell Jim Comey's name, and then show everyone, hey, see, vote for me in the midterms, because right now the Iran thing's crushing their public support.
I think the base, if the base is that strong and they're not seeing action, they might get a little frustrated.
But this is for a lot of those people that I think jumped to support Trump and kind of came around, not necessarily that they were Democrat, but some of the MAHA coalition, some of the people that the lawfare pissed them off.
Blanche is just rocking and rolling right now.
I mean, he is really coming out showing that, yeah, you need to take action.
And they're really getting to a point where if we didn't have some of this action, it was going to get really bad with a lot of people kind of bleeding out.
It's these guys that have known each other for decades are now finally turning on each other because they realize, hey, our gigs are on the line right now.
Like guys are getting primaried.
Look at the Democrats.
They're primaried each other all the time.
I wish you'd see more of that in the GOP, quite frankly.
So these guys are realizing, oh, now there's some heat on us.
You got to turn on all your boys.
And these guys chum it up in the halls of Congress.
But then once they leave and they're on the stump, They got to use the harshest language they possibly can.
So, in addition to that, people are like, oh, well, this is red meat for the base.
It's like, yeah, that's great, actually.
Like, we're hungry.
We would like some red meat, some protein, please.
Like, we've been eating, you know, slop for a while now.
So, and there's been some great things the Trump administration is doing.
But, you know, outside of that, you're starting to look around at the cabinet and you're like, okay, you know, guys, let's get some ball, you know, ball moving here.
Because, again, like, Trump can only sign so many executive orders.
Finally, we're seeing some consequential decisions here from the DOJ.
So, the question then is Will Ed Krasenstein be criminally indicted as well?
Because following this, he posted 8647.
I suppose the argument they might make is that his was obviously a commentary on what Comey had said.
But we also have this post from Jack Posobick in 2022 where he said 8646.
The issue there, I would argue, people are going to say is he was just responding to people saying 8647 in the past in Trump's first term.
So he was responding to what the left did.
He's basically doing a play on the left.
But the argument people are making is if you're going to go after Comey for this, you got to go after Posso and Krasnodein, everybody who's ever posted this.
And I guess the question, too, is like when the Biden DOJ again was dragging right wingers into Court was, you know, canning Trump's lawyers and throwing them in court, et cetera, et cetera.
Do you think they were really worried about, like, oh, what if the future Republican, you know, AG or DOJ comes after us?
You know, no, they weren't.
They were like, again, like, we have a mission, we're in power, we want to punish these perceived enemies.
Because, again, they realize the left, by and large, realizes the sort of existential moment that we're in.
And a lot of conservatives are asleep at the wheel and they're like, maybe if we can just get everyone to calm down, like, this system will still function as normal.
Meanwhile, like, 80% of the country, for the most part, has given up on the political system.
Well, now life has, you know, life.
Still, most people are somewhat happy, but as far as the political system, they're just increasingly frustrated.
And they're like, I elected you to, you know, be a bull in a China shop.
If I wanted, like, you know, tough with a tie on, I'd like Jeb Bush or something, you know?
But I think we made the point, I mean, following the shooting, that a lot of people are saying, okay, even if they weren't directly inciting violence, again, they're sort of creating this environment that does lead to violence.
So at a certain point, I mean, you know, you got to start asking questions.
When guys like this, that is quite frankly an explicit threat, you know, maybe if people cracked on on explicit threats towards Charlie Kirk, maybe that wouldn't have happened.
You know, I was talking about the FCC thing earlier, and the issue is the snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche.
And so it's kind of like, you know, a cop pulls somebody who's speeding 20 miles over, he gets pulled over, and he's like, hey, everybody was speeding.
And the cop goes, I can only pull over one of you.
Nobody should be speeding.
So, the issue is James Comey is the highest profile individual to make this kind of veiled threat, to push this rhetoric.
If you do not stop it at the highest and most profile levels, then you are going to get 10 million more at the lower levels doing the same thing, which results in a wackaloon charging into the White House Correspondence Center trying to shoot people up.
And then, this is my favorite part of the story.
So, Seth Weathers made an enhanced AI version of the security footage, and he uploaded it.
And of course, it's AI.
It has now gone massively viral, tens of millions of views from leftists saying, Here's the security footage.
And for that, they have convicted him on 37 counts.
If we are going to do nothing in response to that, you guys might as well just put out your hands right now for cuffs because they will stop at nothing to destroy you.
And so, again, I'll ask you again when they arrested Trump's lawyers.
You know, when they arrested Trump's lawyers for providing legal services, do we accept a reality in which Democrats go 10 times harder than we're going now?
And if that's the case, then, right, providing legal service is now a crime.
Arresting someone's lawyers for providing a legal service is one of the most egregious things you could do.
It is the definition of tyranny, it violates the Constitution, it violates human rights against a right to legal counsel.
And this guy's being given a slap on the wrist charge for a social media post.
If we accept a reality in which Democrats can do all the things they've done and we do nothing, again, you may as well just get on your knees right now, hold your hands up for cuffs.
See, this is something that, of all people, Jack Posobic and I grappled with in the book on humans about communism, about left wing revolutionary violence, is so often the question is when does the left go too far?
Well, they don't go too far, they just keep going.
There's no end to their revolution.
Pursuit of power.
I think it was Curtis Yarvin who said that, from metaphorically speaking, to the right, the right is like wine snobs with alcohol, but the left is like an alcoholic with alcohol.
So we will, I believe the right will, as well as we may run right, don't walk, run right, as we say, as far and as fast as we may run right, I do not believe we will ever catch the left in terms of how far they are willing to go for the Furtherance of our seeking.
What our position is something like prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
They say the poll of 2,754 registered voters conducted between April 23rd and 26th carried a 1.87% margin of error.
This is a Harvard Harris X.
So these are typically good polls.
They say 50% said they'd vote Democrat.
The other 50% said they'd vote Republican.
Democrats have an advantage among independent voters, which is good.
However, Republicans have the edge in expected voter turnout.
Now, what I find here in this is interesting.
First, I would say I don't expect Republicans to win the House.
That would buck a historical trend.
However, there are other polls that do line up with this that.
For instance, Democrat favorability is historically low for a midterm in a president's term or in a rival party's presidential term.
They should have much higher favorability if we're tracking historically.
They are down.
There is the redistricting issue as well, which will change how this midterm plays out.
But I noticed something interesting in this, and I have some theories.
So I'm going to lay it on you guys, and I want to hear what you think.
So back in 2011, I'm doing this political content, and I meet this guy, Luke Ridkowski.
And we end up doing videos together and we make a bunch of gag videos on that guy for a long time.
And after Obama's election, he says, Get ready, it's about to get real bad.
After every presidential election, viewership on social media collapses.
And it was funny because at this point, social media was only like one political cycle old.
But Luke had been on since the early days making social media.
And he was like, You know, after Obama's election in 2008, as soon as it's over, like December, January, everybody stops caring.
And you know what?
I witnessed this.
The anti war effort after Obama got elected in 08 vanished.
The protesters were gone.
And so, what we expect to happen is after a presidential election, there's a dip in interest, but a lingering effect of what happens now.
So, some people still pay attention, as many people check out.
That was last year.
Then, after a year, people are burned out and you're about to enter a midterm.
Where we are right now is it's getting warm out.
Viewership always dips in spring, and we are post presidential pre midterm.
So, political spending is not there, ad bucks in general.
Political content at this point in an election cycle dips massively.
Well, what happens?
As social media has expanded rapidly, more and more podcasts and video producers and content creators emerge, there is a massive desperation to get views.
Even the previous election cycle, there were fewer political channels, so viewership was down, but ad rates were okay.
Didn't matter.
Today, viewership is down seasonally, political seasonally, and the ad rates are split with AI coming in.
So I start, not just I, but you start seeing these people who immediately start doing Erica Kirk.
Posting, Israel posting, and now anti Trump.
These are the only things that are getting high RPMs currently.
So if you want to make money, these are the things you've got to talk about.
Liberals are the underdogs.
They're the outsiders.
They've been booted out of every branch of government.
So content targeting Trump has them all in a tizzy.
Thus, you end up seeing people like Tucker Carlson all of a sudden shift, and he sustained beautiful viewership, getting a million plus per episode of his show attacking Donald Trump and Israel.
Same thing is true for Candace Owens.
You take a look at the people who have stayed more true to their political.
Worldview, and they've been either steady, stagnant, or down.
So you can see the more consistently, yeah, we like Trump, it's whatever, they see a viewership decline for the most part.
My prediction is that, like with every season, the people who voted in Donald Trump, the Republicans, they're like, we did it, we're good.
Wipe their hands, and they go watch football.
Those are the top search terms every day.
It's basketball, football.
Well, it's basketball right now, I think.
Well, come the midterms, you are going to see a major burst in ad spending, which will trigger the algorithm to promote more political content because ad dollars are being spent on these terms.
YouTube will need to fill that inventory so they will show those videos more often.
Something weird is going to happen when the people who have turned on Trump encounter the return of the Republican right, moderate right, which are largely checked out right now, as we see every time.
I'm going to say it again.
When George W. Bush was in, the streets were filled with protests.
Watch that video from System of a Down, where everybody around the world's protesting.
Obama gets elected and Democrats fell asleep.
They were gone.
They just checked out.
I remember asking my friends, Why aren't you guys protesting the war?
And they're like, What do you mean?
I'm like, okay.
So, my prediction is that following the midterms, Democrats win.
Wackaloon things start happening, subpoenas, indictments.
The people who largely are not paying attention right now will come back.
But then the people who abandon Trump are going to be in an interesting space.
They are not going to then start supporting Trump.
They've already found an audience with the disaffected Trump supporter, which is not particularly as big as the Trump base.
The Trump base largely has maintained itself, polling wise.
But they're going to find themselves like Candace Owens and Anna Kasparian.
Largely aligned over these issues.
And I think that creates a new left right paradigm.
I think it's a high probability that this will happen.
Well, first, the poll, I hope it's right at 50 50.
But the reality is, I mean, everything that we're seeing, like you said, I mean, it's supposed to be 10 to 15 points.
But yeah, I mean, every single race in 2025, in the off year, every special election we've had so far, I mean, the overperformance of Democrats, or you could say the underperformance of Republicans.
It's not a good sign.
But my thing is, how much does the hate for Trump shtick, like, how much is that going to motivate them when we get to November?
It's motivating them right now.
Like, it is by far the biggest motivator for Democrats is still Trump is the enemy.
Trump is the devil.
Trump is public.
You know, we got to get rid of this guy.
But, you know, if gas starts to come down, I think that maybe we could have somewhat of an okay midterm.
You know, Jessica Tarlov made a really great point.
She said, On Fox News, they're complaining.
They played a clip from Bill Maher's show, Club Random, where he roasted David Cross for saying his daughter's friend had a three, had no, someone who was transit three.
And she said, You guys are still talking about the small room where everyone's talking about the big room.
Democrats are talking about prices.
Democrats are going to people and saying gas is too high, the economy is bad, and they're not wrong.
And conservatives are still doing cultural issues and they need to focus on the economy.
The problem is, Trump started a war.
Now, gas prices are up.
And there's not really much you can say about it.
Even Trump's allies are on TV going, Well, gas prices are up, but, well, no, but, that's going to be a huge motivating factor for regular people who don't know or care about politics.
They're going to be like, I don't know, gas is expensive.
Economic populism in this sort of modernity is both an explainer and a predictor, accurately, who captures the economic spirit of the people the best.
A future project I've finished that's going to be coming out with Rich Barris, director of Big Data Poll.
The subtitle of that is What the Polls Say Young Americans Really Want.
And there's a sort of a fork that we're saying.
We talk in the book largely about the revolutionary spirit of under 30s and that they want to sort of just burn the whole system down because the establishment of either side has not given us what we wanted.
And that fervor, unfortunately, is being vastly better appealed to by the, we like to, we've turned them the neo Bolshevist left.
People burn it down, destroy it, do away with what's been done before.
And the point I was trying to make is that I'll give you an example.
A woman has a viral video where she said that she used to be a member of Turning Point and supported them until she found out our country was secretly controlled by a foreign government.
And it's like, okay, that's not true.
You don't now think that.
You were just saying that because you're not going to get any social media attention or clicks otherwise.
Same thing with SPLC, it's SPLC and racism and whatnot in America.
Is you have to manufacture the content to then talk about it or fundraise off of it or make money off of it.
And while the supply of political or the demand for political content, controversial political content, tends to be lower in the off season, so then you need to supply.
Well, so what ends up happening though is the left has been anti Israel, anti Trump.
All of a sudden now, there were conservatives and moderates in this space who were pro Trump and Israel ambivalent, maybe anti foreign funding for governments or whatever.
Now they may as well be identical to.
The Young Turks.
They hate Trump and they hate Israel and they used to be Trump voters.
Not everybody, but there's a fair amount.
I mean, Tucker Carlson is a great example of somebody who basically sounds like Anna Kasparian.
Seriously, he's saying exactly the things she says on Young Turks and Cenk Uecker, which is kind of surprising.
Tucker may as well be the same.
They're getting views from it.
And their audience is now being pulled in that direction as they attach themselves to the audience of Jimmy Dore, Anna Kasparian, Cenk Uecker.
Inherently, but that when the Americans attacked the Iranians, you know, a month and a half ago or whatever, a month ago, I guess, it was at the discretion of the direction of the Israelis.
They were like, the Israelis started a war that we then became at war because another country did it.
Marco Rubio said, Israel told us they were going to go in, and if they did, we knew we would get attacks from Iran, so we decided we would go in with them.
That is a fair point that Israel decided to jump the gun.
And the US was basically like, okay, well, then we're in this.
That being said, if you take a look at the military operations leading up to what Israel planned to do, I think it's fairly obvious the US was planning on going to Iran.
The aircraft carriers were already en route.
And we took Venezuela and surrounded Cuba.
So it looked like, and we already knew this, the US was gearing up for some kind of action in the Gulf.
Then Israel makes a move, and the US says, okay, we're going in.
You think of it as like a military action, unified military action, joint operation, that the Israelis probably had some info, and they're like, yo, we can't wait.
We get 140 of their top leaders right now if we go.
The blunder side is like, listen, I'm going to say a few things.
I already mentioned Miriam Adelson.
So, Tucker Carlson and anyone else coming out and being like, I can't believe Trump supporting Israel is lying.
Because we all knew exactly what Trump meant.
He hired John Bolton.
He was pound with neocons the first time around, and we all knew it.
He fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria.
He killed Soleimani.
He moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
We knew exactly what Trump was about the whole time.
So people coming out now being like, I can't believe this is happening, they are lying.
As for the Iran war and where we're at, these people who are now all of a sudden shocked that we'd been putting troops in the region that Trump said we would never allow them to have nuclear weapons, that we made moves against Venezuela.
This is fake.
These people are not serious when they're saying these things.
Read literally anything from US military doctrine for 40 years, you know exactly why we're doing it.
Trump just took it over.
Again, I'm not saying it's good, but all of these people now coming out, They are lying.
And I want to say this to the little people too, not just high profile personnel.
I don't mean little people as an insult.
I mean the run of the mill people who are like, you know, Tim's an Israel shield or whatever.
Don't you remember on October 7th, we defended Israel?
Don't you remember I said, I'm Israel ambivalent.
I don't really care.
I care as much about Israel as I do about Tibet or South Sudan.
Don't you remember when I said, we should not be giving any military funding?
Fake.
They are liars.
We at this show, I as well as everybody here have maintained basically the same stance on everything pertaining to the Middle East warfare, Donald Trump the whole time.
We knew Trump hired Bolton.
We knew Trump took money from Miriam Madison.
We knew he said he'd go after Iran, not happy about it.
We knew it was a possibility and then it happened.
And we criticized the 12 day war.
And Charlie Kirk even said, we shouldn't do it.
And then when he did, he said, listen, I'll stand with my president on this one.
This is the measured, reasonable, honest approach.
Now you have all of these commentators.
Acting like all of a sudden they've been surprised by it.
One thing I want to add is that the frustration that we're seeing and hearing, particularly amongst under 35 or so, particularly under 40, but generally you see it more and more under 35, under 30, is what seems to be a misalignment between foreign policy of the United States and domestic policy.
And it seems like, why are we doing all these things over here?
We can't have that here.
Why is there progress over there or so much action over there?
One of the most consequential moves made in the benefit of the populist right in the history of this country.
I don't think, I think the challenge is you say Epstein, everyone knows the story.
It's salacious, high profile, it's international.
So they want a nuclear bomb on the Epstein stuff.
And Trump did not deliver, and that's bad.
However, USAID is substantially worse, not in terms of the crimes.
We all get Epstein did demonic things and worse.
I'm saying the scale of USAID cycling money through these various law firms, NGOs to create a Permanent political class and Trump nuked it off the map.
Massive.
They're trying to reform now in Virginia.
The deep state is trying to restructure.
People need to recognize the tremendous domestic victory that that was.
I think if you want to create a moral boost, you want to create a spectacle, like a public works or something.
I wonder, because if we are going to expend so much effort and money geopolitically to destroy and control, we really should be investing all those resources or a lot of them into the United States to make it like a spire.
Rather than try and seize what we need, build what's better and let them buy it from us.
Well, I'll say it again to Tate's point where people are claiming there's no plan despite this being like a 30, 40 year plan.
The It's fairly obvious what the effects are that's happening with the war in Iran.
That is, the U.S. has now become a net exporter of oil for the first time since World War II, one of the largest oil exporters in the planet.
China's been cut off, and East Asia is days away from being forced to drop their consumption to fuel minimum.
This is like a major story right now.
China, principally, in a few days will have to go into emergency distribution levels.
So, whatever you think Trump is doing or why he's doing it, by all means, again, you are allowed to say Trump's an idiot, you don't like him, and the plan's bad, fine.
I'm just saying, when you look at the results of Venezuela, Iran, and China, it certainly looks like something intentional is being done.
JD Vance, Gavin Newsom, you know, a couple of high profile guys.
Can the Republican Party win without a promising, positive message for the future about some new technology, like a real Tangible change in people's lives.
I don't know if it can, if it's just back and forth, back and forth.
I don't see any other way than techno communism on the horizon.
You have a 14, 16 year cap, and we just saw this with Orban about 14, 16 years, that's when a new sort of slate of voters come in.
They don't really remember what times were like before, let's say Orban, for example.
So they see what he's delivering.
They start to see the corruption set in.
They start to see these different things where you can kind of pick it apart and say, okay, let's get something new in.
That could happen with MAGA.
We go into 22.
And I'm not saying this will happen.
I'm just sort of saying this as a warning.
Is that as someone that believes in the viability of MAGA, going to 2028, all right, now the composition of voters is vastly different than 2016.
A lot of those people don't remember what things were like before then.
And they might just start to say, I don't know what this OMAC, I think there's some problems here.
And they start nitpicking.
And to your point, you're making a good point, is that there's kind of this tendency in the conservative commentary, especially to over intellectualize how voters think.
Like they have these deep motives.
Like with Trump, we do this with Trump, where they're like, it was about these different populist things going on.
And it was really like pocketbook stuff, especially with Biden.
The reason Biden got hammered for the most part is because oil was through the roof, gas was through the roof, especially.
Same thing happens going into the midterms is that, again, People are feeling the pinch economically.
That's going to be the primary reason why people don't show up or why they vote for the Democrats.
Now, we do have a golden parachute with Iran.
I mean, we saw today, I don't know if we're going to talk about it.
I mean, again, this is, I'm sorry, if you don't like Trump, this is the U.S. system breaking an energy cartel and taking over.
And one potential hypothesis is that the liberal economic order or the new world order that H.W. Bush called it was adhering to OPEC and creating this global standard.
And Trump just smashed it with a sledgehammer and has put the U.S. on top.
So what we have here is not a, this is what I believe, is that we don't have a plan problem, in my opinion.
We have a persuasion problem.
Whether it was with Doge and USAID or any of these foreign policy victories or the sort of the explanation required, it's not exactly been, at least not to my knowledge, it's not been compacted into a text free meme that captures the sentiment that then motivates under 30s to say, I'm voting for Republicans.
That's true, but that doesn't explain why advertising dollars are placed against her name.
It doesn't, if that were the case, then the ad rates should be low because of high volume.
So, if you, when you have these shows that talk about Erica Kirk getting tons and tons of views, that means competition against that term is high.
And that means everyone's bids go, or actually, it can go either way.
But if you have a massive volume of content, then the competition is low, meaning if I want to advertise on Erica Kirk, I've got 75 different podcasts to choose from.
So, I don't got to pay a high rate.
Finance is expensive because financial advisors are scarce.
There's very few high profile financial shows.
That means if a bank or wealth management company wants to advertise, not only is their customer base small because very few people need those services, but their choices in podcasts are small as well.
So you'll get, say, company A, company B, they both try to buy an ad for $100 on a podcast, and the guy says, Well, he's offered me $100.
What are you going to offer me?
He goes, 110, 120, 130.
How does that make sense for Erica Kirk?
What advertisers are being like, I will pay $100 per thousand for Erica Kirk related shows?
It does not make sense, especially with the massive amount of views she's getting.
The issue with financial content, the ads are expensive because customers are going to spend a lot of money.
So if you're a wealth manager, for instance, A client for wealth management generates a lot of money for that firm, whereas, you know, selling a cheeseburger is going to be minimal margins.
So then, of course, the ads are worth a lot more and the inventory is a lot less.
The incongruity with Erica Kirk is that there's massive viewership on a term that doesn't sell a product.
Erica Kirk, as a search term, does not sell products.
So I will just say this this is the internal reporting and inside baseball conversations I've had with other people who produce content, explaining how videos they've done referencing Erica Kirk generate more money in a critical sense than content in other areas.
Which does not make sense in my experience.
It would imply that someone is intentionally going on Google Ads and saying, I'm going to spend $10 million on things related to Erica Kirk, which I don't get.
The other argument, however, is that advertisers are not doing it and that YouTube has intentionally weighted their algorithm to shift ad dollars in that direction.
There is a non conspiratorial argument that content related to Erica Kirk is just, to your point about true crime, it has a higher retention rate and sells more lipstick.
And maybe YouTube unintentionally is like, if we're getting more clip through and we're selling more ads and they're competing like crazy.
But I got to be honest, that's not the simple solution.
The simple solution would be high volume content has cheap ads, not high volume content has high volume ads.
I don't care if people think it was Tyler Robinson.
The uniparty establishment left.
Woke left.
Charlie Kirk got Trump elected.
Who benefits from destroying Erica Kirk now?
The same group of people.
Erica Kirk has taken over Turning Point USA and is trying to run what is left of Charlie's legacy, which.
Rallies young people to vote Republican, and it is being destroyed by two things.
One, prominent personalities who flipped in a dime and are trying to tear it down, but also a YouTube algorithm that is promoting attacks against Turning Point.
At the White House Correspondence Dinner, somebody was filming on their cell phone.
Erica Kirk looks around and then looks at the camera.
And then looks away, they freeze frame her glancing at the camera and they put, she knew.
Not kidding.
Now it's going massively viral that because she, someone filmed on, because at the dinner somebody was filming the room and she looked at the camera, they go, she knew.
It's because people, like most of my friends, don't know who Erica Kirk is, to be honest.
And I think it's because they want people that are tightly wound and that know what's going on politically, that have the momentum, like Mike Cerno, you know, you, Tim.
They want those people to be talking about Erica Kirk, which no one will identify with in the general election or in the midterms.
People be like, what is that?
When we should be focusing on.
Fixing the economy, changing the economy, giving people hope, being a lighthouse.
I talk about this and I want to talk about it in a non facetious way.
I really, if you guys think this is possible, because you have a book about people going right, about people becoming more conservative, empowering, I don't know, the Republican Party, I imagine, involving the Republican Party.
If we brought a message, I talk about graphene, a new technology, a 21st century fascinating technology, a potential new fuel source.
Why are they allowing this explosive anti Trump virality?
Trump tweeting against Tucker Carlson does nothing effective.
We talk about how going after Comey is fire with fire, but the Trump administration is certainly not doing what the establishment left did, putting pressure on social media companies.
I mean, kind of to what we were talking about with Iran, is the happiest.
I mean, this is like, If you're a young person, it's very demoralizing because, okay, you have the first prong, which we've talked about, kind of the way that, you know, the social media, you know, sphere is operating right now.
But then, like, you have, like, Mark Levin, John Potter, it's like these guys are like clapping, like, Seals.
Brett Stevens is in the New York Times, like, you know, a broken clock is right twice a day.
Trump got it right on Iran.
So you just see that, and you're like literally like the worst people in, like, the world, like, lining up to, like, endorse this action.
You just see that, and you're just like, that's, that's why, that's the, I think the fundamental issue is that you're just like rewarding, like, some of these people that hate your guts.
And that's what's especially frustrating about it.
And then you add that on top of what you're hitting on, which is absolutely what's going on these people that have flipped on Trump are operating in an incentive structure that has existed and rewarded people for 10 years now, which is if you attack Trump, if you hate Trump, you will be rewarded.
There's nothing like brave.
That's like the least brave position you can take is like attacking Trump.
Yeah, if I think about it from the mindset of like a Swiss banker is like, I got to get these Americans, we got to get this American thing gone so that we can corporatize the world.
If I can get their political elite, and I'm talking about you, Tim, if we can get the people that actually know what's going on politically to fight each other and ignore the globalist technocracy enroachment, that would be a win.
Because people like Tim, like we need you focusing on the big picture, not Erica Kirk.
It's fucking freaking me out.
So, That's where I think it's coming from, anyway.
I mean, this is the important thing to understand about USAID and the massive victory that Trump secured with this.
Billions of dollars were funneled through USAID to various nonprofits and NGOs who would then make contributions to other NGOs who would pay the salaries of prominent lawyers and make donations to political action committees who would then create a permanent political class in the United States.
Trump got rid of that.
Now they are in Virginia and they just put five congressional districts in Fairfax County.
I just think you simply need ideological alignment.
One of the next books I have coming out later in the year, with, of all people, speaking of Doge and USAID, is Data Republican.
Everybody loves Data Republican, right?
She's great.
And what we talk about in the book is that the unelected managerial class, we call them the NGO administrative complex, the ideology, the philosophy that they hold to at its core is something called supranationalism, which is this idea that you are a, you've all heard this before, citizen of the world.
They take that absolutely literally.
If you look at their ideological writings and what is it they're devoted to, it's this idea, we can call it like late stage liberalism or classical liberal maximalism.
It's this idea that Every human everywhere on earth is equal.
Those who are oppressed are entitled to more mercy than those who are not.
Therefore, we need to focus our efforts on those populations around the world that have less access to democracy.
All democracy building under the conservatives didn't work.
Let's bring them here.
So, the mass migration of third worlders into the United States and into the Western world is a direct result of supranationalism.
And that same ideology is in order to protect this global democracy, which when they say our democracy, more so what they mean is.
Our power to provide democracy to the third world into places that we believe don't have it.
That's what they mean when they say our democracy.
And therefore, they need to have power, elected or unelected or not.
And so, to President Trump's credit by the Doge Project and the revelation that this is being put on, I wonder if Trump's gambit is that they cannot win without the NGO industrial complex.
Well, that's how the government is now that they've smashed up USAID, they're going to try and transition away from this old world, new world order into a new new world order that's going to be an American led technocracy is through crypto.
That's why, didn't he just recently say crypto is the future and he's going to protect it?
That would be interesting if he breaks the liberal economic order, swift payment system, all that stuff by switching to a decentralized crypto network.
So, the quick rundown on the process of writing this is how it is typically with my co authors on these projects there's some sort of initial source of the data.
So, of course, Cliff has been teaching this stuff, we're doing workshops for years.
So, he's got the slideshows, he's got the notes, he's got time on the phone with me.
And so, what I did is like kind of compiled the structure of how do you go from, hmm, I'm thinking about running to, Holy bleep, I actually just won.
What is the step by step with no step skipped process?
What is the system that you can repeat across districts, across elections, local, state, federal, to actually win?
Yeah, we do candidate academies, and people always laugh, but I spend most of my time trying to talk people out of running for office because we don't like people that run, waste their time, waste their money.
And it's like a lot of people that are like, hey, I want to do good, I want to get involved, I'm pissed off on Twitter, and I was watching Tim Cass, and those guys are nuts.
So I want to go and I want to actually run for office.
They have no idea what they're walking into.
And the number one way that people fail is they think that they're going to go out and they have the perfect message.
They don't have any money.
And this political game, I walk through all the different fundraising and kind of the dollars you need to be able to raise, not because I like that, right?
It's kind of grimy, it's sleazeball y.
Nobody likes to raise money or beg people for money, but that's what the establishment has.
They have all of these pots of money.
And if you're a grassroots candidate trying to raise dollars, it's practically impossible.
Look, if you were to tell me when to run for Congress, okay, most people, if they were to be polled, For name ID in their district, okay, if you poll the actual people that are going to vote, they're going to have 0% name ID.
That's most people.
The amount of money it costs, let's say you're in a Republican primary, 80,000 voters are going to vote.
The amount of money it's going to cost for you to go from 0% name ID to having a chance to win in an open race, you're not going against an incumbent.
I mean, we're talking $8 to $10 million is what you, if you ran as a patriot, would have to spend.
But the playbook for them is if somebody that ran that was an actual Freedom Caucus person was a threat, They will spend between five to ten million dollars in the last two months of the race, all negative on the Patriot that's running.
Her choice and how she got attention is her choice, but she certainly knew how to launch a nuclear bomb in the media and still does.
The point is, these candidates have no idea how to do it, so they have to go to someone like Laura and pay her and say, How can I get people to recognize my name and hear about this?
But there are some people who don't need to do that.
I think the best way to think about this book is it's like a marketing funnel for a personal brand with a call to action B go to this place at a specific time on this day, and with your finger, however you do it, with a little checkbox next to my name.
So, if it's marketing, if it's sales, if it's PR, if it's whatever, that's actually what to do.
How do you go from don't know who you are to you're actually on the ballot?
You have a product to sell.
People feel good about the product because it's an identity based choice.
So, some of the early stages are actually about creating a persuasive message so that when people see your name on that ballot or they hear your name, they think, oh, yeah, he's the guy or he's the gal who.
These are these three issues that I think about in the constellation with their word cloud.
Imagine the word cloud, I think of the person's name, the word cloud of what words are on the person's name.
Oh, that's me.
That's what I believe in, stand for, and value and want in my county, country, city, state, et cetera.
I would say the biggest thing we're trying to do is stop wasting time.
There are so many candidates that just spend all this time.
They're looking at every single comment online, right?
And they're responding because they think everybody's seeing this.
And it's like, no, there's three people that saw that.
None of them are voting for you because they're friends with the opponent.
So this is like 10 years of just doing campaigns, take the lessons that I've learned and just trying to give it to people that are of the same ideological ilk.
And for the sake of the families listening, I will keep this.
I will just say, actually, I should say that for the after show, but I'll say, I would say it in a more crude way, but have relations with a pig in Times Square and tell me how the press did for you.
Nick addressed taking an abrupt vacation to Italy at the exact same time that Candace Owens did.
It was actually really funny.
He was like, How is it possible that when I decide to go to Rome, Candace Owens abruptly announces a last minute vacation to Rome at the same time and no one is going to believe me?
I thought that was really funny because, no, Nick, I don't believe you.
That's why it's tricky because it's like, look, there's so much frustration with the boomers, and I'll be the first person to state a lot of that, et cetera, et cetera.
But also, if you're just looking at it from a political perspective, the coalitions that the Republican Party is going to have to stitch together to win elections when the boomers die off are going to be a total disaster.
Like, if you think this coalition, the MAGA coalition, was like fractured, is fractured and was tough to stitch together, wait till you get to a generation that's like 50% white, like 20% Christian.
I think what the Democratic Party realized sometime around the victory of Barack Obama, as a lesson from the 2008 victory, was his coalition of supporters was primarily ethnic.
And that if we promise these various ethnic and other interest groups the thing that they want, then it's relatively easy to get them.
And so I believe that's why the importation of voters, you're creating the birthright citizenship, you basically create something like a loyal coalition based on ethnicity or tribe or some sort of interest group.
Whereas Republicans have appealed to nostalgia.
Go to any county or city GOP group, 90% of all the people who show up are boomers.
I think that there's two problems with that emerging.
A lot of people like that I know are banking on that happening, but there's two problems is that one, settler colonies typically have a tougher time sort of building a movement like that.
Like these are actually you can find these in Europe, like throughout the continent, are like sort of identitarian movements.
The problem in the United States is twofold one, You still have more recent Ellis Islanders that identify with their core group.
I'm Italian, I'm Irish.
It's going to take a lot to make those people just identify as broadly white.
Those divisions still exist.
And two, if you look at other settler colonies who are further down the road, so to speak, like South Africa, yes, there are white identitarians there, but the vast majority of white South Africans are still committed to the idea of post racialism.
Apartheid, and even then, they were still like living in places that all they could see around them was white people.
But what I'm saying by that is, again, as the white share decreases, that doesn't guarantee that like white people all of a sudden start to, you know, uh, I didn't say that I didn't say that all white people were going to come together and say we're white people, but say this would be a large white identitarian movement.
It could be, it's just I don't know if like them again, I don't know if the white share of the population means that people will start to like uh petition for their ethnic groups' interests necessarily because there's something intrinsic to white people where they just don't really do that.
These, bro, I am, again, not saying the majority of America is going to wake up one day as wedded Ontarians.
I'm saying there's going to be a large movement.
And I think it's probably cheap to say because there already technically is one, but I'm saying it's going to be more prominent in the political space.
I'm saying that when Nick, Is 36 or 40 years old, and he is a bigger following.
He is going to have a sizable chunk of voters that are.
I don't want to say that they're like the Groypers are like their core identity is white identitarian, but it certainly is an element of their political worldview.
Well, didn't Charlie Kirk himself say that actually?
That if you replaced all white Christian Americans, or at least Americans with Indians who still had the same values and same Christianity, that that would no longer be America?
So they get on their boats, they go to Korea and just rape and massacre everybody.
The Koreans are getting mercilessly beaten and shot.
And then one Korean guy looks at the other Korean guys that are in chains and he goes, You know, you know what I realized?
We are all intrinsically better than them.
Each and every Asian culture is racially and ethnically supremacist to themselves.
And I'm half kidding about that being a good thing, but there is something to say about the Korean people outright saying, These people came and raped and abused us, and we are better than they are, and we adhere to a Korean identity.
And Japan, which, to be fair, they've opened the door to immigration, and there's a bunch of crazy stuff going on there.
But in America and in Europe, like in literally Europe, where white people are indigenous, you've got half the white people being like, I just plain don't like white people.
Because these people, the trope among the left is that they all hate all other races.
When actually, this considered themselves race realist and would make the argument that individuals are fine if the individual has admirable characteristics.
And this is the point that people like about Nick and why they follow him is that all the people who follow him recognize that if you're in Chicago and you go into a black neighborhood, you are likely going to be in a high crime neighborhood and you're going to be threatened with violence.
This is like a well known thing for people who grew up in the area.
And he's from this area.
And then people like you, Ian, come out and say, no, no, no, some areas.
And then it's just like, Nick doesn't say that.
He literally just says to people, everybody knows it.
And he's right.
You go to the suburbs of Chicago, you go to the suburbs of any major city, and all the white people there are going to say the exact same thing Nick is, but they'll whisper it.
And then you can have the debate and figure out the nuances in racialism and race realism and, you know, racism and like, and to Nick's credit, he said, It doesn't mean an individual black person is bad or inherently a criminal or whatever, but as far as it matters for any individual person, is it meaningful to them when you say, don't judge the neighborhood based on the racial composition of it?
Is that going to positively or negatively affect them?
The reality is in Chicago, while it's fine to say that just because they're black doesn't mean they're criminals, I agree with that, but if you told someone, go into any neighborhood and don't let the racial composition sway you from believing it's safe or unsafe, Well, these people are going to walk in neighborhoods where they're going to get shot, killed, raped, stabbed, or otherwise.
It's kind of like a dude in the military in the combat zone explaining to a civilian what you got to look out for.
Like that kid who's carrying a basket, that, and the person's like, little kids?
You can't harm little kids.
Like, do you know what it's like living where I live in the battle zone?
And these dudes in the south side are literally facing life and death and feel like, hey, that gang, all those dudes have dark, you know, black skin, whatever, or whatever.
That's why I respect, you know, the only people in this whole like leftist coalition I respect are like the gentrifiers because they're like pushing into bedstai and they're just like cannon fodder, just like going in there, just getting like mowed down all the time.
But they're like, no, I'm committed to this post racial thing.
Like, it's fine, guys, just trust me.
And they're getting like stabbed all the time with it.
Like, they're the only ones I respect that actually like believe what they say.
Everyone else like lives in Vermont or they live in West, like Westchester County.
Like, none of them put their money where their mouth is except for those brave few.
Vice riders who just like trudge and it's like the jaws of into the jaws of death painting, just like hopping off the Fulton Street station.
I went on to our good friend ChatGPT and I said, Are black neighborhoods more dangerous in Chicago?
Short answer crime in Chicago varies a lot by neighborhood, and some higher crime areas happen to be majority black, but race isn't the cause.
Here's the factual breakdown.
Okay, I responded, I don't care what the cause is.
Short answer is what it says.
Some neighborhoods in Chicago that have higher crime rates are predominantly black, but not all black neighborhoods are high crime.
I said, I didn't ask if all black neighborhoods are high crime.
I'm asking if black neighborhoods have a higher crime on average than others.
Yes, in Chicago, neighborhoods that are majority black have higher average violent crime rates than majority white neighborhoods when you look at the data.
The future of, let's say, race relations in the United States, most likely as the boomers who grew up with the end of segregation being this sort of humanitarian success story, this great celebration of integration and whatnot, as kind of their foundational myth.
As that generation dies off, we're having a return to tribalism because there are just so many tribes in the United States now via immigration and via the internet and everyone kind of forming into their tribe.
But what is likely to happen, I believe, is that white people included, Will begin to talk about themselves like black people talk about black people.
Just spend 15 minutes listening to any popular black podcast and the way that they talk about their own race and each other.
Nick Fuentes actually has a tweet about this, which is something like, white people are finally acting like everyone else.
Something like that.
That's likely what it is.
I think educated white people in the country tend to want to disassociate with any type of white supremacist group or movement or whatever because they tend to be just so cringe.
The founder has almost every square inch of his body with some sort of a tattoo on it and a criminal record, as about as varied as the number of tattoos.
And it tends to, I'm going to give you an example.
So, one of my projects right now is about Springfield, Ohio.
Nobody has written the book on Springfield, so I decided that I would help out my neighbor because Springfield was next door to me.
Shout out to Diana watching this from Springfield.
And there have been a number of groups that showed up there to protest largely the Haitian presence.
Depending on who you ask, there have been between 20 and as many as 34,000.
Haitians via an influx that occurred from 2021 to 2024, approximately.
And there were a number of groups that showed up, white identitarian groups or neo Nazis or skinheads or whatever you call them.
And one of their chants was something like, go back to Africa.
Haiti is not in Africa.
And that is everything that annoys the heritage citizenry of Springfield from their so called defenders from their own race.
And one particular gentleman, a minister I talked to, actually confronted and literally, physically ran.
White supremacist protesters out of town.
And they were calling him a race traitor and all this nonsense.
And he's like, We're here to defend you.
We're here to defend the white race.
And he goes, Did I ask you?
Did I ask you?
Do I need your help?
And there's that sort of everything about it is just get the F out of here, man.
Come on.
It's like making a bad situation even worse by just you being here and doing this when you don't understand what the actual issues are.
But the future, I believe again, is watch any popular black podcast.
And the young generation, the 12 year olds that you guys are talking about, who are going to be of age at the next election that we're discussing, they will talk about race the exact same way black podcasters do because for the first time they have exposure to it via viral clips and TikToks.
And one of the most popular black TikToks is this following subject White people be like.
And if you look at white people, let's watch it.
Just go to TikTok, white people be like.
And you will watch a few of those and you'll go.
Wow, I really am like that.
And then for the first time, teenagers are going to start identifying with their race and realize they're going to go like this.
They're going to go, I didn't realize it was white.
White people, kids, they're going to realize that you see me as white.
You know, there might be a move towards like identifying more with your genetic heritage, but I think supremacy is insane across the board because like no race is supreme.
They're all different.
And they all have like fucking major abilities.
Different races have different abilities.
unidentified
Did you know like Kyle Roger had like a party yesterday?
And then the ones that like have, like you'll meet these dudes, they come out of prison, they have like a swastika like carved in their forehead, and they're like, yeah, the black guys are prison.
They're cool.
Like we got all here.
Like the guys you would expect are like totally off the wall.
And then, yeah, the hardcore white supremacists are always like, yeah, I'm Mexican or like, yeah, I'm, yeah, they're visibly not white.
And in this particular case, It was a conversation I was having.
And the things that she had said, I would imagine, like some sort of neo Nazi manifesto would say about white people and the white race and continually saying that.
I'm like, I'm just feeling so uncomfortable.
But am I, then like white guilt, right?
Am I going to go and I'm, am I going to now disagree with a lived experience of a black immigrant?
Yeah, like when I was in Africa and I was like, For example, I remember this.
Vividly, like as soon as I got there, I was like in Kenya and Tanzania, Malawi.
I would run into guys all the time, and they literally verbatim be like, Yeah, like Africans, there's just something about us.
We just can't run countries.
Like, I wish the British would come back and run this for us.
And I was like, dude, if he was the other way, if you were white and you said that in America, you'd like go to jail.
And he was like, yeah, I don't know.
There's like something about like, I don't know, like our genetics.
Like we just can't run countries.
I'm like, dude, this is like nuts.
And it was like, I would experience it all the time.
There was a video from a Baldwin Bankrupt.
He's like this big travel YouTuber and he's in India.
He was literally walking down this road in India and an Indian guy stops him and he goes, where are you from?
And he was like, I'm from Britain.
He's like, oh, come and rule again.
Like some of those most explicitly, like you would clock as like white.
Supremacist talking points or whatever will come from like people in these like decolonized regions and they're like, please, can the British just come back already?
And this is, of course, an update on the Animal Farm stuff.
It's personal, I guess.
So if you don't care, I apologize.
We'll get your rumblings in a second.
So I had criticized the Animal Farm film as being anti capitalist and pro communist when the trailer came out, as many did.
Everybody pointed out.
Interviews and commentary from corporate press, also the same thing, the themes of anti capitalism.
Angel Studios reached out for a sponsorship for this show, offering a lot of money.
And I rejected it.
First, I agreed, you know what?
I should watch the film before I just say no, because we're fans of Angel Studios, right?
Within the first 10 minutes, I was like, this is insane.
I turned it off.
And then I said, okay, I have to finish watching it.
So I turned it back on, finished watching it.
The film is entirely anti capitalist and pro communist.
In fact, the key part.
Plot in the third act is the animals decide to revolt against capitalism to bring about positive communism.
And so I then criticized the film without spoiling it.
Angel Studios said that they would come on the show and have this discussionslash debate.
They told my team they would try and get something from the production studio.
It was relayed to me through my team that they were trying to get Andy Serkis, who made the film.
Big fan of Andy Serkis, by the way, so I'd love to have that conversation with him.
Well, he couldn't make it.
They said, don't worry, one of the Harmon brothers will make it.
And then, abruptly, just before we were supposed to do the show on Friday, they canceled.
And then I was going to announce the cancellation.
They then said, How about we do it on Monday?
And I said, Oh, okay, I want to announce cancellation.
Sure enough, then Monday I told my team, No, they canceled Monday as well.
So Riley Gaines posted this My husband and I got early access screening to Animal Farm, an animated adaptation of George Orwell's novel made by Angel Studios.
Incredibly well done.
They do a perfect job of reminding viewers that Marxism always has and always will fail.
In theaters, May 1st, hashtag Animal Farm Partner.
There is not a single criticism of Marxism in the whole film.
I'll give you the quick elevator pitch to what the story is about.
A group of happy animals live on a farm.
The farmer can't pay his mortgage, so an evil capitalist buys the debt out from the bank and then seeks to have the animals slaughtered.
The animals, to avoid dying, revolt, but the bank says someone's got to pay the mortgage.
The animals team up and all work together to sell horse rides, the chickens sell their eggs, and the pigs go and pay off the bank.
The bank says, I only need a little bit of this.
You can keep the rest.
Instead of giving the money to the rest of the animals to buy things the farm needs, the pigs go to the mall and buy things for themselves.
The animals get angry that the pigs are taking all the profit for themselves, despite the fact they do the labor.
Napoleon the pig gets in credit card debt.
He can't pay off.
So he cuts a deal with Elon Musk's mom to sell the farm and the animals off, a private equity deal that will basically start extracting all the assets.
He will get what they call magic paper to pay off his credit card debt.
She builds a hydroelectric dam.
At this point, in the third act, the animals finally decide to revolt.
Against this capitalist system.
They then plant explosives in the hydroelectric dam, blowing it up, killing all of Elon Musk's mom's employees, as well as Elon Musk's mom.
The movie literally ends at this point with Napoleon being crushed under the grain silo and killed, and Lucky, the new character, crawling out and saying something to the effect of, You will own nothing and you'll be happy.
There is not a single instance of Marxism as a topic.
There is not a single conversation about the oppressed versus the oppressor.
There is not a single instance of government intervention in any capacity or governance.
The entirety of the film is a critique on modern capitalist structures.
In fact, Andy Serkis talked about this in an interview.
And Andy Serkis made major changes, blah, blah, blah.
Let me just jump.
They're like, here you go.
Serkis approached the adaptation.
He didn't want it to be a story about Stalinist Russia.
Instead, he gravitated toward themes of capitalism, wealth, and overconsumption.
The billionaire antagonist, Pilkington, drives what closely resembles a cyber truck.
So here's the point I'm going to make.
When they sent me a sponsorship request, one of the things they asked that I do was rescind my previous commentary on their film and say that.
Boy, was I a squealer.
The film's actually great.
You should watch it.
And I watched this, and that actually offended me that they would try to pay me to change my opinion.
Well, I was asked, Tim, why would you put out a statement like this?
It's the stupidest thing you can do as a company that sells sponsorships because now future sponsors are going to be like, what, run the risk of Tim Poole publicly blasting me if I offer him money?
And my response was, I guarantee you, right wing personalities are going to start putting out generic statements in exchange for cash that this pro communist, anti capitalist movie is in fact worth watching.
And with all due respect to Riley Gaines, because I like her, I would assume that this post she made was copy and pasted from a script and she never actually watched the film.
But she probably got paid.
That's why it says Animal Farm Partner.
So I will call out any and everyone who doesn't watch this.
Now, that being said, don't take it from me.
Watch the film yourself if you want to.
There are a lot of people that I see are just agreeing with my assessment, and that's fair because I'm telling you what I see is like, guys, in the trailer, you literally see Slaughterhouse by Pilkington.
That's not a component of the book.
They're laughing.
Say we're going on vacation.
The animals in the beginning are happy.
In Animal Farm, the animals are pissed off.
The farm is mismanaged, so they revolt against bad leadership.
In the book, the chickens have their eggs taken from them by the pigs and sold off.
And when the chickens complain, they're executed and killed by the dogs.
That was a commentary on government seizing what belongs to you.
In the movie, the chickens gleefully sell their eggs along with the pigs, but when the pigs sell that and take the money, they keep the excess for themselves, and the animals get pissed off that the profit is taken away.
A critique of capitalism.
So, if you want to bring your kids to see a movie that critiques modern capitalist structures, that was always allowed, but that is not what Animal Farm was ever about.
So, I take issue with conservatives promoting this because they're liars.
I'm sorry, there is no way Riley Gaines actually watched this film.
You know what I said when I first saw the trailer, when we first talked about this during the.
The pre show, the Discord members and subscribers, this sort of reframe it as almost like aligned with animal rights activists.
You know, I was a vegan for 10 years, not for moral or ethical reasons, because I believed a lot of the, it's a low fat, plant based, it's healthy sort of claims.
We all tend to not be true.
Yeah, we all make mistakes.
Yeah, just like bioavailability 101.
I failed that one.
But with this over here, I thought, what is this sort of prop?
I think if I bought the rights to Wizard of Oz and I made a new Wizard of Oz movie where they fought lions and then they got like a technotronic arm that she could use to blast through the Wizard's Tower, I'd get, even if it was done well, I feel like that's like raping humanity.
That's like stealing one of their great cultural memories, Animal Farm, and to turn it into this twisted abomination.
If you go to any vegan meetup in the United States, you will hear radical anti natalists.
They are some of the most radically, not pro choice, pro abortion communities you will ever see in the United States.
And you talk to them, and it's like, so you believe that, like, eating an egg is wrong and it's not even fertilized, but, like, you've had, like, what, three or four abortions?
C. John Security says, I believe, I have this feeling the reason the left calls these attempts on the president's life fake and stage is because they believe they are too smart to fail.
Well, it's actually simple.
They have to reject the idea the left is violent.
No matter how many times you tell them that all of these major political instances of terror from small to large have been dominated by the left, that we've had something like 40 terror attacks in the past two years, they reject it at right.
So, when you get a high profile attempt on the president's life, they must reject it.
But the problem is, we saw it, then it's fake.
The left can't do it, it's fake.
Tyler Robinson didn't do it.
Candace is right.
It's fake.
Because tell them, hey, you know it was like leftists that shot up an ice facility, right?
He got sued for saying specifically the Southern Poverty Law Center and other liberal NGOs hire these people to show up as Nazis for these events and stage these things.
He got sued and had to settle out of court, and now Espel has been indicted for exactly what he claimed.
Well, there was a specific individual that was named who worked at the State Department that, I guess, sued, and I don't know the exact terms of what the claim was, but I know they settled out of court.
And if I remember correctly from her, if people can check out on Wikipedia, she had, I think she had previously had to file for a foreign agent because she'd done some lobbying work for a Middle Eastern nation state.
Yeah, she was hired by Ballard Partners, which is Bondi's outfit.
Or, sorry, that is Susie Wilde's outfit.
She began working as a registered foreign agent and lobbyist for Qatar related to anti human trafficking efforts in advance of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.
I don't know how well the anti human trafficking efforts worked, if you know anything about how the World Cup went down.
It is also very scary that we have a member of Congress who thinks World War II was World War XI because she saw the Roman numerals and she's that dumb.
Yeah, because it could be one of those things like, you know, the British call the French and Indian War, they call it like the Seven Years' War or whatever.
So it could be in Somalia, they call it the Korean War, like World War III.
And then they go, you know, it could be one of those things that maybe they attribute.
Simple Gunsman says, Hey, Tim, I wanted to bring this to your attention, but you keep talking about AI and corn.
I recently talked to Grok about a Fallout esque future, and its response surprised me.
He says to search the Discord to figure out more.
Well, I'll have to do that later.
Indeed.
All right.
Let's see.
Jordan says ABC and other TV broadcasters should lose their license because network TV is obsolete.
The spectrum is public property.
It's like licensing a horse buggy for the interstate.
Indeed, but it also has to do with distribution over the internet and rights.
So, because of the evolution of broadcast, when licenses were being distributed, they attached certain internet and distribution rights to those licenses.
So, you actually, when Jimmy Kimmel got pulled by Sinclair, we couldn't watch it anywhere here.
Even a VPN, I couldn't get it.
It was wild.
I had to wait till someone posted the clips on X to be able to see what he said because it was region blocked.
So the idea is not to create news articles, but to do basically what I would describe as a social aggregation that allows me to pull the key elements of stories that I think are verified and news relevant.
So then instead of being like, here's a story we've got from the New York Post, I can say, from timcast.com.
Cite the New York Post, cite them all in one location.
Here are key elements that are reported by these networks.
And then basically create simplified aggregators using AI.
Super fast, super easy.
The point was the story that I was saying.
I mentioned this in the beginning of the show.
When the shooting at the White House Correspondence Center happened, I'm seeing all of this spattering of various nonsense, and it's hard to parse exactly what's going on in real time.
So I just told ChatGPT just take all the news articles and the tweets, give me an infographic.
And I just boom right there.
And then it was like, what happened?
Shooter apprehended, presumed dead, like just instantly all right there in a simple to read graphic with no bullshit.
Like, I got to be honest infographic news is easier to read than text blocks.
You know, it's like looking at squares going in square holes.
Siren, criminal charge, arrest, shooting.
I'm like, okay, I got it.
Don't anything else.
So it's changing the game.
I don't know how anybody exists going forward with AI.
Well, I like when you said earlier, it's like, you know, The journalist standards are that they have to say this or they have to say that.
And it's like, it's all slopped.
We don't need any of that.
And I feel like us that are in media, or at least, you know, media adjacent, I don't know how we get to that point, but I probably think that the image type or the shortened type media, I mean, at a certain point, they got to figure out how to make money off it.
But I think media is moving in that direction where people just want to digest what they need to digest.
And so what's happened is, you know, I was explaining a lot of like my 10 a.m., principally my 10 a.m. and my 4 p.m. shows are, uh, You know, I think today it's like he's done it, or like Trump, he went nuclear.
And the issue is that you don't get clicks on news anymore.
It used to be six years ago, eight years ago, I'd make a video that says, This thing just happened, and I'd get half a million views.
Nobody needs those videos anymore because everyone already knows what happened.
What they want now is they want to show where they hear thoughts and opinions, which is always kind of what I was doing, but that means that the structure of it needs to be different.
Early Timcast didn't actually have titles back in the day, which is interesting, and then we added them.
Tim Guest used to just a thumbnail that said Tim Guest IRL episode, guest name.
And the thumbnail was just a picture of me and the guest.
Now we do like something happened, and I don't think that's particularly effective because people don't care.
But this is the thing with the French Foreign Legion for the longest time: have Americans that have joined the French Foreign Legion taken oath to another.
You know, institution to another government that should, in theory, your citizenship should be at risk here.
I bet right now, so the challenge as a creator is to not get tangled up in the comments because they're like, A lot of it is AI intending to destroy us, like, or whatever that means, us, but to destroy the American narrative.
I'm going to give you an example because we're having Clint Russell on, and Clint's a friend of the show.
But I explicitly have defined the term Israel derangement syndrome.
This is when you think Israel controls the drug trade in West Virginia.
That's like the example that I use.
When there's something seemingly totally unrelated, and you're like, Israel's doing it, I'm like, okay, you're retarded.
And we actually had a guy in the show, a guest called in and said, He asked the panel, like, do you think the opiate crisis in West Virginia is getting worse?
I feel like it's getting worse, and it kind of bumps me out because I'm from West Virginia.
And the guest we had on said, well, you know, it's really Israel that did it because they've been working with these governments.
And I was like, stop, dude, stop.
We are not, Israel is not selling opioids.
China may be through the southern border.
That's derangement.
I have explicitly defined it.
And I've explicitly stated over and over again Israel derangement syndrome is not.
When you complain about Israel's military actions, when you complain about AIPAC, when you complain that the U.S. is funding Israel, all of those are.
Absolutely okay.
And you are allowed to criticize Israel for their outsized role in the U.S. government and their influence in U.S. politics.
Totally agreed.
So Clint makes a video called Israel Derangement Syndrome Debunked with a picture of me yelling because he's targeting the retards by lying about what my opinion actually is.
I do not respect that one bit.
He's going to come on and I'm going to make him stay on the show.
He'll come in and, like, in 10 minutes, he'll be like, Well, I'm also, I was also kind of pissed because Clint can walk in the door literally anytime he wants.
He can literally just show up here.
We play poker together.
He comes, he hangs out.
He's been on the show just for hanging out with us.
I invited him on the show in December.
I said, Hey, bro, we're going to be doing the show.
We're going to be doing the show in Vegas for Poker Girl Studios.
You should come out.
And then he said, Oh, I didn't realize you were inviting me on the show.
I'm like, Bro, what the fuck are you talking about?
I think that if Dan can raise some money, I don't want to always go back to that, but like, I mean, it's tough to beat an incumbent, but this would be his first reelect, Randy Fine.
But like, Dan Bilzerian's whole thing is largely that Jews are bad.
But he also is very famous as like some guy with a bunch of hot chicks on a yacht.
So, I'm like, will the yacht thing get a bunch of normies to be like, yes, or will the anti Jew thing get a bunch of institutional boomerits and Jews to be like, fuck no?
I think you're looking at it completely based on how we see it.
The money that this is why AP is so good.
They come into the district and they're not talking about Israel, right?
They're talking about, in a primary especially, it's this bad person who they don't like is liberal, they're anti Trump, they're voting for higher taxes.
Like, it's all the Republican talking points, right?
They want an open border.
Dan Bilzerian, if he becomes competitive in this race, they will spend $15 to $20 million against him.
Because it's going to be really funny when he gets into Congress and then he immediately, like, he's going to walk in, he's going to strut, and he's going to be like, I got elected, I'm going to those halls.
He's going to walk in, the door's going to close, he's going to walk back out with a Yamacon and be like, the Jews are great.
I'm kidding.
But the joke is, like, if the world really is the way that they think it is, what makes him think he's going to get into Congress and have any means of stopping that machine?
It's like, I don't think people understand the format of the show.
Cause, like, yeah, when Fuentes was coming on, or when Baccia is coming on or something, a lot of people messaged me and they're like, make sure you go after him or go after her, like, coming from all these different angles.
And I'm like, the show's not for score settling.
The show, we say it to every guest, is like, yeah, we're going to treat you like every other guest, whether you have like 2,000 followers or a million.
Like, we don't really care.
This is just about, like, okay, you give your thoughts and, like, we move on.
We argue sometimes.
But the idea of this show is like, The score settling show, the takedown show.
So, I've got a question for Tate based on his holding it down this afternoon.
He had a great guest on an interview, Stephen, and he, at the end of the interview, had a little conversation about how England was actually doing pretty well.
People need to stop.
Saying it's not going so great, and then uh, he also maybe implied that the United States didn't assist them enough over the course of the years after World War 11.
Uh, because you know, World War 11 was pretty rough on Europe, and we would have supported them more, they'd be in a better position right now, like Germany and Japan.
And uh, so I just wanted to get y'all's take to see if that was a fair assessment that we think maybe America didn't do enough to help support England and uh.
Yeah, I think what Stephen was hitting at wasn't necessarily that we didn't aid them enough.
I don't know, maybe he did make that point.
I think the main point he was making was the United States were pushing for decolonization around the world.
I think this was the policy of the State Department, was again, America as a country that viewed itself as a liberated colony, so to speak, they felt like they had commonality with all of these sort of European colonies around the world.
Which is, at least that was the line they would use.
I think the real politic explanation is that they were just simply trying to prevent Europe from challenging American hegemony, which is fair.
We're within our right to do that as Americans.
I think the point he was making was like we assisted them in decolonizing their empire, you know, liberating all their colonies, so to speak, but that we actually kind of pushed them into that.
We kind of coerced them into, again, abandoning a lot of their colonial projects.
And I think that is true.
Like if you read, for example, like The Great Betrayal by Ian Smith and he talks about like the Rhodesia saga, early on, I mean, the United States was like actively pushing Britain to abandon its colonies in Africa.
I think that was the point he was making.
I'm not like running cover for Steven.
I mean, full disclosure, me and him are good buddies, but I mean, like, we argue about this all the time.
His point about England being in a better situation, I think he was speaking about like the demographic situation.
My counterpoint to him, I don't know if I made it on the show, but I make this point to him all the time, is yes, but y'all's situation unraveled in 10, 20 years.
Like, 20 years ago, you were fine, and then now you've self destructed.
Where America, it's been like a slow burn for quite a long time.
So that's why us as Americans are reacting so strongly to what's happening in Europe, because it's like, This is unraveling rapidly, where in America, it's like, again, kind of a slow burn.
But I think the point he was making, yeah, with in regards to sort of it being America's fault, maybe, or us having being complicit partially, I think he did say, like, you know, the Brits still face the brunt.
I mean, because, for example, like in Yemen, they used to have the colony of Aden in Yemen, right?
They used to control Yemen and they literally got rid of it in like a budget.
They were just having an annual budget and literally a strike through their colony in Aden, and that ended British rule in Yemen.
So, in a lot of instances, in the majority of instances, it was their fault.
I think he was simply saying it was the policy of the State Department.
For these European empires to decolonize, and that did make things worse for them.
And then that's where the debate would ensue like, okay, is that in America's interest?
That's a debate for us, that's a house discussion.
I don't think the British Empire ever ended, and I don't think that they're giving up power.
I think they're taking the shadow approach, and they were like, we got to back off and use soft power so that it doesn't look like we're in charge of everything.
Yeah, the problem is they just, all these British colonial institutions that have been the global standard for a long time are unraveling.
Like in the Iran war, we saw that, again, the British were the leader in the world of issuing maritime insurance, right?
And that's a big deal.
Like that generated something like 5% of the city of London's revenue was through maritime insurance.
And what we saw was when we cranked up the pressure in the Strait of Hormuz, et cetera, et cetera, they started, they weren't willing to insure a lot of ships that were passing through the Strait.
And broadly, they just couldn't, quite frankly, couldn't afford the policies that would be required that shifted over to America.
So I think, I do, I mean, maybe that could be the instance.
I think what's more likely is that the soft power is just not translating into hard power.
Like the British are just, you know, we're eating their lunch on virtually every global jostling, you know, this sort of global jostling that's occurring.
We're picking off more parts of whatever holdover they have from the colonial.
Colonial era.
I would say the British Empire formally ended in 1997 when they handed Hong Kong over to the Chinese.
Not a single shot fired.
And I mean, again, there's a variety of reasons that happened, but the main reason was, again, in the early 80s, Margaret Thatcher, Maggie Thatcher was combing through when the Chinese said, hey, by the way, this lease expires in 1997.
We want our territories back.
She just did quick analysis and was like, we can't defend Hong Kong.
The Falklands is one thing, but China, it's not going to happen.
So, yeah, they ended the empire without the fire of a shot.
And yeah, I do agree actually with Steven that yes, we were complicit, but I'm making that from a right, and I think he is too.
We're both making that a right wing argument.
We're saying that, again, the State Department's policy of decolonization was a post liberal thing to do.
Super nationalism, where no one group or nation state ought to have undue power over others and everyone should have self determination, democracy building.
To use the term supernationalism is that it is a more coherent predictive philosophy because they do see themselves as nationalists just for this sort of post war neoliberal world order where everyone has their own Jeffersonian democracy.
And what's ironic, and I'm not trying to like steer the conversation back to Israel, it's just applicable in this instance, is one of the main reasons the State Department had to take.
The policy that every nation on planet Earth had the right to self determination was because we were, after Truman was a bit apathetic with Israel, so was Eisenhower.
Following Eisenhower, the State Department started to back Israel quite hard.
And the entire Israel project is predicated on the idea of self determination, as in, if you are a nation, you have the right to your own nation state.
Like the UN, what is the UN?
Well, effectively, it's a lobbying group, it's a lobbying block for the nation state in and of itself, and any other form of government.
Just gets trampled on.
And that's the reality of the situation.
And so, again, it became this really weird.
There was a lot of tension.
If you look and you can go read about it, actually, there was a lot of tension in the State Department.
It's like, okay, we have this policy with Israel now, but simultaneously, we're like letting these, you know, we're kind of turning a blind eye to these European empires.
You can't simultaneously hold those two positions.
And it created a lot of tension.
Ultimately, we just decided to go with the post liberal, post war consensus, which was everyone has their right to a known country.
I think that's significant though, because if you look at the cultures of Germany and Japan, I think a lot of their cultures in those areas are why they thrived so much after the war.
And I think that you made a point about Puritans leaving and some of the places they left.
It wasn't as religious after they left.
I think maybe that same concept is a lot of the pioneers came to the New World and they left England itself and they went to the colonies.
And that may have had an effect on how they rebounded later.
Yeah, I think not to get too in the weeds here, but if you look at the types of people that settled.
The United States early on, they came from the individualistic sort of societies within Europe as Europe emptied out and then shifted more towards, I guess you would say, collectivism.
Like the Anabaptists came here, the French Huguenots came here, the Puritans came here.
So you're looking at all these groups that ultimately were the first, the last ones in on Christianity and then the first ones out when the Protestant Revolution, the Protestant Reformation came along.
That is the main settlers that actually came and settled the United States.
And that's why the United States, which was sort of the founding ethos, was this kind of like hyper Calvinist individualistic.
Spirit, I do agree.
It's because that was the waves of European settlers that came here and then they voluntarily removed themselves from the European political zeitgeist.
And ultimately, that is why you saw, you know, going into the 18th century, that rift between the United States and the old world became very obvious because, yeah, the settlers just temperamentally were far different from their mother country.
And so the divide just became quite clear.
Even, I mean, you can even get, you know, the people cite this all the time, but it is true.
It's like even the Scots Irish, you know, the Scots Irish, you know, also known as the Ulster Scots, yeah, they were kind of on the frontier.
You know, Ireland, they were pushing into a Catholic Ireland and they were these like chauvinistically Protestant Englishmen and lowland Scots.
And yeah, they kind of possessed this.
Frontier spirit.
And that's why when they came to the United States, although they were forced to go, they ended up on the frontier.
And that's kind of what developed the frontier culture in the United States.
And so I completely agree that, yes, the temperament of the settlers was far different from that of their mother country.
Nobody wants to live in the middle of nowhere the way the pioneers did.
They left the deep, big cities in their country on boats for three months, where 20 of the people died on those boats, landed on barren shores, and said, Well, we can't farm because winter's coming, so we only have what food we have left.
And then 20 more died, and they started building huts and lived in cabins, and it was.
Well, and I think any, this is like a controversial take, but it's true, is that frontier spirit that does live on.
You primarily see it in the founding stock of the United States, insofar as like NASA missions even going into Artemis.
Like that is kind of the modern manifestation of that frontier pioneer culture.
And as that proportion of the American population, that's not an explicitly white population, by the way, it's a subset of the white population.
You know, as that share of the population decreases, You are going to see that frontier pioneer spirit die off more and more as people become more, you know, adjusted to maybe Hamilton's vision of the United States versus Jefferson's vision.
What I would say is, you know, sometimes it is really difficult for me.
Being that I'm from 100 years in the future, came here with Trump and Elon.
And Baron.
Well, you know, Baron came afterwards.
He didn't come with us on the trip.
But it's funny because I can say this, no one will believe it anyway.
So if I tell the truth that we came from the future to control politics here to create what we want, and Elon is, of course, that's why he follows me on X because we all work together.
That's why Trump, you know, it's all coordinated.
That's why I was at Mar a Lago.
And we're creating a future intentionally and we can control everything.
But the funny thing is, like, people still actually believe it's possible to have a popular show, to be famous, to be wealthy.
No, it's all staged.
We orchestrate everything.
You were all chickens in a chicken coop, and no one will ever believe anything I'm saying right now.
So I've long held the belief that right aligned candidates need to spend time describing the outcomes of their proposed policies.
The left will regularly paint a picture of their perception of the communist utopia they plan to bring about, yet I've never seen anyone on the right bother to describe the shining city on a hill.
Does this weigh in at all to the strategies described in your book?
I think there's an aspect to this that is, it goes like this.
Methoding doesn't matter until it becomes the only thing that matters, and nothing else matters at that point.
And what we mean by that is the first several of the 18 steps, and then the latter few, have to do with sort of your campaign infrastructure of getting the people on board that you need, the donors that you need, the ground game, the database, the software.
The follow up, it's basically becomes a marketing funnel, and there's this entire structure that your campaign needs in order to be successful.
That said, what is this campaign?
When it finally reaches the door, it reaches the mailbox, it reaches the phone, that's when the message is what matters.
And it's the only thing that matters at that point.
Because if you botch that and you've done everything else right, and then don't give people a compelling reason to vote for you at the end.
One of the things in the book that we talk about is something called the Leesburg Grid.
And what this is for anyone that doesn't think that Pelosi, Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, like they're doing this weekly.
Every single week, they're doing a Leesburg Grid.
And what that is, is you have four quadrants you have what you want voters to think about you, what you want voters to think about your political enemies, what your political enemies want voters to think about you, and what your political enemy wants people to think about themselves.
And so you have these kind of messages or these adjectives that are in these boxes, these four quadrants.
And if you're winning, it's because you're staying in the first two quadrants what you want people to think of you and what you want people to think of your political opponent.
If at any time you're talking about the other two quadrants, you're losing.
Republicans continuously like to lose, Democrats like to stay on message.
They're very, very specific, they've got good patience, and they're disciplined.
If someone were to say, like, if I was a commie and they were like, he's a radical leftist, I would say he's absolutely right because what have these moderates gotten us?
No working health care, no movement in Congress.
It takes a radical to bring up the change you need and I want to bring to you.
I think in the post Trump world, things are a lot different when it comes to negative ads.
Just because, I mean, Shane Gillis does the whole thing when he talks about like the first debate where Trump comes out and it's like he just starts owning people.
And like people are like, well, of course he's like a professional TV guy.
It's like, and when you're like, vote for someone just like me who did that once for a couple of months and I only made $100 from it and never did it again, I promise.
So many of the reasons, so many of the sort of the womanizing stories that would otherwise.
Haunt any other given candidate because it was sort of already formed into the price of a Trump vote with his name ID already.
And it's like he's really mellowed out over the years.
One of the most interesting viral videos on X that's been reposted from sometime in the late 1980s is about him and a model who, for the duration of the video, he is incessantly commenting about her weight gain, about how important it is for her.
And she's like standing right there.
And this is what we have on this aggressive regimen.
Don't look so good with those extra 20, 30 pounds.
And these days, we sort of consider that dehumanizing.
I'm surprised that video did not resurface at any point in any of the campaigns.
So, in the, we actually have a chapter on the right after Trump and what we both predict and warn against.
And one of the things we warn against is don't try to be like Donald Trump in the ways that you are not Donald Trump because that shtick will just not work for you.
But one of the things that you do want to carry forward is a sort of radical authenticity that simply goes, yeah, so what?
Her job was to clean up the Justice Department, rotary all the calcified junk out of the pipes, and create the structure so that now all these indictments we see dropping can actually happen.
I thought that Bondi, I can't really refute what you're saying, that she really was rotor rooting in the inside because a lot of that stuff happened behind closed doors, but that she was kind of like a second choice quick pick after Matt Gaetz couldn't get through.
And not that she was the best.
Moderators, Exclusions, and Lefty Journalists00:03:51
Like, our attitude is like, if someone came here and we had a gay dude here and they were attacking him, calling him a faggot over and over again, we'd be like, bro, chill the fuck out.
Like, I'm saying faggot, not in the South Park way.
Well, so the issue is we have the reason we created the gate where it's like you sign up and there's a wait period is because we started getting a bunch of attacks.
Leftists and, you know, the Israel people are trying to come in and intentionally get the Discord banned.
So we were like, we need to create some kind of buffer where there's either a paywall or a time gate that's going to make it very difficult for these people to try and blow up the Discord.
And so that's why we did it.
And then we have to have moderators watching it all, like at all time, to try and prevent them from blowing it up.
I've been a long time viewer and I've called a couple times in the past.
And yeah, I just wanted to run something by you.
I don't know if this just slipped your radar, Tim, or if it's just something you haven't talked about, or maybe I missed the video, but there's been some movement in the poly market or some situation there.
I guess the guy who made like $400,000 was arrested.
Who will attend a White House press briefing this year?
And I'm like, how the fuck does this get made?
This offends me.
Not that Kalshi is doing anything.
It offends me the idea that it would be insider trading for me to say, right here in this room with Ian in full presence, tomorrow I will be at a press briefing.
And then if Ian buys that, they would argue that's insider trading.
No, I am not an insider to this company, nor do I sell contracts.
Let's put it this way.
Let's say I have no idea the contract exists.
And I'm sitting here in this room in front of everybody, and I say, Yeah, I'm going to go to the press briefing tomorrow.
It's going to be fun.
Ian then finds out later they're selling contracts, and he goes, Oh, yeah, I'm going to buy yes because I think Tim is going.
That's a crime.
They're trying to argue that's a crime.
No, bullshit.
Ian and I are both members of the public.
You've made a bet against me without my knowledge, intention, or involvement.
I can say whatever the fuck I want to whoever I want, and they can buy your product.
You know, the argument that a soldier maybe leaked something is interesting because if troops start going on Kalshi and saying, yes, we think there's going to be a strike tomorrow, enemy combatants will predict it.
When they asked him, and they were like, well, he was like, well, did he say, It would be successful against the U.S. He's like, that's like Pete Rose.
You know, as long as you're betting on the good guys, I don't care.
Yeah, I guess it just seems like this is an inevitability because you've talked about that in the past, like the example that you brought up and with yourself.
It's like if you're being told, I can't bet on this or I can't bet on this.